PC(USA) General Assembly Votes on Noncelibate Gay and Lesbian Ministers

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA voted 53%-46% today in favor of changing ordination standards to remove language requiring ministers "live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."

The question will now be sent to local presbyteries for further consideration. A majority of the Presbyteries must approve the measure before the General Assembly can vote on it for a final time in 2011.

PCUSA General Assembly Votes to Allow Noncelibate Gay and Lesbian Ministers | Christianity Today Liveblog

Rape and Incest Part of God's Plan?

Earlier this year, Tea Party darling Sharron Angle had this to say about abortion.

MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

ANGLE: Not in my book.

MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

ANGLE: You know, I’m a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

You can listen to the audio here: Sharron Angle on Abortion

I'm not a big fan of the Tea Party, but this does raise an interesting question: Is rape and incest a part of God's plan?

There is no doubt in my mind that God can take something bad and make something good happen out of it. If this is what Angle means by the statement "God has a plan and purpose for each one of our lives", then I have no qualms whatsoever about her statement. To me, this implies a loving God that meets us in the dirt and muck of life...a God that meets us in our pain and suffering and walks with us.

Unfortunately, this is not the only way to take this statement. The other way implies that God's plan for some of us is to be a victim of rape or incest. This view, makes God the author of evil and runs contrary to the attributes of God. This is a view that Christians cannot support.

So is rape and incest a part of God's plan for us? I don't think so. If that's the case, Angle can have her god, because the God I know and worship is gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love. And because God is good, God cannot plan for something evil to happen to us.

Sharon Angle is Against Abortion in the Case of Rape or Incest | Think Progress

Review: Mystically Wired

Mystically Wired
Author: Ken Wilson
Hardcover: 208 pages
Publisher: Thomas Nelson
ISBN: 978-0-8499-2001-1

Thomas Nelson
Amazon

Recent studies in the field of neuroscience have shown that prayer does affect the our brain and over periods of time, prayer can change our brains. This has led author Ken Wilson to make that claim that we are "mystically wired." (3) Expanding on that, Wilson claims that we are "adapted or designed to reach beyond the limits of the ingrown self to connect with the wonder of life beyond the self, including the life of God." (3)

After years of prayer and studying prayer, Wilson concludes three things,

First, it is possible to learn to pray in new ways; we can fall into praying ruts, but we don't have to say there. Second, the kind of praying that was once thought to be reserved for unusually gifted (or afflicted) people called mystics is more accessible to ordinary people than previously thought. And third, the pressures of modern life, despite the modern conveniences, have heightened our need to learn and practice some of the ancient, biblical prayer disciplines. (10)

The book is divided up into two parts. In part one, Wilson outlines his understanding of what it means to be mystically wired; looking at why we have issues when it comes to prayer and his own story. In part two, Wilson discusses how we can change our prayer life for the better.

For me, the high point of the book was chapter seven because it resonated with my own life. I tried the whole setting 20-30 minutes aside each day for prayer...and I failed miserably. Apparently this was too much too quickly for me. What I needed, according to Wilson was to "establish the patter of two or three shorter prayer segments throughout the day" (118) starting with one segment daily. I should have taken it slower and established the habit of shorter prayer segments before attempting a long prayer setting.

I like that Wilson does not frown upon using prayer aids such as The Book of Common Prayer and The Divine Hours: A Manual for Prayer (Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3). I use the four volume For All the Saints or The Treasury of Daily Prayer. I also like that he takes the slow and steady approach.

Overall, I highly recommend this book. I found it to be a fairly easy read and thought that Wilson offered concrete ideas and ways for one to begin to have a meaningful prayer life. This book is a great resource for any Christian looking to improve their prayer life.

Disclaimer:
I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. Providing me a free copy in no way guarantees a favorable review. The opinions expresses in this review are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Lady Gaga and Religion

I don't have a problem with Lady Gaga.  I happen to like most of her songs as does my 3 month old daughter (we listen, not watch). But, not everyone shares my opinion.  It's not surprising that many from Christian Right and the Catholic Church are up in arms over Lady Gaga's latest video, "Alejandro".  I've seen the video and I can see where some people on the Christian Right might have a problem, but it isn't the first time a pop singer's video might be misunderstood.  (Note: This video is NSFW.)

