Bob at The Corner has his spiritual autobiography up for all to read; I was grateful (as an ex-Anglican) to read it. But this bit at the top I loved:
I am part of a faith tribe (Anglican/Episcopal) which (half) jokingly considers their 11th commandment the concept: Go & tell no one.
That is one of the reasons I became an Episcopalian in the first place. It is also a key reason why I did not stay an Episcopalian.
As I move closer and closer to John Edwards as my second choice behind Dennis Kucinich, I am spending more time on the former’s site. He has an interesting interactive map of the electoral college for those of you whose browsers can handle it, and as I played with it, it became clear to me that an Edwards-Clark ticket would be the most formidable one. (Heck,you could reverse those two men in a heartbeat; Clark-Edwards works for me too). Florida surely comes into play with those two, as do a couple of other states that the Democrats narrowly lost in 2000: West Virginia (a natural Edwards constituency economically) and, maybe, Tennessee. But it is still too early to dream.
In my living memory, I can vividly recall seven presidential elections. I remember staying up late in November 1976, listening to election returns on the radio. (We did not have a television until 1978.) That autumn, I had worked on the weekends — at the age of nine — passing out Carter-Mondale leaflets at the local Safeway and knocking on doors. I remember the excitement of coloring in a map of the USA, state by state, as the electoral college returns were announced. I remember thinking that it was a very close election, and I was especially pleased because I knew that most of my friends’ parents supported Ford. I remember that my 3rd grade class had had a mock election, and Ford had beaten Carter something like 20-4… it was a sweet time!
But I also remember the crushing defeats of 1980 and 1984, the hopelessness of 1988, and the agony of coming so close in 2000. My memory for defeats and losses is longer than for victories!
President Bush’s brief remarks on marriage in last night’s State of the Union Address were insufficient to soothe angry conservatives who want him to make the marriage amendment his chief domestic priority, but his words were more than enough to anger gay and lesbian activists.
The Family Research Council said this:
Sixty-four days ago the Massachusetts State Supreme Court tossed a cultural time bomb into the public square when they mandated the Legislature to create homosexual marriages.
Disappointingly, this evening in his State of the Union address, President Bush promised to help the families of America – after the bomb goes off and the damage is done. Now is the time, before the Court of Massachusetts imposes same sex marriage on America, to protect the sacred and irreplaceable institution of marriage.
“The President should immediately call upon Congress to pass an amendment this year to the Constitution codifying into law what history and nature has taught us – marriage is between a man and a woman.
And the Human Rights Campaign said this:
The bottom line is that gay Americans live in more than 99 percent of the counties in this country, and more than one million children in this country are being raised by same-sex couples. Those families and children deserve the rights and protections of marriage, and we are deeply disappointed that the President used the State of the Union address to attack our families and divide the country. Tonight, the President missed an opportunity to discuss issues that bring the nation together, like combating hate violence and ending employment discrimination.
I can’t find anyone on the internet this morning who was pleased with Bush’s wording; everyone either thinks he said too much or too little. From this Democrat’s perspective, that is good news.
Richard Mouw, a family friend and the marvelous president of Fuller Seminary, has this deeply compelling article in next month’s Sojourners magazine. Entitled “Why the Evangelical Church Needs the Liberal Church”, it looks at the current heartbreaking conflict over homosexuality that threatens to tear apart his denomination, Presbyterian Church USA. Mouw is a champion of what he calls “reformed orthodoxy”, and he takes what he calls a “very traditional” view on same-sex relationships. But he also says this:
I have learned much in my life from people who my fellow evangelicals are quick to label as liberal Protestants… and even though I continued to search for a more traditionally orthodox basis for my political commitments, I drew much inspiration and solace from the witness of Christian people of more liberal theological convictions who modeled for me a courageous commitment to the biblical vision of justice and peace.
And on homosexuality, Mouw writes:
A friend of mine, also a Presbyterian evangelical with a history similar to my own, put it well to me recently. “It hurts like heck to be labeled a homophobe by the folks we are presently arguing with,” he said. “When it was the issues of race and militarism and gender, we were all in it together, and folks like us were out of step with much of the rest of evangelicalism. The homosexuality questions, though, are different ones for us. Here we feel we have no other choice but to draw the line and stay with what we take to be the clear teachings of the Bible. We simply have to live with the accusations of being the mean-spirited ones. I do wish, though, they would give us a little bit of credit for having some integrity on this matter! I would like to get beyond the name-calling and really wrestle together with the underlying theological issues.”
