December 10, 2008 | 2:50 pm

Rev. Jeremiah Wright returns to Trinity, rants against media

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

I know journalists are a despised group of people—public opinion polls usually rank us just above used car salesman—but do we really represent the gates of hell? The Rev. Jeremiah Wright—you remember him—said so while making his first return to the pulpit at Trinity Church since retiring last spring:

““Jesus said upon this rock I will build—listen to the promise—my church,” Wright said. “And the gates of hell—listen to the promise—the gates of hell—neither ABC nor CNN—the gates of hell—neither Hannity nor O’Reilly—the gates of hell—neither Time, Time magazine, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune . . . the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Nothing will be impossible with God.”

December 9, 2008 | 10:36 pm

Newsweek’s gay marriage cover story

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Newsweek had to have known the firestorm it was going to set off when it budgeted this week’s cover story. On the heals of California’s passage of Proposition 8, and amid the ongoing protests and legal challenges of the gay-marriage ban, Newsweek’s cover story by religion reporter Lisa Miller ran under the headline “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.” Inside, the subhead stated: “Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.”

Miller writes:

“while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else’s —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. “Marriage” in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God’s will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”

Yeah, I’m surprised too. I agree that the Bible says little about homosexuality and that Jesus was not preoccupied with whether loving, monogamous relationships between two men or two women should be permitted. But to say the Bible doesn’t explicitly define marriage as between a man and a woman—I remember some story about Adam and Eve—gives “a number of excellent reasons why” gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry—that is a stretch. And remember, I voted no on Prop. 8.

On his blog, the Rev. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminar, said Newsweek is “turning the Bible on it’s head.” I just got an email from an evangelical group named TheCall that urges Christians to cancel their subscriptions to the magazine. And, yesterday, Politico did a round-up of what conservative Christians leaders thought of coverage:

“It doesn’t surprise me. Newsweek has been so far in the tank on the homosexual issue, for so long, they need scuba gear and breathing apparatus,” said Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “I don’t think it’s going to change the minds of anyone who takes biblical teachings seriously.”

Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council, agreed, calling Newsweek’s cover story “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity.”

“I hardly think that Newsweek is a credible venue for theological discussion,” said Perkins. “I mean, I thought it was just full of holes.”

In a note at the front of the magazine this week, editor Jon Meacham predicted a backlash and struck a preemptively defiant note.

“Religious conservatives will say that the liberal media are once again seeking to impose their values (or their ‘agenda,’ a favorite term to describe the views of those who disagree with you) on a God-fearing nation,” he wrote. “Let the letters and emails come. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion.”

And in an email to Politico, Newsweek managing editor Dan Klaidman invited further responses, writing: “The piece speaks for itself and we welcome the debate.”

27 Comments — Leave your comment

December 8, 2008 | 8:13 pm

Lewis Black: a Muslim, Jew or Indian still couldn’t get elected president

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Lewis Black talks about being able to make jokes when President-elect Barack Obama moves into the White House. Though he’s glad to be getting rid of Bush—that’s obvious—Black is not optimistic about “change.”

“When you are 60, hope has passed you by. ... I think hope is really great, but it’s for kids. It’s a kids drug.”

He’s much tamer here than on Comedy Central, but beware: when he swears, CNSNews.com bleeps him out with chirps you might mistake for your fire alarm.

The reason I’m posting this, though, has to do with Black’s response to Obama being the first African American elected president of the United States. This is great, he says, though it’s sad it took more than two centuries to happen.

“But you still couldn’t elect a Jew; you still couldn’t elect a Muslim; a full-blooded Indian—what, are you kidding me?” Black says.

I know what many people think of entertainers who pop off about politics, but Black has a point here. At least for now. I mean, just look at the hysteria caused by suspicions Obama was a Muslim. And Rep. Eric Cantor, couldn’t even get the VP nod.

Bobby Jindal, though—he just might prove Black wrong.

4 Comments — Leave your comment

December 8, 2008 | 3:51 pm

‘Praise God and pass the bailout’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

That’s auto industry bailout. And this story, courtesy of Reuters and via Holy Weblog!, is about a Detroit church parking SUVs at the altar and praying for a bailout of the Big Three:

“We have never seen as midnight an hour as we face this week,” the Rev. Charles Ellis told several thousand congregants at a rousing service at Detroit’s Greater Grace Temple. “This week, lives are hanging above an abyss of uncertainty as both houses of Congress decide whether to extend a helping hand.”

Local car dealerships donated three hybrid SUVs to be displayed during the service, one from each of the Big Three. A Ford Escape, Chevy Tahoe from GM and a Chrysler Aspen were parked just in front of the choir and behind the pulpit.

