Category Archives: Faith

Kavanaugh and the Virgin Defense

1797 Cartoon by Isaac Cruikshank

“I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter,” Brett Kavanaugh attested, claiming he was a virgin until well after high school in a Monday interview with Fox News’ Martha McCallum.

She followed up by pressing, “So you’re saying that through all these years that are in question, you were a virgin?”

“That’s correct,” Kavanaugh answered.

She pressed further, “Never had sexual intercourse with anyone in high school?” and again Kavanaugh repeated, “Correct.”

Because I want to know what my friends who are conservatives are hearing, I listened to the entire interview.  Though I began listening skeptically, he sounded credible to me, though his answers were clearly rehearsed.  He even seemed to be fighting the urge to cry at the end of the interview when he repeated, for the 17thtime, according to the transcript, that he was simply asking for a “fair process,” where he could defend his integrity.

This defense will sound familiar to any evangelical or Catholic.  Though Kavanaugh predated the Southern Baptists’ True Love Waits campaign of the early 1990s, the concept of waiting until marriage to have sexual intercourse is at least as old as medieval times when women had to produce the sheets from their wedding night beds to prove their chastity.

Therein lies the problem.  I must admit that Kavanaugh is the first man I’ve ever heard use the virginity defense.  But as a former evangelical, I’ve heard many young women proudly proclaim themselves virgins at an age when women in earlier times would have been called spinsters and considered a burden to their families and society.

As I watched Kavanaugh protest his innocence over and over again, I was reminded of how many girls I knew who proclaimed themselves chaste but were virgins in name only.  Indeed, I had one friend who proudly proclaimed to me in private, “I’m the sluttiest virgin I know.”

Though this friend had never “gone all the way,” she confided to me that she had done everything short of male penetration to satisfy herself and her partner.  Now she can tell her children that she was a virgin when she married their father.  Her husband, on the other hand, seems to bear no such burden.

Thus conservative Christians perpetuate the double standard that applies to women and men in regard to sexual activity.  We are steeped in thousands of years where women have borne the burden of drawing a line that cannot be crossed.  When it is crossed, in spite of a woman’s objections, the woman is almost always the one who bears the burden of proof in a culture where we claim equality of women and men is important but where the subtext says exactly the opposite.

Indeed, Kavanaugh may be telling the truth about his virginity.  He may even believe he’s telling the truth about not having committed sexual assault if he was as drunk as many observers have said he often was.

Perhaps senators on the Judiciary Committee should ask him pointed questions to determine whether he’s a virgin in name only—the kind of pointed questions he listed in a 1998 email the National Archives released this week, in which he suggested questions that would force Bill Clinton to confess specific sex acts that fell short of sexual intercourse.  In that email, he highlighted one sentence in bold print after listing Clinton’s transgressions:

He should be forced to account for all of that and to defend his actions.

Why should Kavanaugh not be held to the same standard that he demanded for former President Clinton?  Indeed, the Christ Kavanaugh proclaimed in the interview to follow said this:

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” (Matthew 7:1-2)

As a judge and as a Christian, Kavanaugh should be well aware of what it means to have equal protection under the law and of what it means to be judged by the same standard that we expect of others.

Should he not bear at least an equal burden in proving his credibility?

Christine Blasey Ford has a therapist’s notes and the results of a polygraph test to add veracity to her claims, and she has not claimed that he raped her.  On the other hand, Kavanaugh’s senior profile in his yearbook lends doubt to his credibility, and he seems to be twisting her accusation by claiming he couldn’t have assaulted her because he was a virgin.

As many have pointed out in recent days, Thursday’s hearing is not a criminal case.  It is a job interview.  But Republican senators have all but assured that Kavanaugh has the advantage in Thursday’s hearing.  If a lawyer trained in asking questions of sexual assault victims asks the questions, Democrats on the committee will have no chance to ask Kavanaugh the kinds of questions he suggested asking Clinton.

Kavanaugh will get the last word.  Ford will have no chance to respond to anything Kavanaugh might say to dispute her account of events.

This is anything but a “fair process.”  It is a process intended to give Brett Kavanaugh the best chance possible of being confirmed.

If Kavanaugh survives this process to be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice, young women had better hope that the Virgin in Name Only defense works to ward off predators who might sexually assault them. Because if it does not, and they become pregnant, their right to abort their rapist’s offspring may be in peril.

