The Christian right has been moving further to the right, politically and theologically, for a number of years, and it is getting quite distressing. I previously made fun of their leaders, who had no power and came across as buffoons to me. I never imagined that they would take control of virtually all aspects of government, exert huge influence on the news media, and influence a generation of Christians to believe our religion is all about marginalizing those who don’t agree with their version of morality.
In my evangelical seminary in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we were required to read both conservative and liberal scholars, and our classes in practical theology were heavily influenced by Presbyterian practices, which tend to be rather moderate. Conservative views were generally favored by the professors, but students were encouraged to think for themselves. Our local Christian bookstore stocked titles by liberal writers such as Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan. Evangelicals were too busy experiencing revival to worry about censoring their bookstores.
In the mid 1990s, I realize now, things began to change. I didn’t notice it at the time, as revival continued in many ways, but evangelicals were beginning to harden their right-wing stances. I noticed that parachurch organizations began seeing the need to publish a “statement of faith” to prove their worthiness, doctrinal purity, or whatever. These statements inevitably included ideas such as plenary inspiration (God dictated the Bible word by word), inerrancy (historical details are 100% accurate from a modern historiographical perspective), and infallibility (all instructions in the Bible are required and applicable for today).
Problem was, I was an evangelical preacher and I didn’t believe any of those things.
Around the same time, I went to a Bay Area Christian bookstore to buy a copy of Crossan’s Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, which was a national best seller as I recall. The clerk told me that they do not stock anti-Christian titles. I was a bit flabbergasted but left and found the book at a secular bookstore. I had long known that these stores did not stock the more scholarly titles that I often needed, but this experience marked my first experience of censorship of popular-level Christian books that is almost universal among evangelical bookstores today.
When George W. Bush was elected president, the Christian right hardened its stance further. The evangelical spiritual revival stopped for all practical purposes, and the new aim was to consolidate political power and further marginalize those involved in abortion, gays and lesbians, supporters of science, and advocates of a sane judiciary. The 9/11 attacks gave them a platform to declare other religions “evil,” as evangelist Franklin Graham said at the time.
I only hope that the recent elections have brought a dose of humility to the religious right. They are a part of the problem of violence in this world. You see, the problems that we see in our world today are largely fueled not by religion but by fundamentalism.
My definition of fundamentalism involves the use of rhetoric that says that other religions are evil and wicked. It’s one thing to believe that Christianity is the only way to God, but it’s quite another to declare that other faiths are evil, or that no truth can come from them. I have long observed that 90% of the ethical teachings of the great world religions overlap. I have preached from evangelical pulpits that Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, and the like have discovered much of the same truth about how life is to be lived that Christians have.
I don’t believe that Christianity is the only way to God. My church’s mission statement says that “Jesus’ teaching is the clearest revelation of God in our experience,” and that reflects my current thinking pretty well. Jesus is the best way but not the only way.
But even if you do believe that Christianity is the only way, you can be respectful of other faith traditions and cognizant that most of their teachings are consistent with Christianity. You can have the attitude of Billy Graham, who has stated that he respects the Islamic tradition and is willing to leave it up to God whether to save them. His attitude reflects a maturity of many years of ministry. Sadly, his son Franklin is not so mature, and to my knowledge continues to characterize Islam as evil.
Our church has a relationship with a local mosque. We go to their Friday prayers, and they come to our services, about once a quarter. As I have gotten to know some of the Muslims in our community, I have come to see the compassion, the service, and the devotion of that community—which in many ways puts the Christian community to shame.
You might ask, “What about the terrorists?” A friend of mine who has a writing ministry states that their motivation comes from their Islamic theology. By extension, he implies that Islam is a violent and evil religion. It’s true that their motivation is based on theology, but it’s bad theology. The Ku Klux Klan used Christian theology to justify its actions, but it was a perversion of true Christianity. Similarly, terrorism is a perversion of true Islam. But it’s a predictable outcome in people who have been oppressed.
The Islamic fundamentalists from Al Queda have killed some 4,000 people in their various attacks—3,000 of them on 9/11. But the Christian fundamentalists in the White House have facilitated the deaths of somewhere between 52,000 and 600,000 mostly Muslim civilians. So the Christian fundamentalists have beaten the Muslim fundamentalists, I suppose, but what is the real benefit?
