This Week in God

First up from the [tag]God [/tag]machine this week is a follow-up from last week, about a progressive Christian denomination that’s not only having a little trouble reaching the public airwaves, but also staking out ground in trying to reclaim [tag]Christianity[/tag] from far-right conservatives.

After years of turning the other cheek, the [tag]United Church of Christ[/tag], among the most liberal of the mainline Protestant denominations, has recently staked out a more pugnacious stance toward the Christian right.

The Rev. John H. Thomas, the denomination’s president, has sharply criticized the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a conservative religious watchdog and advocacy group, for supporting groups within mainline denominations that would further a conservative theological and political perspective. And the church has undertaken new advertising and e-mail campaigns to combat more conservative forces.

I was going to say that the UCC sounds incensed by politically conservative, religious-right-style Christians, but I think a better word is “impatient.” The UCC has seen their faith misused for partisan and ideological ends; the church’s leaders saw a subtle effort to change this dynamic; but discovered things weren’t improving quickly enough. Now, they’re making an assertive effort to take on their rivals and help make a change.

In addition to the examples mentioned above, the UCC is also pushing back against the IRS for what church officials see as a slanted law-enforcement effort in which liberal churches are threatened for alleged political intervention, while conservative churches are not. Good for the UCC.

Next up is the fascinating story of Bart Ehrman (thanks to reader E.J. for the tip).

Bart Ehrman is a sermon, a parable, but of what? He’s a best-selling author, a New Testament expert and perhaps a cautionary tale: the fundamentalist scholar who peered so hard into the origins of Christianity that he lost his faith altogether.

Once he was a seminarian and graduate of the Moody Bible Institute, a pillar of conservative Christianity. Its doctrine states that the Bible “is a divine revelation, the original autographs of which were verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

But after three decades of research into that divine revelation, [tag]Ehrman[/tag] became an agnostic. What he found in the ancient papyri of the scriptorium was not the greatest story ever told, but the crumbling dust of his own faith.

I saw Ehrman on The Daily Show a few weeks ago and found his perspective to be fascinating, but that was before I started reading about his transformation from Biblical literalist/fundamentalist to scholar to agnostic. His book “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,” is a surprise best-seller. But this look at Ehrman’s personal approach to religion, scholarship, and history, is almost as engaging as his successful book.

And, finally, I’ll close This Week in God on a down note: funeral protestor Fred Phelps. If you’ve ever wanted to get a better sense of what drives a man to hate gays so much that he’d take pleasure in the deaths of American troops, Knight Ridder ran a thorough and insightful profile of Phelps earlier this week.

It’s worth reading, if for no other reason, than to see that Phelps wants us to hate him right back.

Phelps wants us to hate him right back.

Hate and fear are cornerstones of the theocracy. Open minds and hearts are not welcome.

  • As an ex-Franciscan seminarian, later enrolled at a Jesuit university, where they believed they could *prove* the beliefs they wanted us to accept, I sympathize with Ehrman. “Truth in advertising”: both schools threw me out. The clue that I was on the right track in growing from unquestioning acceptance of doctrine to questioning all claims to supernatural knowledge, was my discovery that merely carrying, e.g., Friedrich Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell’s thoughtful books around the USF campus brought derision from the very priests who claimed the ability to *prove* their religious beliefs.

    The UCC seems, to me, to be the only major denomination which has taken Christ’s message seriously. Their advertising message “we accept you” marks them off from many other nominally christian rackets and certainly from the networks and channels (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, etc.) who refuse to run their paid-for ads on the feeble excuse that “aceptance” might offend the “relgious” sensibilities of a few bigots.

    Phelps is scum. I harbor the very unreligious hope of reading someday of his being run over by a lavender-painted humvee during one of his anit-gay, anti-military protests in front of church funerals for our military.

  • This grabbed my attention…

    In 2004, Mr. Blackwell flew to three events on the World Harvest Church plane with its pastor, the Rev. Rodney L. Parsley, to protest same-sex marriages. Mr. Blackwell paid $1,000 for the flights, The Associated Press said, and Mr. Hudson noted that Mr. Blackwell took the trips before he was officially a candidate.

    A plane? Now many churches have an airplane?

    Good grief.

  • Why would the post refer to Ehrman as an agnostic? He’s no longer religious, believes the bible is manmade legends, that there’s no God watching over us… isn’t that what you’d call an atheist?

    I suspect the word “atheist” is just too charged nowadays… it brings to mind someone who actively, spitefully, tries to lecture everyone else about how all religion is garbage.

    So that’s where we are: even the word “atheist” is too charged, so now we have to say “agnostic”, even if that’s technically incorrect (agnostics believe in God; they just don’t adhere to any sect).

  • In an upcoming article, called “Pro-Life Nation”,in the New York Times Magazine, writer Jack Hitt has a cover story about the criminalization of abortion in El Salvador. Hitt was interviewed by Rachel Maddow on Air America and the audio can be found at http://www.alternet.org under the headline “Forensic Vagina Specialist(audio)”.