Will we, as a culture steeped in male dominance, condone the continued oppression of women that endangers our daughters’ autonomy, their mental health, and, indeed, their very lives?

Or will we finally break free of forcing women to prove their purity?  If we have a Supreme Court that overturns Roe v. Wade, we had better elect a Congress that passes laws to protect women from predatory men.

Let us not sacrifice women on the altar of Republicans’ sense of fairness.  For the process to be fair, Christine Blasey Ford must not only be heard but must be given the chance to respond to anything Kavanaugh might say, just as he will have the chance to respond to her accusations.

Brett Kavanaugh is asking for a “fair process.”  Let’s give him one.

A Rational Abortion Argument?

As an English teacher I became so frustrated with students for being unable to offer a rational abortion argument on either side that I ultimately refused to let them deliver an argumentative speech on any aspect of the issue.

Abortion was the only topic, among a host of complicated issues, which I ever banned when I taught public speaking.  But I didn’t know what else to do.

I told my students when they were choosing topics that they should either avoid topics they couldn’t do justice to in five minutes, or they should narrow the speech to a single aspect of a topic. Most students followed my advice.

One passionate student, however, decided that her view was worth the risk to her grade and decided to tackle the whole of the abortion issue in spite my cautions.  She defied the time limit and argued passionately but irrationally for nearly ten minutes, and at the end of the speech, nearly every student in the class was angry.  Those who disagreed with her arguments were furious.  Those who agreed wanted a class discussion to continue the debate.  And the moderates and rule-followers in class were indignant that I hadn’t stopped the speech at the five-minute mark. Ultimately, that speech convinced no one of anything.

Though I didn’t ban abortion from arguments in writing classes, I did caution my students, as I did about all topics, that when I evaluated arguments, I would read their papers as though I disagreed, whatever their stance, and I promised them I would be as objective as I possibly could in reading their arguments.  This wasn’t always easy, and the top students always wondered how I could give two papers on the same topic an A when they had such divergent views.  I told them that the A arguments were always the ones that showed some recognition of the nuances of the topic.

This wasn’t always easy for me as a teacher, but I felt a responsibility to encourage students to consider all aspects of a topic, using sound sources, and then to allow them the freedom to draw their own conclusions without forcing my own views on them.

But on the abortion issue, I had no good answers for students then, and I have no good answers now for how we can have a civil, intelligent discussion of the nuances that are crucial to this discussion.

Here are two views that I’ve actually heard former students (and adults) at the two extremes say:

  • “Life begins at conception, and all abortion is murder. It should always be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.”
  • “As long as a fetus is still attached to a woman’s body, it’s a parasite. And if a woman chooses to abort it, that’s her right and nobody else’s business.”

Most Americans don’t espouse either of these views. In survey after survey, a significant majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade, even though most of us couldn’t tell you exactly what the opinion says.  The complete transcript of the majority opinion isn’t easily available online, and many don’t realize that the decision in 1973 seemed to be based on the doctor’s right to privacy, without mention of the rights of women.  In the decision for the 7-2 majority, Justice Blackmun wrote:

The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician.

In the years since, some aspects of the decision have been struck down, including the original guidelines for the trimesters at which abortions can be performed.  Yet we continue to discuss this issue in the public arena as if only the two extremes matter.  (A guide to the key aspects of decisions related to abortion can be found at the Chicago—Kent College of Law’s Body Politic Project.)

We live in a country where the majority is supposed to rule, even though recent presidential elections where the Electoral College and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled for the minority have called that principle into question.

Surveys of citizens’ attitudes about abortion consistently reveal widespread majority support for Roe v. Wade.  In January of this year, before the current uproar about the Supreme Court vacancy, Pew Research reported that 57% of Americans support legal access to abortion, including a wide variety of religious groups. Even among some evangelical denominations, over half of members felt that the law should allow access to some abortions, even if they personally opposed it.

This week, after the announcement of another Supreme Court vacancy, a number of polls are showing even more widespread support for Roe v. Wade.  A Kaiser Foundation poll showed 67% support for the law, including 43% of Republicans.  A Quinnipiac University poll on a variety of issues showed 63% support of the ruling overall, with virtually no gender gap in the results.

So why are we Americans being held hostage to the wishes of a small minority at the extremes of our culture?

In a more perfect union, where the majority does rule, the rights of the minority should be honored.  But since we don’t live in a utopian state where consensus is always possible, where does that leave us?