I have spoken often to evangelical audiences about sexuality issues. And I have always made it very clear to them that my views on same-sex relations are very traditional. I am convinced that genital intimacy between persons of the same gender is not compatible with God’s creating or redeeming purposes. But that kind of clarification of my understanding of biblical teaching for evangelical groups has usually been a preface to a plea for sexual humility. I have often told the story of hearing a conservative spokesman express his views in this way: “We normal people should tell these homosexuals that what they are doing is simply an abomination in the eyes of God.” When I heard that, I tell my audiences, I wanted to get up and cry out, “Normal? You are normal? Let’s all applaud for the one sexually normal person in the room!”
The fact is that none of usâ€â€or at least very few of usâ€â€can honestly claim to be normal sexual beings in the eyes of God. The truth of the matter is that the labels we typically use in describing sexual orientation are blatant examples of false advertising. My homosexual friends are not very “gay.” They have experienced much pain and loss in their lives. And the rest of us are not very “straight.” We are crooked people, often bruised and confused in our sexuality.
I disagree with Mouw about the ethical nature of “genital intimacy between persons of the same gender”. But I am utterly convinced he is right to be hurt when he is inaccurately and uncharitably labelled a homophobe! He — and the majority of his fellow evangelicals who share his views — are nothing of the sort.
We who support the struggle for same-sex unions need to remember that those on the other side are sometimes dear, winsome folks like Richard Mouw, not hate-filled bigots carrying signs that say “God hates fags”. And I am so comforted by the reminder that we are all indeed “crooked people, often bruised and confused in our sexuality.” Amen, brother.
Last night, we watched coverage of the Iowa caucuses on CNN with one eye, while watching our chinchilla Matilde take her first dust bath with the other. (Obviously, the latter was a far more compelling sight!) I did break away from Matilde long enough to watch all four of the major candidates speak (and was disappointed that no one carried a speech by Kucinich, the transcript of which is found here).
I was very impressed with Edwards, and, to a lesser extent, with Kerry. I was horrified by Dean’s demeanor. That high-pitched squeal he emitted (if you watched television, you know of whence I speak) was embarrassing and the perfect encapsulation of what is meant by the phrase “unpresidential”. Again, if he is the nominee, he shall have my vote and my money. But he has rapidly become, along with Lieberman, the least impressive of the major candidates to my eyes.
Here is Kucinich’s explanation of the Iowa caucus strategy which released some of his supporters to Edwards. Given Edwards’ strong showing last night, I wonder if Dennis didn’t help him out just a bit.
The Angry Clam, in good blogger spirit, sent me a link to this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday. Entitled “Little seems left for liberal religious activists” (I assume there is some sort of pun intended with “left”), it’s a surprisingly accurate piece on the decline of the influence of mainline liberal Protestantism on American politics.
But quite rightly, it notes that the real future of the religious left is NOT with mainline liberal Protestants (such as my beloved, fracturing Episcopalians, or the United Church of Christ, the Methodists, and so on). It is instead with progressive evangelicals like Jim Wallis, who is quoted thus:
“I agree that liberal religion is in decline, but I don’t agree that social justice is in decline in the church,” said Wallis. The problem with most mainline denominations, he said, is more theological than ideological.
“If you don’t have a real Bible-based, Jesus-centered faith, then all you have is upper-middle-class, affluent Americans, who are not going to be your primary constituency for social justice,” he said.
Exactly. At my Mennonite church, I see old Nissans and beat-up Hondas in the parking lot. When I was on the Vestry at All Saints Episcopal Church, I saw most of my fellow vestrymembers pulling up in Jaguars and Acuras and Mercedes Benzes. And I know that if I were to pull up to a Mennonite leadership team meeting in a brand-new Benz, someone would surely take me aside and gently but firmly question what it was in the name of God that I thought I was doing!
It’s with those same Mennonites that we had more than a dozen births in our congregation last year, and only one funeral. (Reverse the ratio for most Episcopal churches). When I was on Vestry at All Saints, I was one of only two (out of 24) members under 40; at my current church, I am (at 36) older than half the folks in leadership. And above all, though folks at my Mennonite church marched against the war and frequently vote Green, we also never, ever, ever forget in whose name we do what we do.