    In el Salvador ALL abortions are illegal and a woman can be sent to prison if a “forensic vagina specialist”(that job title actually exists)determines that she has had an abortion. If it’s determined that the fetus was viable she can get up to 50 yrs(one woman with 3 children under 15 is in prison for 30 years). I wonder if her children will have more or less trouble learning about the dangers of un-protected sex without their mom around?

    There is even no exception when the life of the mom is in jeopardy. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilized egg attaches to the falopian tube and continues to grow there, the fallopian tube will first rupture before surgeons will operate. Which is odd since, as I understand it, an ectopic pregnancy will not result in a sucessful pregnancy.

    Also, the head of the U.S anti-abortion group, Human Life International, discribes the abortion law in El Sal. as “an inspiration”.

    Maybe someday in OUR country (and sooner in South Dak.)OUR daughters, sisters, nieces, etc., who are raped or the victims of incest will be forced to carry their abusers children.

    Conservative values are on the march!

  • There’s a difference between believing in a particular conception of God and believing in God him/her/itself. I accept the existence of God, but I can’t even speculate as to his/her/its nature. Also, there is a difference between uncertainty about the existence and/or nature of God – agnosticism – and the certainty that such a being does not exist – atheism.

    Actually, the phrase “to believe in” lends itself to a lot of sloppiness, as it does not carry the same meaning as “to believe” but many people miss the distinction. To believe IN something implies a sense of trust, responsibility, or devotion, not just intellectual acceptance of a statement as fact. If I were to say that I believed in the United States of America, I would be saying a lot more than that I believed there was a piece of real estate between Canada and Mexico called the United States of America. It would be a statement of devotion to a concept called the United States of America. It is a matter of heart rather than of mind.

  • To Eric (post #4):

    Agnostic and athiest are not the same. I consider myself an agnostic Taoist bordering on athiest. The god of Abraham is a crock of shit, no doubt about it. However, if there is a deity, I think the Taoists have come closer to describing it that any other religion.

    I don’t dis-believe in a deity, or believe, either. There is simply no EVIDENCE either way. That is the definition of an agnostic–there is not enough evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of deity.

  • Phelps is all about hate and fear. Christianity is about love and acceptance. Jesus gave us the greatest commandment: “Love your neighbor as youself”. Phelps seems to have forgotten this. (DUH!)

  • Phelps is funny. Phelps is a hoot. Phelps is an up-and-coming stand-up comedian. Phelps is really one of Santa’s elves. He’s Snoopy, being mistaken for the Great Pumpkin in that Charlie Brown classic.

    Awww…did I just deny him his daily helping of hate? Too bad….

    This guy’s worst fear is being laughed at. He can take the hate—but I’ll wager he can not tolerate even 5 minutes of being giggled at. All of those scream-preachers are the same way. They’ll show up on a university campus and rant away; the more you scream back at them, the more they’ll scream back at you. But point at them, and laugh? They’ll go away pretty quick, never to return.

  • Why Shruby isn’t too concerned about his poll numbers.

    “‘Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you and cast out your name,'” Phelps says, quoting from the Gospel of Luke. “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!”

    And if pariah status is what he seeks, what better way to achieve global loathing than this:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/08/bombing-iran/

    Seymour Hersh: Bush Planning Massive Bombing Campaign Against Iran, Including Nukes….via Think Progress

    He’ll show us. Yes he will. No more underestimating the nitwit. Drop the big one. Or lots of medium sized ones. Feel the power of the Dumbshit.

    And show a little respect along with all that condemnation. OK? Little Boot’s just wants a little respect. Is that so much to ask? What the hell does it take to get people to realize that I Shrubius knows what is best?

    Let them eat radiation.

  • Why would the post refer to Ehrman as an agnostic?

    Eric raises a good question. The only reason I used the word “agnostic” is because I thought I remember Ehrman himself using it in a recent interview. I may be mistaken; he may in fact consider himself an atheist.

    For what it’s worth, my choice of words was not related to the belief that “atheism” is overtly controversial — I don’t believe that at all — but rather just a description that I thought was accurate.

  • To #7 –
    “There is simply no EVIDENCE either way”
    Well if there was evidence, we probably wouldn’t need to use the word “belief” when we talked about God.

  • Michael- actually, the distinction between agnostic and atheist was exactly the point I was trying to make– I suspect the Post says “agnostic” when they mean “atheist” but are too chicken to say so.

    Carpetbagger- I actually meant to blame the Washington Post, who say “agnostic” in the subtitle of the article. I assumed you copied the word from the Post, and my criticism was aimed at them, not you.

  • if this area of thought interests you,

    please read gary wills’ (prof of history, northwestern u.)

    exceptional article in this sunday’s (4/9/06) new york times “week in review” section.

    wills, a catholic, but not an “institutional catholic” is one of the most trenchant commentattors around religious ideology and self-serving religious leaders.

    his nytimes article about the realtion between jesus’ teachings and worldly government strikes me as both beautiful and true.

  • So, if gay caucasian republicans adopt non-white children, it’s really gonna mess with his head, right?

  • Comments are closed.