I never felt good about banning abortion from class discussions.  But I sometimes want to do the same thing in the discussions that are taking place in the public arena.  Even though the people at the extremes are in a small minority, they seem to have the loudest voices, and because they get their information from the most biased media sites, the cacophony they create takes me back to the day a single student with a loud voice held my class hostage for ten minutes.

Right now Roe v. Wade is the best we have.  I was a junior in high school when that decision was made.  I remember well, in the years before, the stories of girls my age who were mutilated or who died at the hands of abortion providers who took their money and destroyed their bodies.

Here is the single lesson I took away from that time:  Wealthy people will take their daughters out of the state or the country to get a safe and legal abortion.  Poor women or girls who are too ashamed to seek help will find a way to have an abortion, even if it may maim or kill them.

Many of the people who protest in front of abortion facilities weren’t born yet when the Supreme Court issued that decision on Roe v. Wade.  A few of them weren’t even an egg in their mothers’ ovaries or a sperm in their fathers’ testicles yet because even their parents hadn’t been born.

Perhaps only when their sisters and daughters and friends die after an abortion in a dirty and dark room will they realize the folly of not having a sensible abortion law.

Is Jesus Being Flogged in the Public Square?

Jesus is being mocked and flogged in the public square this summer.  His attackers, as they were 2000 years ago, are an angry mob that has been whipped into a frenzy by the leaders of the day with the full support of the nation’s leading evangelicals.

Here are just a few of the instances when Christians have acted in distinctly un-Christlike ways in recent months:

  • Immigration officials, acting at the behest of leaders who rationalize cruel policies by citing the Bible, ripped families apart while the evangelical leaders who advised them remained conspicuously silent.
  • A Walgreen’s pharmacist, citing his Christian beliefs, refusedto provide a drug for a woman who had been prescribed the drug to expel a fetus that had died inside her womb.
  • The leaders of a church in Sterling, Virginia advocated abuse of children and used church members’ tithes to start a “racecar ministry” and purchase a collection of expensive motorcycles and cars. They have also been accused of sexually abusing women and girls in the congregation.
  • Evangelical leader Paige Patterson defended his decision to advise women to endure their husbands’ abuse and to pray for them to come to God.
  • Religious leaders who have spent their careers decrying the state of the family and the moral decline of our nation continue to defend Roy Moore, a candidate for Congress who was repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct, including incidents involving underage girls.

The Christian leaders who have condoned these and other acts or who have remained silent in the face of such abuse, including many abuses of people of color, are no better than those who cried out for Christ to be crucified.

I had this realization when I read today’s Gospel Reading from the Daily Common Lectionary from Matthew 20: 17-28. Jesus tells his disciples that he is about to be “mocked and flogged and crucified.”  Even among his followers—who have watched him serve the poor, the lame, the disenfranchised for three years—the possibility of losing him as a leader causes a scramble for power.

In the scene that follows this news, the writer of Matthew tells us that two of the disciples bring their mother to Jesus and that she kneels before him and asks that they be able to sit on either side of him in his kingdom.  It is not an unreasonable request for a mother to make.  If her sons risk dying for him, don’t they deserve something in return?

The other ten disciples are understandably angry when they hear what the brothers have asked.  After all, all of them have sacrificed everything to follow this man. All are equally deserving of any power that comes to them as a result of his movement.

As he’s done so often in his ministry, Jesus uses this as yet another teachable moment.  He points out that they are not like other leaders who have become tyrants over them.  No.  He reminds them, as he’s told them before, “It will not be so among you; whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant.”

Our nation’s founders set up a government that they thought would ensure against tyrants.  But, increasingly, our leaders are acting like tyrants—lying to the people, abusing the disenfranchised, and adding riches to their own coffers.

Where is the Leader who will sacrifice and save us? One would think that Christian leaders who have a public presence would be crying out in the face of injustice. But no.  They, like the chief priests and scribes in this story, have condemned what’s left of Jesus in American Christianity to be mocked and flogged in the public square.

Separating Immigrant Families is un-Christian!

How can anyone look at pictures of their own children and think separating immigrant families is right?

In the wake of news about separating immigrant families at the U.S./Mexico border in recent weeks, the silence from Trump’s evangelical advisory board as children are being ripped from their parents’ arms has been deafening.  Pastors have a Christian duty to hold Jeff Sessions and his boss to account, especially in the wake of Sessions’ claim that Romans 13 supports such abject cruelty.