The Iraq war has cost about $250 million per day since it began, totaling almost $354 billion at this writing. Back when the cost was only $87 billion, John Perkins wrote, after listing a myriad of U.S. corporate and government abuses of third-world countries,
“The income ratio of the one-fifth of the world’s population in the wealthiest countries to the one-fifth in the poorest went from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 74 to 1 in 1995. The United States spends over $87 billion conducting a war in Iraq while the United Nations estimates that for less than half that amount we could provide clean water, adequate diets, sanitation services, and basic education to every person on the planet.”
“And we wonder why terrorists attack us?” (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, xiv)
The problem is not Islam, it’s senseless poverty. The problem is not Islam, it’s fundamentalism.
I pray that the fundamentalist tendencies of the religious right will be softened, and that a more compassionate policy will come from our country in the future. It’s possible to bring an end to extreme poverty, and doing this will do more to reduce terrorism than a million soldiers. Now we just need someone with the political will to act.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Vote by Mail: The Only Sensible Solution
Oregon has a reputation for seeking unique solutions to universal problems. This was especially true during the golden age of Oregon politics—the 1970s—when mostly Republican politicians laid the foundation for Oregon’s incredible quality of life. More on those initiatives in another post.
In some ways, the golden age is over. We do continue to lead the nation in a number of areas, including urban livability and public transit, but Oregonians have succumbed to legislative and ballot initiatives that have relaxed our land use system (which aims to prevent sprawl), constrained funding of education and other priorities, and limited progress in other ways. I hold out hope that some of this might change with the newly-elected Democratic leadership in the state House, added to existing Democratic control of the Senate and Governor’s office. But I’m not holding my breath.
The good news is that in recent years Oregon has definitely led the nation in one area—improving the integrity and process of voting. For several years now, Oregon has had no polling stations. Instead, everyone receives a ballot by mail and must return it by election day—either by mail or by hand-delivery to designated collection points. This has proven to be the most problem-free method, with very high voter turnout, smooth and accurate counts, and virtually no complaints of fraud. As our Secretary of State, Bill Bradbury, wrote in a 2005 New York Times op-ed piece,
“Oregon's vote-by-mail system has proved reliable and popular. Critics said that vote-by-mail is prone to fraud. But signature verification of every voter before a ballot is counted is an effective safeguard against fraud.”
In fact, the verification of signatures in a central location eliminates variability between precincts—a problem in many states, where poll workers in minority precincts are sometimes accused of vote suppression. Even if states were to impose picture-ID requirements (which would suppress the vote of people without driver’s licenses), the prevalence of fake IDs would make this method of verification no better than Oregon’s.
Bradbury writes, “Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate contended that vote-by-mail would suppress voter participation. But record numbers of Oregonians registered to vote, and almost 87 percent of them cast ballots” [in the 2004 presidential election].
An increasing number of Americans are taking advantage of early voting where it is allowed in any form. Americans’ lives are so busy these days (not a good thing, but it’s reality) that a requirement to vote in person on a certain day actually dampens turnout.
Bradbury continues, “Critics argued that vote-by-mail eliminates the communal experience of voting on Election Day. . . . With two weeks to conduct public education and get-out-the-vote efforts, Oregonians were surrounded by civic engagement reminders. Oregonians have also started a new communal experience: voting at home, showing their children the ballot and talking to them about how important it is to vote.”
The ballot is mailed in two envelopes—an inner envelope with no identification of the voter, and an outer envelope, printed with the voter’s name and address, on which a signature is required. At the central elections office for each county, the signatures are verified by poll workers, and political parties and other groups are allowed to send observers. The inner envelopes are then separated from the outer ones. Much of this work happens before Election Day, and workers make every effort to contact a voter whose ballot or signature do not meet requirements, so that they can correct those problems when possible.
On Election Day, all the unidentified inner envelopes are opened, and the ballots are counted by optical scan machines. The paper ballots are available for recounts when necessary, a process that is clearly spelled out in state law.
For those who still are suspicious of fraud, the vote-by-mail system actually keeps voter rolls more up to date than other systems:
“Mailed ballots are not forwarded by the post office, and the constant updating of voter rolls provided by returned ballots allows Oregon to have accurate and updated voter rolls without the risk of partisan purges.”