In the video, Lady Gaga wears a nun's habit and swallows a rosary.  One blogger writes concerning the video,

[T]he video mixes homoerotic, S&M and Nazi motifs with some pretty interesting latex nun costumes...and some odd rosary scenes (Lady Ga Ga swallows one in the video).

Does this automatically make this video blasphemous?  Some do.  Pop star Katie Perry recently commented on the video via Twitter,

Using blasphemy as entertainment is as cheap as a comedian telling a fart joke. (Source: CNN)

I think a more critical eye is needed to examine the video.  Is there use of religious symbols?  Yes.  Does that automatically make is blasphemous?  I don't think so.

Some are comparing this video to Madonna's "Like A Prayer".  I can remember my mom telling me that I wasn't allowed to watch the video for "Like A Prayer" because Madonna "compared herself to Jesus".  Being nine at the time, I really couldn't argue with my mom and I didn't have any theological training at the time. 

Mark Judge of the Washington Post disagrees with the comparison of Lady Gaga and Madonna,

Lady Gaga is no Madonna. That some conservatives are conflating the two performers is yet another sign of the pop culture (and even religious) illiteracy of the right. I myself am a conservative, and it always demoralizes me when people on the right fumble the ball on popular culture, particularly in the field of pop music.

Judge goes on to write,

Now, taking a lead from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, everyone is comparing Gaga to Madonna. To me Madonna will always be a mediocre talent, but one of her better songs is "Like a Prayer," which came out in 1986. Many conservative culture warriors wrongly considered the video for "Like a Prayer" blasphemous, and are now juxtaposing it with a new video by pop star Lady Gaga. In the video for her song "Alejandro," Gaga is dressed in a red latex nun costume. She swallows a rosary, and is depicted in scenes of sadomasochistic sex and Nazi marching troops. As night follows day, conservatives went nuts. Donohue called Lady Gaga a "Madonna wannabe." The rest of the right wing photosphere fell into place.

They will miss a crucial fact: Madonna's video for "Like a Prayer" is an intelligent and even devout meditation on grace, love and conscience. Lady Gaga's is lazy trash.

According to Judge, the similarities between Lady Gaga and Madonna pretty much end on the surface.  He concludes his article by stating,

When "Like a Prayer" was released, it was completely misunderstood by conservatives. A bishop condemned it. So did Donohue. On the other side, liberals mindlessly defended Madonna without understanding the message of the video. The only truly coherent analysis came from Fr. Andrew Greeley, a liberal Catholic priest. "Like a Prayer" was blasphemous, wrote Greeley in America magazine, "only for the prurient and the sick who come to the video determined to read their own twisted sexual hang-ups into it. Only for those who think that sexual passion is an inappropriate metaphor for divine passion (and thus are pretty hard on Hosea, Jesus, Saint Paul, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux and Saint Teresa of Avila)."

Lada Gaga's video for "Alejandro" is not just slightly dissimilar to "Like a Prayer" - it's like a fascistic antipode. There is no moral story, no call to conscience. The very language of the bodies is different. In "Like a Prayer," Madonna and the gospel choir dance with freedom and individual joy. They are powered with the power of the Holy Spirit, which gave Madonna grace the courage to fully respond the call from her conscience. In "Alejandro" the dancing is militaristic, joyless. The scenes of sadomasochism are cold and dehumanizing; they reek of fascism. The entire thing is cold.

I have to agree with Judge.  I think Christianity on a whole lacks a good cultural theology, so we only look to the surface and often, we miss the broader message that can be found in music videos.  

HT: James McGrath

Lady Gaga is no Madonna | The Washington Post

Review: Fingerprints of God

Here is a repost of a book review I did when I first started blogging.  I reposted this here because I will be reviewing another book that talks about the human brain being "mystically wired for prayer."  Fingerprints of God is a good starting point for the conversation.