In fairness, some conservative religious leaders are speaking out.  Franklin Graham, surprisingly, said in an interview last week with the Christian Broadcasting Network, “I think it’s disgraceful; it’s terrible to see families ripped apart and I don’t support that one bit.” However, he rendered his criticism impotent in the next breath by saying he still supports Trump and blaming politicians of the last 20 to 30 years for creating the mess that has led to the current policy. Continue reading Separating Immigrant Families is un-Christian!

Protections for Dreamers?

A January 2018 Pew Research survey shows that a majority of Americans support protections for Dreamers.

I’m a liberal Democrat and a progressive Christian. Predictably, I support gay marriage, gun control, government assistance for the poor, and the protection of the promise we made to Dreamers. I enjoy sharing a meal and discussing politics and religion with those who share my views.

I have a few friends and a number of relatives who are conservative Republicans and evangelical Christians. Predictably, they support traditional marriage, gun-owners’ rights, and a work requirement for the poor who receive government assistance. Many of them do, however, support protections for Dreamers. I occasionally share a meal with these friends and relatives, but we studiously avoid discussing politics and religion and focus on what connects us.

We are most comfortable with like-minded people, and that works for most of us in our social lives.

But political purism in the public arena endangers our democracy. Continue reading Protections for Dreamers?

Pastors in “Shithole” with Trump?

Is there anything worse than Trump’s latest atrocity, asking, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” and then seemingly denying that he said it.

It’s deplorable, but no worse, that Senators Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-GA) say they don’t recall that specific comment, which no thinking person would find believable. At least, though, Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) did the right thing and confirmed that the media reports are accurate. And, of course, democratic senators also confirmed the reports.

What is appalling, though, and infinitely worse than Trump’s behavior, is that evangelicals serving on Trump’s advisory committee repeatedly refuse to condemn him and call him to account for words and actions that are wholly un-Christlike, if not downright evil. Continue reading Pastors in “Shithole” with Trump?

(Un)Christian Blame for the Poor

Quote on FDR’s Memorial: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

Quoting the Bible out of context as the authoritative Word of God is a uniquely American phenomena—one that is, sadly, becoming the primary tool of Christians who want to ignore their responsibility to the nation’s poor. Continue reading (Un)Christian Blame for the Poor

Was Trump’s Prayer a Photo Op?

Johnnie Moore, @JohnnieM, runs a public relations firm.

Praying for Trump is good. Using that prayer as a photo op? Not so much.

Johnnie Moore, who once managed communications for Liberty University and who now runs a public relations firm, tweeted an image on Tuesday of evangelical pastors laying on hands and praying for Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

Trump is, as evangelicals like to say, “standing in the need of prayer.” He is having a difficult time on all fronts—with the lowest approval rating in history at this point in a presidency. His agenda has stalled in Congress. The Russia investigation is taking its toll. His son’s contacts with Russians are currently being scrutinized.

The prayer itself isn’t the problem, though some Americans do view it as a blurring of the line separating church and state. However, we have a long history of leaders seeking support from their faith community, and Congress and our military have chaplains to minister to their spiritual needs. And unless our country changes a great deal demographically, that isn’t likely to change soon.

Almost every president, like Trump, has had a spiritual adviser among his support network, and presidents regularly attend the National Prayer Breakfast, hosted annually by members of Congress.

The problem here is that Johnnie Moore isn’t a pastor. So why was he invited to attend? According to his website, he has been featured in the Washington Post and named by a P.R. news publication as “one of America’s top young P.R. executives.” The first sentence on his Who Are We page proclaims, “We are the go-to personal counselors for leaders and those interested in them who want to sharpen their public image.”

Johnnie Moore was in the room with a group of pastors, all of whom had their eyes closed as one of the pastors prayed. Johnnie, or whoever took this picture, was not praying. The photographer, eyes wide open, snapped pictures, ensuring that Johnnie had an image that could be posted on Twitter on Tuesday morning. As of this post, it has been retweeted over 7000 times.

This is yet another example of the type of hypocrisy Christ abhorred. Over and over again, he condemned religious leaders who put their piety on exhibit for the world to see while they ignored the plight of the elderly, the sick, the poor.