Add that to a 30 percent savings in the cost of running the election, and you have a cleaner, more accurate, more participatory system that costs less money. And Oregon does not see the (mostly Republican) shenanigans that we have seen in Florida, Ohio and other states. If other states could just rise to Oregon’s level in this area, the nation would be better off.
In some ways, the golden age is over. We do continue to lead the nation in a number of areas, including urban livability and public transit, but Oregonians have succumbed to legislative and ballot initiatives that have relaxed our land use system (which aims to prevent sprawl), constrained funding of education and other priorities, and limited progress in other ways. I hold out hope that some of this might change with the newly-elected Democratic leadership in the state House, added to existing Democratic control of the Senate and Governor’s office. But I’m not holding my breath.
The good news is that in recent years Oregon has definitely led the nation in one area—improving the integrity and process of voting. For several years now, Oregon has had no polling stations. Instead, everyone receives a ballot by mail and must return it by election day—either by mail or by hand-delivery to designated collection points. This has proven to be the most problem-free method, with very high voter turnout, smooth and accurate counts, and virtually no complaints of fraud. As our Secretary of State, Bill Bradbury, wrote in a 2005 New York Times op-ed piece,
“Oregon's vote-by-mail system has proved reliable and popular. Critics said that vote-by-mail is prone to fraud. But signature verification of every voter before a ballot is counted is an effective safeguard against fraud.”
In fact, the verification of signatures in a central location eliminates variability between precincts—a problem in many states, where poll workers in minority precincts are sometimes accused of vote suppression. Even if states were to impose picture-ID requirements (which would suppress the vote of people without driver’s licenses), the prevalence of fake IDs would make this method of verification no better than Oregon’s.
Bradbury writes, “Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate contended that vote-by-mail would suppress voter participation. But record numbers of Oregonians registered to vote, and almost 87 percent of them cast ballots” [in the 2004 presidential election].
An increasing number of Americans are taking advantage of early voting where it is allowed in any form. Americans’ lives are so busy these days (not a good thing, but it’s reality) that a requirement to vote in person on a certain day actually dampens turnout.
Bradbury continues, “Critics argued that vote-by-mail eliminates the communal experience of voting on Election Day. . . . With two weeks to conduct public education and get-out-the-vote efforts, Oregonians were surrounded by civic engagement reminders. Oregonians have also started a new communal experience: voting at home, showing their children the ballot and talking to them about how important it is to vote.”
The ballot is mailed in two envelopes—an inner envelope with no identification of the voter, and an outer envelope, printed with the voter’s name and address, on which a signature is required. At the central elections office for each county, the signatures are verified by poll workers, and political parties and other groups are allowed to send observers. The inner envelopes are then separated from the outer ones. Much of this work happens before Election Day, and workers make every effort to contact a voter whose ballot or signature do not meet requirements, so that they can correct those problems when possible.
On Election Day, all the unidentified inner envelopes are opened, and the ballots are counted by optical scan machines. The paper ballots are available for recounts when necessary, a process that is clearly spelled out in state law.
For those who still are suspicious of fraud, the vote-by-mail system actually keeps voter rolls more up to date than other systems:
“Mailed ballots are not forwarded by the post office, and the constant updating of voter rolls provided by returned ballots allows Oregon to have accurate and updated voter rolls without the risk of partisan purges.”
Add that to a 30 percent savings in the cost of running the election, and you have a cleaner, more accurate, more participatory system that costs less money. And Oregon does not see the (mostly Republican) shenanigans that we have seen in Florida, Ohio and other states. If other states could just rise to Oregon’s level in this area, the nation would be better off.
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Fingerprints of Karl Rove
I still glance at Spokane's alternative weekly, The Inlander, a sometime source of sanity in that comminity. This past week it carried a syndicated article by Eric Boehlert which originally appeared at Media Matters For America. Boehlert writes:
My favorite article from the just-completed campaign season appeared in the Oct. 9 issue of Time, in which Mike Allen and James Carney wrote a detailed piece about why Republicans were not worried about the upcoming elections. "The G.O.P.'s Secret Weapon," read the bold headline. "You think the Republicans are sure to lose big in November? They aren't. Here's why things don't look so bad to them," read the subhead.