 *     *     *     *     *

In Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, a former Christian Scientist, seeks to answer questions surrounding spirituality. The questions she seeks to answer include:
Is spiritual experience real? Or is it a delusion?  When we pray, what happens?  Does consciousness depend entirely on your brain and the unique way it works? Or can it operate when the when the brain doesn't?

In the course of her research, which included talking to numerous scientists, Hagerty has concluded that "science cannot prove God - but science is entirely consistent with God." [1] However, the God Hagerty is talking about here is not "the diety in a thirty-three-year-old carpenter or the unseen divider of the Red Sea," rather this is the God "in the math of the universe...that rigged existence to create life." [2]

I will review this book beginning at Chapter 2 (because Chapter 1 tells the story of how the idea for the book was thought up). And before I begin, I should point out that I am no scientist. I am a seminary trained layperson. And, I am a skeptic when it comes to miracles and mystical experiences and I tend to discount these types of experiences.

Hagerty first looks at spiritual experiences: conversion stories and mystical experiences. For the longest time, science has written these off as a medical or psychological condition, or as a drug induced hallucination. Recent studies in neurotheology, the study of the brain as it relates to spiritual experiences, are starting to break down this paradigm. And science cannot explain away every spiritual experience, especially those which show what Dr. William Miller, a Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of New Mexico, calls a quantum change, a spiritual experience that leads to a complete transformation of the individual.

Hagerty then turns her attention to belief. I think belief was a bad word to use as this section was more about the power of positive thinking, which has been shown to slow down the progression of diseases such as cancer and AIDS/HIV. She also looks at studies involving prayer for patients in hospitals. Even to me as a Christian, the studies on both sides are inconclusive. For every study that shows prayer has some benifit, there is one that shows it doesn't. Plus, there are problems with all the studies. This was a section that I had some difficulty with, but I will admit, there is something to the power of positive thinking.

The discussion on what triggers spiritual experiences was discussion that bothered me slightly. For the most part, it makes sense, that people who have spiritual experience are those people who are those have experienced "emotional and physical trauma...poor relationsips with one's parents, or stress, or even low self-esteem...[and] brokenness." [3] Most of the discussion is spent on the brokenness, that people who have hit rock bottom might have a total transformative moment. But in the end, science is unable to explain the experience away, but it can help explain the biology of the experience. [4]

The discussion then turns to the "God gene," which scientists from both sides of the belief spectrum will admit there is no one single gene that regulates spirituality, although there are genes that regulate chemical process such as the production of dopamine and serotonin, that can explain spiritual feelings and religious behavior.

At this point, the pace picked up a little big as we went from the "God gene"to psychadelic research to replicate spiritual experiences. This was another one of those sections that bothered me because spiritulaity seemed to be winnowed down to nothing more than a drug induced high, be it peyote or serotonin.

The discussion then turned to locating the "God spot," where the research focuses on the temporal lobes of the brain in an attempt to find out if spirituality is somehow wired into our brains. Of all the chapters to this point, this one made the most sense to me. As a Christian, I believe that we (humankind) were created by God and are made in God's image. So it makes sense to me that our desire to meet the divine is hard wired into our brains. It doesn't explain why some people "have religion" and others don't, but I think it's a good palce to start.

All this leads to a discussion that the brains people who are "spiritual virtuosos" are hard-wired differently than the rest of us.

The discussion quickly turns to the "fringe" of both science and spirituality: out of body experiences, near-death experiences, and parapsycholocy. This was where I started to loose interest because the book was moving into that area where things tend to get a little foggy.

This book has clearly transformed Hagerty's beliefs. The book has also shown that there is room for both science and religion; although it will require more than one paradigm shift. The walls surrounding mainstream science appear to be chipping away as more scientists such as Mario Beauregard. Dean Radin, Larry Dossey, and Andrew Newberg continue to examine the scientific data surrounding spiritual experiences.

The Good: This book was written for us non-science types. Hagerty did a good job of translating the scientific jargon as to make her book available to everyone. She also talked to the scientists (both religious and non-religious) doing reasearch or seeking to explain spiritual experiences.