Every Christian alive believes that Jesus taught us how to pray, and the Lord’s Prayer has tumbled from Christians’ lips millions and millions of times in the past 2000 years. According to the Gospel of Matthew, here is how Christ introduces that prayer:

“Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven…And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then in this way…” (Matthew 6: 1, 5-9, NRSV).

Yes, we Christians do pray in public. Yes, we Christians do pray behind closed doors with small groups of friends, believing that, as Christ said, whenever two or three are gathered in God’s name, the Spirit is in our midst.

But having a public relations firm record a prayer to show off piety seems to be exactly the kind of behavior Christ condemned. A thinking person has to wonder who invited Moore to be a part of the gathering and why.

Over and over again, Americans ask how 81% of evangelicals voted for this man who was recorded saying horrible things about many people but particularly about women. How it is, they ask, that the video destroyed the career of Billy Bush but had no effect on the man who actually said those things?

Not all evangelicals defend Trump or his policies, of course. Jim Wallis and his team at Sojourners spend their lives advocating for the least among us. Jonathan Merritt, at the Religious News Service, calls out hypocrisy in his writing and shows strength and courage when he is attacked for trying to bring about change in the Church. But for now they and those like them are a minority among evangelicals.

As a former evangelical, I am deeply troubled that these pastors would participate in a campaign to change Trump’s image instead of his heart.

But I’m not surprised. In my own experience, which led me to choose another faith tradition as a young adult, I saw many examples of men who used the Bible as a club to beat down those who dared question them.

It has taken me most of a lifetime to have the courage to challenge such thinking. But if I would call myself Christ-like—which these days I prefer to the label of Christian—then I must follow Christ’s example. He challenged authority, once even losing his temper in the temple over the hypocrisy of religious leaders.

I lose my temper. I rant sometimes. I find it hard, though, to call on the wisdom and courage of Christ in speaking truth to authority.

But if I would call myself Christian, I can do no less.

Are Evangelicals Endangering Democracy?

“Don’t you believe that God inspired the Bible?”

“Yes,” I said, “but I don’t think God stopped inspiring people when the Bible was in its finished form. I’ve read some great books by women that I think were equally inspired by God, and they give me a perspective that the Bible doesn’t, since every book theologians decided to include was written down by a man.”

My hands on the wheel, I glanced sideways at my friend, who views God very differently than I do. She raised her eyebrows and then leaned back against the headrest, looking exhausted.

I went on at length to name some of the current books I’ve read and to say why I got more out of them than a lot of what I read in the Bible, especially those pesky chapters in Paul’s epistles that tell women to shut up. That doesn’t mean that I don’t read the Bible, I told my friend; in fact, I’ve read the entire Bible in three different translations, and I still read it every day, following the Common Lectionary.

My friend listened for a while and then said, “You’re making my head hurt.”

I laughed. “Is that because of my argument or the concussion?”

My friend had taken a tumble in a parking lot that resulted in a concussion, and I was driving her home from a check-up.

“Both,” she said.

That was a few months ago, and this week, now that she’s well again, we continued the conversation. Though she doesn’t agree with many of my views, we both find it interesting to discuss them, and we respect each other’s views.

I’ve also seen that concussed look, though, in the eyes of evangelicals when I try to explain to them why I do not believe the Bible is meant to be read literally. Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I have many family members and friends who do believe the Bible is both literally and historically accurate. When I have these conversations, they often end with a confused look and the pronouncement, “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” Those who love me fear for my soul, but they are usually respectful enough to simply shake their heads and walk away.

Recently, though, a cousin who was frustrated with my argument finally gave up trying to reason with me. He resorted instead to telling me that much of what I say and write sounds “dangerously close to the apostate church.” For those who are unfamiliar with fundamentalist beliefs, Nathan Jones, an ordained minister who graduated from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, describes the apostate church in this way:

The Church has become so seeker sensitive, and that can be a good thing in that we want unbelievers to come to know Jesus as their Savior, but we have ended up chasing the believers right out of their churches. We have filled our churches with unbelievers and now are putting unbelievers into the church pulpits. These new church leaders are not saved. They have no fruits of the Spirit. They have no signs in their lives that show that they are saved. These unbelievers in the pulpits keep writing their apostate books and they keep leading their apostate churches saying every kind of doctrine that has nothing to do with the Bible whatsoever.