The article goes on to talk about the "eerie, Zen-like calm" (an ironic metaphor if there ever was one) that Republicans felt because Karl had never lost an election, and Karl's numbers showed them keeping both houses of Congress. Another article in Newsweek explained that Rove's theory was that public opinion polls are no longer accurate in the age of cell phones and do-not-call lists, and that his figures on early voting and voter outreach were more accurate. He even planned to host a post-election workshop for Republican political strategists on why the polls weren't accurate. I hope his deposit on the meeting space is refundable.
The point of the article, though, is that the corporate media has long worshiped Rove, his political skills, and to a certain extent his policy preferences. Even in the six months leading up to the election, a bellweather institution like Time could do nothing but swoon:
Bush's presidency was in shambles (think Jimmy Carter, circa 1979), yet Time eagerly passed along the transparent spin about how Republican chances were "getting better by the day." Those kinds of simplistic campaign talking points worked wonders with right-wing bloggers and radio talk show hosts who excitedly repeated them as a way to calm their nerves during the campaign homestretch. But Time?
A couple of points come to mind. One, of course, is the increasing cowardice of the mainstream media. Thirty years of incessant claims of liberal bias have beat the media into submission, and consolidation of ownership has seemingly placed the final nail in the coffin. "Balance" now supercedes truth in journalism, and balance is defined as "he said/she said" with no analysis except what an event does to the political scoreboard. And the most attention is given to the "rockstars"--Karl Rove in this case, and in other cases Gingrich, Obama, and so forth.
Another point is the futility of the politics of division. By his own admission, Rove's was a "50 percent plus one" strategy. He never wanted to gain the support of a large majority of the electorate. To go beyond 50 percent plus one required compromising too much on ideology. And to even get to 50 percent plus one, he had to inject a large measure of fear. Kerry will take your guns away, Gore will force Christians to worship underground, Hillary Clinton will force all states to accept gay marriage, Howard Dean will take your land away, a Democratic Congress will "cut and run" from terrorism. The problem is that these claims are untrue. Another problem is that when you have 50 percent plus one vote, you can't lose a single vote.
Karl Rove grossly misread the critical mass of the American public. Considering the fact that redistricting since 2000 has left very little competition in Congressional races, this was a sea change. Lies, corruption, senseless warfare, and favoritism toward the ultra-wealthy are not what the American people want.
Despite this, the media mostly gushes at Rove's genius. Two ABC News reporters just released the latest Rove-is-a-genius book, and as Boehlert comments:
Rove's fingerprints are all over both miscalculations, but the press, still not over its Rove crush, shies away from the tough questions.
It has been interesting to watch the gradual change in the media narrative since the elections, but I'm not at all sure that they have moved much closer to where most Americans stand. Mainstream media has become a mouthpiece for megacorporate America. Blessedly, alternative media and online resources offer a balance to this for those willing to listen.
My favorite article from the just-completed campaign season appeared in the Oct. 9 issue of Time, in which Mike Allen and James Carney wrote a detailed piece about why Republicans were not worried about the upcoming elections. "The G.O.P.'s Secret Weapon," read the bold headline. "You think the Republicans are sure to lose big in November? They aren't. Here's why things don't look so bad to them," read the subhead.
The article goes on to talk about the "eerie, Zen-like calm" (an ironic metaphor if there ever was one) that Republicans felt because Karl had never lost an election, and Karl's numbers showed them keeping both houses of Congress. Another article in Newsweek explained that Rove's theory was that public opinion polls are no longer accurate in the age of cell phones and do-not-call lists, and that his figures on early voting and voter outreach were more accurate. He even planned to host a post-election workshop for Republican political strategists on why the polls weren't accurate. I hope his deposit on the meeting space is refundable.
The point of the article, though, is that the corporate media has long worshiped Rove, his political skills, and to a certain extent his policy preferences. Even in the six months leading up to the election, a bellweather institution like Time could do nothing but swoon:
Bush's presidency was in shambles (think Jimmy Carter, circa 1979), yet Time eagerly passed along the transparent spin about how Republican chances were "getting better by the day." Those kinds of simplistic campaign talking points worked wonders with right-wing bloggers and radio talk show hosts who excitedly repeated them as a way to calm their nerves during the campaign homestretch. But Time?
A couple of points come to mind. One, of course, is the increasing cowardice of the mainstream media. Thirty years of incessant claims of liberal bias have beat the media into submission, and consolidation of ownership has seemingly placed the final nail in the coffin. "Balance" now supercedes truth in journalism, and balance is defined as "he said/she said" with no analysis except what an event does to the political scoreboard. And the most attention is given to the "rockstars"--Karl Rove in this case, and in other cases Gingrich, Obama, and so forth.