The Bad: The big chapters of the book, the ones that were hyped on NPR...all the good stuff from the chapter in the book excerpt. I was also leary about some of the statements made concerning spirituality (I will admit, this is a me issues as I am bringing my Christian beliefs into the book as I am reading it). The other problem I had with the book was, if I didn't know any better, Hagerty seems to be providing alternative explanations to spiritual encounters. We go from epilepsy to psychedelic trips to stimulating the temporal lobes of the brain in an attempt to scientifically explain spirituality. The one reassuring thing I heard throughout the book was "I don't care where it [the spiritual experiences] comes from." [5] The people did not care, because they liked the experiences. They made the individuals feel that there was more to this life.

The Ugly: For me, there comes a point when I don't want to hear about someone else's story. By Chapter 5, I was sick to death of those little stories that seemed to be filler to talk about the practical side of the science. I can see one good example, maybe two. But story after story after story wears on my nerves. At some points, I skimmed over them because, quite frankly, I didn't care. At other points, the stories just made me feel like I was lacking something because I have never experienced what they have.

Those stories that drove me nuts aside, I thought the book was descent. It was a relatively quick read for me at a little over two days. There was nothing faith shattering presented in the book, but there were those scientific explanations that made me say "a-ha." Some of the scientific reasons made sense, I could clearly see the connection between the science and the spirituality. Other times, I was left scratching my head thinking, "That makes no sense at all." There were several times that I had to re-read entire sections because on my first read-through I was left wondering "What was just said?" This book did re-affirm for me that there is room for both science and religion. Science should not merely dismiss or ignore the spiritual experience claimed by religions. But at the same time we have to keep in mind that science can only explain so much about religious experience. I came away from this book in about the same place as the author, that "science is entirely consistent with a Being who organized the universe and created life." [6]

This book is not for everyone. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the Science/Religion debate and those interested in Natural Theology.

[1] Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality, (New York: Riverhead Books, 2009), 11.
[2] Ibid., 12.
[3] Ibid., 62.
[4] Ibid., 78.
[5] Ibid., 150.
[6] Ibid., 274.

Review: Jesus Manifesto

The church has lost sight of Jesus. It is time for the church to restore Christ to His rightful place within Christianity.

I recently received a review copy of Jesus Manifesto by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola. I have previously read some of Sweet's books, but this was my first experience with Viola. Because I have read some of Sweet's other books, it was fairly easy for me to see his influence in the book. I was not at the same advantage with Viola.

My first thought as I read the first few pages flashed to The Naked Gospel (see my review here) which the author has the tagline "Jesus plus nothing." (Note: I have nothing against the this tagline).

Sweet and Viola make the following claim:

Christians have made the gospel about so many things-things other than Christ. Religious concepts, ideas, doctrines, strategies, methods, techniques, and formulas have all eclipsed the beauty, the glory, and the reality of the Lord Jesus Himself. On the whole, Christians today are starved for a real experience of the living Christ. (Back Cover)

Sweet and Viola state that there is a "massive disconnect in the church today, and...the major disease of today's church is JDD: Jesus Deficit Disorder." (xvi) I couldn't agree more. I consistently hear all this talk about getting out of the pews and doing things, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if one has the right focus. In this book, Sweet and Viola aim to get rid of the the church's Jesus Deficit Disorder and get the church to re-focus on Christ.

The real eye opener for me was Chapter 5, A Ditch on Either Side. It was here that I saw the problem. Sweet and Viola state there are two popular approached for following Jesus today, theological rationalism and theological ethics. Theological rationalism focuses on doctrine, theological ethics on ethical behavior. The authors state,

According to Scripture, Jesus Christ (and not some doctrine about Him) is the truth. In addition, Jesus Christ, and not an ethic derived from His teaching) is the way. In other words, both God's truth and God's way are embodied in a living, breathing person-Christ. (80)

This statement is going to offend a lot of Christians, but that doesn't take away from the truth of the statement. Many times, we reduce Christianity to the right doctrine (as defined by man) or the right ethic (as defined by man) and fail to look to Christ.