So is there a future for Christians on the political left? You bet. But it will look very different from the mainline liberalism of the 1960s and 70s. It will not be afraid to criticize its secular allies on issues where we disagree (chiefly abortion); it will be not be afraid to criticize fellow evangelicals as well, especially on issues of social and economic justice. It may be a diverse and small movement, but once again, folks, THERE IS AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN LEFT IN THIS COUNTRY.
My candidate, Dennis Kucinich, has apparently struck a deal with Sen. John Edwards, according to CNN. This might surprise those folks who have assumed that those of us who are supporting Dennis regard Howard Dean as our natural second choice. Edwards seems, in many surprising ways, the most progressive of the main candidates on economic issues — and I appreciate in particular his willingness to use moral language to address the subject of poverty.
I voted for Ralph Nader in 1996, and again in 2000. I haven’t voted for a Democrat in the general election since Clinton in 1992. (And my vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988 — the first I was legally able to cast for president — was devoid of enthusiasm). But in 2004 I am absolutely committed to voting for whomever the Democrats select. I am not sold on Howard Dean at all (am I the only one who finds his temperament vaguely Nixonian?), and am leaning towards Clark or Edwards as my realistic choice behind Kucinich. But even if the nominee were to be Lieberman (heavens forfend), he would have my vote in November. There is no perfect candidate (the number of pro-life democratic socialists being near zero in this country), but I am willing to embrace pragmatism — something I was not willing to do in 2000, when I mistakenly argued that there were no substantive differences between Gore and Bush.
I am angry at W., but I don’t hate him. I like our amiable and sincere president; I would enjoy a bible study with him, or a horseback ride. But he will never, ever have my vote.
Religious Liberal blog has some extended, and appropriate, quotations from Martin Luther King, Jr. today. I liked this bit:
The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.
The Right Christians also has a very helpful annotation of the “I Have a Dream” speech.
One of the most interesting, candid and thoughtful accounts of Dr. King’s life which I have read was this RJ Neuhaus piece in First Things, just over one year ago. Neuhaus may be a Catholic neoconservative today, but he was once a young Protestant liberal, and he knew King well. His First Things article is moving, and Neuhaus reminds us that Martin was a minister of Jesus Christ first, and his call for justice was always, always grounded in the Gospel, even when both his supporters and critics wanted to soft-pedal that truth. Neuhaus wrote:
I recall rallies when, in the course of his preaching, King would hold forth on the theological and moral foundations of the movement. The klieg lights and cameras shut down, only to be turned on again when he returned to specifically political or programmatic themes. “Watch the lights,†he commented. “They’re not interested in the most important parts.â€Â
Lovingly and boldly, Neuhaus turns to the subject of King’s troubled sexual life. (Even King’s most loyal supporters have long since conceded that the allegations of promiscuity, infidelity, and womanizing were not inventions of the FBI, but were — sadly — grounded in truth). And he finishes his reflections on Martin King thus:
…if everything was known then that is known now, Dr. King would early have been brought to public ruin, and there would almost certainly be no national holiday in his honor. But God writes straight with crooked lines, and he used his most unworthy servant Martin to create in our public life a luminous moment of moral truth about what Gunnar Myrdal rightly called “the America dilemma,†racial justice. It seems a long time ago now, but there is no decline in the frequency of my thanking God for his witness and for having been touched, however briefly, by his friendship, praying that he may rest in peace, and that his cause may yet be vindicated.
I know the phrase “God writes straight with crooked lines” is Thomas Merton’s, but I associate it now with Martin, and on this day, I reread Neuhaus’s paean with tears in my eyes.
My girlfriend and I have been talking for ages about buying a pet, and had been dutifully debating the merits of rats, hamsters, and other small creatures. But after a visit to the pet store yesterday afternoon, we found ourselves swept with an adorable chinchilla. And so, our condo is now home to Matilde, a young, wriggling, adorable charcoal-grey bundle of fur. We are busy accessorising for her, and she impressed us last night by carefully climbing our staircase. We are very happy. Pictures will eventually appear.
After reading my post below on instincts, my mother shared with me this quotation from GB Shaw’s “Devil’s Disciple”. Here, the stern and puritanical Mrs. Dudgeon responds thus to someone who has suggested that she find feeling in her heart: My heart! My heart! And since when, pray, have you begun to hold up our hearts as trustworthy guides for us?