Another point is the futility of the politics of division. By his own admission, Rove's was a "50 percent plus one" strategy. He never wanted to gain the support of a large majority of the electorate. To go beyond 50 percent plus one required compromising too much on ideology. And to even get to 50 percent plus one, he had to inject a large measure of fear. Kerry will take your guns away, Gore will force Christians to worship underground, Hillary Clinton will force all states to accept gay marriage, Howard Dean will take your land away, a Democratic Congress will "cut and run" from terrorism. The problem is that these claims are untrue. Another problem is that when you have 50 percent plus one vote, you can't lose a single vote.
Karl Rove grossly misread the critical mass of the American public. Considering the fact that redistricting since 2000 has left very little competition in Congressional races, this was a sea change. Lies, corruption, senseless warfare, and favoritism toward the ultra-wealthy are not what the American people want.
Despite this, the media mostly gushes at Rove's genius. Two ABC News reporters just released the latest Rove-is-a-genius book, and as Boehlert comments:
Rove's fingerprints are all over both miscalculations, but the press, still not over its Rove crush, shies away from the tough questions.
It has been interesting to watch the gradual change in the media narrative since the elections, but I'm not at all sure that they have moved much closer to where most Americans stand. Mainstream media has become a mouthpiece for megacorporate America. Blessedly, alternative media and online resources offer a balance to this for those willing to listen.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Welcome to My Blog
Well, I set up this blog two weeks ago and haven't posted anything yet--mainly because I was waiting until I had the energy to post a comprehensive introductory post. I eventually realized that that's a bit ridiculous, since (1) I haven't told anyone except my wife of the blog's existence yet; (2) anyone whom I tell about the blog will likely know something about me already; and (3) I will not have the time to write a full-length memoir and tell-all in the foreseeable future.
So here's my first post. My intention is to use the discipline of blogging as a way to process ideas and bring clarity to my own mind. For that purpose, whether others read and/or comment is not that important. But if people do read and interact, this will bring a second benefit to me and hopefully to others, the chance to have a community of folks as a sounding board for my ideas.
My posts will mostly cover the intersection of theology, spirituality, and politics--and those three areas have been converging in my life in recent years. Raised as a Christian evangelical in West Texas, my tendency is to keep those three areas of my life greatly separated. Theology was done at church, spirituality was done during church youth group gatherings outside the worship hour, and politics was done elsewhere (this was before the religious right brought politics back to the churches).
My journey has taken me to an Master of Divinity degree from an evangelical school; a six-year, part-time pastorate at a small, rural African-American church; a four-year, difficult pastorate in the San Francisco Bay Area; and six years doing volunteer ministry and working in financial services in Spokane, Washington.
In August 2005, my wife Stacey and I moved to a metro area that seems finally to fit our personality and passion--the Portland, Oregon area, where I work in software marketing and Stacey does artistic woodworking, volunteer work, advocacy, and loving care of our dog, cat, and eight birds. We are blessed to be a part of the faith community at Southminster Presbyterian Church, where we both serve as deacons, Stacey is very active in mission and eco-justice activities, and I am spearheading a project to expand our adult education offerings. We are blessed to be a part of a church that allows for, in Stacey's words, "theological elbow room." Stated another way, Southminster is the first church I've joined in my adult life at which I'm not the most liberal thinker.
So faith, politics, and spirituality are converging for me, and it has been an exciting adventure. Our years in Spokane and the George W. Bush administration have been the primary catalysts for this change. Spokane is a difficult place to live if you're not a life-long resident who has not seen the larger world, and we found it to be stagnant in every way--spiritually, socially, materially.
Bush's presidency brought the same stagnation to the nation as a whole. There is scarcely a single action that he has taken that is not blatantly contrary to the teachings of Jesus, yet his base of support is the religious right--a group I previously dismissed with a chuckle. But then they took control of all of our political institutions, effectively squelching the spiritual revival of the 1990s and exchanging it for government power. I am hopeful that last month's elections will bring a measure of sanity to our government and our spiritual life as a nation, but this will require a bit more gumption than Democrats have typically shown.