Overall, I was fairly impressed with the book. The book was a relatively easy read and was written for the average pew sitter. I think Sweet and Viola are accurate in their assessment of today's church and the need to get back to the core of Christianity...Christ Himself. There were several times as I read this book that I stood accused of the very behaviors they were describing. This book is a great resource to pastors and lay leaders, to help get them back on course. Through the leadership, the church can right its Jesus Deficit Disorder. In other words, this book is written for anyone looking to forge a deeper relationship with Christ.

I give this book 4 out of 5 stars.

Disclaimer:

I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. Providing me a free copy in no way guarantees a favorable review. The opinions expresses in this review are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Note: This review was cross posted at Simul Iustus et Peccator

Jesus Cartoon=Blasphemy?

The potential thought of having modern day Jesus Christ star in his own cartoon is offensive to some Christians.

The newly formed Citizens Against Religious Bigotry said Thursday that it believes the "JC" series would be offensive. They accuse Comedy Central of a double standard in mocking Christian figures and beliefs while recently refusing to let "South Park" depict the Prophet Muhammad for fear of offending Muslims. (from the Huffington Post)

Brent Bozell of Citizens Against Religious Bigotry (CARB) had this to say:

After we reveal the vile and offensive nature of Comedy Central's previous characterizations of Jesus Chris and God the Father, we expect these advertisers to agree wholeheartedly to end their advertising on Comedy Central and discontinue their support for unabashed, anti-Christian discrimination...Why should they be supporting a business that makes a habit of attacking Christianity and yet has a formal policy to censor anything considered offensive to followers of Islam? This double standard is pure bigotry, one from which advertisers should quickly shy away. (from ABC News)

But here's my question: Why now? There seems to be some fundamental flaws with their argument. The Jesus character is not new to Comedy Central as South Park has Jesus as one of the characters. Why pick this fight now, with "JC" and not when Jesus first appeared on South Park? It makes no sense to me.

It should also be pointed out that "JC" is only being developed at this point. The series has not been given the green light, so it is quite possible it could die before it even makes it to a television near you.

As for offending someone with a depiction of Christ, I also think that ship has sailed. Again, why now?

Most churches I know of have a Jesus depicted somewhere in their building. Chances are the depiction is of a white man, with flowing brown hair and a freshly trimmed beard...something like this:



Chances are Jesus looked nothing like that. So before we go out and say other depictions of Christ are offensive, let's take a long, hard look at the depictions in our own churches.

Also, last I checked, there is this little thing called the First Amendment...you know, freedom of speech. It's been my experience that conservative Christians and conservative Christian groups like CARB have a love/hate relationship with the First Amendment. They love when it applies to them, and hate when it applies to others.

St. Paul writes,

But we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. (1 Corinthians 1:23)

Yes, the message of the cross is offensive. So, if we were to apply this line of logic to ourselves (banning the offensive) then we should stop preaching the Gospel. I'm not advocating that. And I don't think anyone from CARB would advocate that either. But to protest something that might be offensive (JC) and then turn around and preach something that is offensive (the Gospel) is hypocritical.

As a Christian, I don't care one way or another about this. It's not even on my radar...probably because I do not get Comedy Central. Do I think Comedy Central should allowed to do this show if they want? Absolutely. Will I watch it? Absolutely not. I think that this is the response we need...not create a controversy around the show.

Other Posts:

• Jesus Cartoon Coming to Comedy Central | Scotteriology
• Hey, Maybe Christians Should Declare Jihad Against Comedy Central. If the Muslims Can, Why Can't We? | Zwinglius Redivivus
• Comedy Central considers cartoon series about Jesus Christ | The Church of Jesus Christ
• Comedy Central: No to Muhammad -- But Yes! to Jesus | The Washington Post
• If Christians Were Like Radical Muslims... | Zwinglius Redivivus
• Religious Leaders Unite Against Planned Jesus Cartoon | ABC News