Jones believes, as many evangelicals do, that apostasy is one of the signs that the end times are near and that Christ will soon return. My cousin—and many other fundamentalists—essentially believe that progressive Christians are the “apostate church.”

People like Jones are vocal, and they have learned to use social media to broadcast their message to a widening audience. Though I am a Christian and an elder in my church, when I try to engage them in conversation on social media, they openly and loudly doubt my salvation and the salvation of some of the most Christ-like people I know.

Because progressive Christians believe in the separation of church and state and are reticent to proclaim their beliefs in such public ways, any counter-argument to evangelicals is rare. In recent years other evangelicals, who are more focused on social justice and earth-care, have begun to speak up, but rarely does the average person in the pews of a progressive church challenge such thinking by bringing God into the conversation. As a result, extreme evangelicals—those who do not hear the arguments of science or social justice— have become an influence in our public dialogue out of all proportion to their percentage as part of the population, and they are aiming a wrecking ball at the separation of church and state.

Fundamentalists are not just dangerous to our democracy, however; they are even more dangerous to the human psyche of those who walk away from the fiery message of doom preached in their pulpits. I launched this blog five years ago because my mother, one of the most Christ-like people I’ve ever known, revealed to me that she was afraid she was going to hell. When I expressed my astonishment, she told me that even though she knew on an intellectual level that her fear made no sense, it was nearly impossible to reject something that had been beaten into her throughout her childhood.

Almost a year ago, I lost the second of two brothers to an opioid addiction. After a year in jail, my brother received help from a program at a mega-church in the city where he lived. They provided him with a bed in a group home in exchange for his work in the church and their thrift shop. They required that he attend Bible study every day and that he go out in a van with others to seek converts on street corners in some of the worst parts of the city. Church attendance was mandatory, and residents had to commit to six months in the program.

My brother told me that he loved the contemporary music at the church and that he enjoyed his small group Bible study. But he said that the sermons were very hard to listen to because they were meant to instill fear and to scare people straight, and according to their teaching, he was never saved. One of the leaders of the church told him that if he left the program, he was choosing hell and that he couldn’t come back. He left the program just shy of six months but still managed to stay clean for almost a year. Shortly before he died in a car accident with heroin in his system, he had hit a rough spot, and he told me that he felt God had abandoned him.

The reasons for addiction are complicated—and the way out even more so. I am grateful to the church for trying to help my brother. But I believe that message—that if we walk away from God, then God walks away from us—contributed to his death.

My fundamentalist acquaintances would say that I’m cherry-picking when I choose not to believe that women should be silent in church but then choose to believe this verse from Paul’s letter to the Romans:

38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NRSV)

Perhaps I am cherry-picking. But when I look at the whole of the life of Christ, I can’t see how oppressing women, denying help to the sick and the poor, and lacking compassion for those fighting the demons of addiction are any part of the package. Nor is calling a compassionate Christian an apostate.

Even the early Christians thought that Christ would return in their lifetime. And for over 2000 years humanity has suffered from the doom and gloom of those predicting that Judgment Day is near but who feel they can ignore the plight of others because they will be swept up to heaven when the day comes.

I wish pastors and Christians like those I’ve encountered in progressive Presbyterian (USA) churches had more of a voice. They speak of a gentle and generous God but also a God who is angered when self-righteous religious leaders refuse compassion to the multitudes. And I wish more Christians were like my friend, who is willing to engage in a dialogue with those whose beliefs are different even when it makes her head hurt.

To those who suffer the wounds and bear the scars of judgment from a version of Christianity that Christ himself might not recognize, I would say that those religious leaders sound suspiciously similar to the scribes and Pharisees of Christ’s time.

And I offer you this thought that my pastors often use to end our Prayers of Gratitude and Concern: “In life and in death, we belong to God.”

Indeed, we do.

Can Christians Change the Climate on Climate Change?

This NASA graph provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Christianity isn’t under attack. But some beliefs of Christians are deserving of attack. Christians who deny climate change in the face of all evidence to the contrary cannot be allowed to wave the flag of religious freedom and force the rest of us to accept the misguided notion that God will somehow rescue us no matter what we do to our planet.

According to NASA statistics, 97% of scientists, after analyzing the evidence, have come to the conclusion that human actions are responsible for global warming. Many of these scientists are Christians. But they are being shouted down by evangelicals, led by a small group of powerful men who believe they have God on their side. Continue reading Can Christians Change the Climate on Climate Change?