I am greatly hopeful for the future, however. Spiritual progressives are beginning to reach a critical mass, and will be much more influential over the next 25 years than they have been in the last 25.
On the social justice front, movements such as Sojourners on the evangelical side and Tikkun on the liberal side--after languishing on the margins for 25 years--are now growing exponentially. In both 2004 and 2006, evangelicals under 30 years of age rejected the unholy marriage of the political right with the religious right, and majorities of them voted Democratic--despite the fact that that party has not fully figured out why it needs to affirm spirituality in its platform.
On the religious side, dynamic progressive churches are beginning to grow and gain notice. A better theology for our time is being articulated by people of faith such as Brian McLaren on the evangelical side and Marcus Borg on the liberal side, and there are a lot of things that might bring these two wings of the church closer together. Discovering these things has been one of the joyful events of the past year for me.
These things make me hopeful, but there is a lot of work left to do. I'm hoping that the ability to process my thoughts here will help in the larger effort to bring transformation to our nation and to the world. This, after all, is what Christianity was originally all about.
So here's my first post. My intention is to use the discipline of blogging as a way to process ideas and bring clarity to my own mind. For that purpose, whether others read and/or comment is not that important. But if people do read and interact, this will bring a second benefit to me and hopefully to others, the chance to have a community of folks as a sounding board for my ideas.
My posts will mostly cover the intersection of theology, spirituality, and politics--and those three areas have been converging in my life in recent years. Raised as a Christian evangelical in West Texas, my tendency is to keep those three areas of my life greatly separated. Theology was done at church, spirituality was done during church youth group gatherings outside the worship hour, and politics was done elsewhere (this was before the religious right brought politics back to the churches).
My journey has taken me to an Master of Divinity degree from an evangelical school; a six-year, part-time pastorate at a small, rural African-American church; a four-year, difficult pastorate in the San Francisco Bay Area; and six years doing volunteer ministry and working in financial services in Spokane, Washington.
In August 2005, my wife Stacey and I moved to a metro area that seems finally to fit our personality and passion--the Portland, Oregon area, where I work in software marketing and Stacey does artistic woodworking, volunteer work, advocacy, and loving care of our dog, cat, and eight birds. We are blessed to be a part of the faith community at Southminster Presbyterian Church, where we both serve as deacons, Stacey is very active in mission and eco-justice activities, and I am spearheading a project to expand our adult education offerings. We are blessed to be a part of a church that allows for, in Stacey's words, "theological elbow room." Stated another way, Southminster is the first church I've joined in my adult life at which I'm not the most liberal thinker.
So faith, politics, and spirituality are converging for me, and it has been an exciting adventure. Our years in Spokane and the George W. Bush administration have been the primary catalysts for this change. Spokane is a difficult place to live if you're not a life-long resident who has not seen the larger world, and we found it to be stagnant in every way--spiritually, socially, materially.
Bush's presidency brought the same stagnation to the nation as a whole. There is scarcely a single action that he has taken that is not blatantly contrary to the teachings of Jesus, yet his base of support is the religious right--a group I previously dismissed with a chuckle. But then they took control of all of our political institutions, effectively squelching the spiritual revival of the 1990s and exchanging it for government power. I am hopeful that last month's elections will bring a measure of sanity to our government and our spiritual life as a nation, but this will require a bit more gumption than Democrats have typically shown.
I am greatly hopeful for the future, however. Spiritual progressives are beginning to reach a critical mass, and will be much more influential over the next 25 years than they have been in the last 25.
On the social justice front, movements such as Sojourners on the evangelical side and Tikkun on the liberal side--after languishing on the margins for 25 years--are now growing exponentially. In both 2004 and 2006, evangelicals under 30 years of age rejected the unholy marriage of the political right with the religious right, and majorities of them voted Democratic--despite the fact that that party has not fully figured out why it needs to affirm spirituality in its platform.
On the religious side, dynamic progressive churches are beginning to grow and gain notice. A better theology for our time is being articulated by people of faith such as Brian McLaren on the evangelical side and Marcus Borg on the liberal side, and there are a lot of things that might bring these two wings of the church closer together. Discovering these things has been one of the joyful events of the past year for me.
These things make me hopeful, but there is a lot of work left to do. I'm hoping that the ability to process my thoughts here will help in the larger effort to bring transformation to our nation and to the world. This, after all, is what Christianity was originally all about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)