Ellis said he and other Detroit ministers would pray and fast until Congress voted on a bailout for Detroit’s embattled automakers. He urged his congregation to do the same.

Other Detroit-area religious leaders—including Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders convened by Cardinal Adam Maida—have urged Congress to approve an auto aid package.

But the service dedicated to saving Motown’s signature industry at Greater Grace Temple was the highest profile effort to mobilize support yet.

“Everybody can’t live on Wall Street. Everybody can’t live on Main Street. But all of us have lived on the side street, the working class,” Ellis said. “I call it the working class because everything tells me there is no more middle class.”

Key Democratic lawmakers and the Bush administration were locked in negotiations over the weekend aimed at offering at least $15 billion in short-term loans to keep General Motors Corp (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Chrysler LLC from immediate bankruptcy.

Automakers and their political allies contend a collapse by the industry would cost up to 3 million jobs as suppliers, dealers and companies in related industries were hit in turn.

Representing the 150,000 unionized workers at GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co (F.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), UAW Vice President General Holiefield said the industry had made its case for emergency funding as strongly as it could.

“We have done all we can do in this union, so I’m going to turn it over to the Lord,” Holiefield told the congregation.

Ellis said he started to organize the service last week after hearing from auto workers, retirees and their widows who were all fearful of even harder times.

At one point, Ellis summoned up hundreds of auto workers and retirees in the congregation to come forward toward the vehicles on the altar to be anointed with oil.

“It’s all about hope. You can’t dictate how people will think, how they will respond, how they will vote,” Ellis said after the service. “But you can look to God. We believe he can change the minds and hearts of men and women in power, and that’s what we tried to do today.”

Reminds me of this story, about a group of people who flew from across the country to pray outside Hollywood United Methodist when gas prices got really bad 30 months ago; one woman even drove in from Corona—100 miles roundtrip. Other groups continued these public prayers for cheaper fuel this summer.

“People seek - what is the word I’m looking for? - relief in many ways,” said Jeff Spring, a spokesman for the Automobile Club of Southern California. “We would recommend they continue to try to cut their use of gas to try to lower the prices. Reduced demand will lower their prices.”

What about asking for help from above?

“I’ll leave that question up to the theologians,” Spring said.

God should not be expected to step in for American automakers own mistakes. Yes, in times of need we should turn to God for help. But we also need to take responsibility for our own actions. I’m still not sure how I feel about an auto bailout, but I certainly don’t want Congress to be obliged to pass it because people prayed so.

Of even more concern, though, the pastor’s introduction of a new street—not Wall or Main but “side”—in that beat-to-death analogy.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

December 8, 2008 | 2:51 pm

L.A. Episcopal bishop blesses same-sex union blessing

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Episcopal priests have blessed same-sex unions for years. But Friday the bishop of the Los Angeles diocese, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, said officiating such unions is official church policy. From the LA Times:

Bruno’s declaration is not expected to have a major effect on Episcopal churches in Southern California. Many have been blessing gay unions for years. But he has now made it official.

“The practice has not changed. The policy has. . . . It’s sort of like ‘coming out,’ ” said the Rev. Susan Russell, a lesbian priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. Russell also is president of Integrity USA, a group representing the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the Episcopal Church.

The rite endorsed by Bruno also allows the blessing of other relationships, such as those between two senior citizens who do not wish to legally marry because they might lose health insurance or Social Security benefits.

Church officials also noted that, unlike communion, the rite is not mandatory. Clergy may choose not to perform it.

Diocese representatives also passed a resolution at their convention calling on the Episcopal Church to let gays and lesbians become bishops.

The L.A. diocese is expected to elect two suffragan, or assisting, bishops in 2010, and some say it is possible a gay or lesbian bishop could be nominated from among qualified candidates around the world

I can’t help but think this has something to do with last week’s announcement that conservatives were finally breaking from the Episcopal Church over the denomination’s liberal treatment of homosexuality.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

December 8, 2008 | 2:10 pm

Ew! Muslim cleric gets Jew cooties

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

From Ha’aretz, via Bloggish:

Several opposition newspapers and lawmakers in Egypt called on the country’s top Islamic cleric to resign Saturday for shaking the Israeli president’s hand at a conference.

Al-Osboa newspaper said in an editorial Saturday that Peres’ hands were tainted with the blood of thousands of Palestinians who have lost their homes in Israel.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

December 8, 2008 | 3:31 am

Saudis told they can build a mosque in Moscow if Russians get a church in Saudi Arabia

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Moscow has some 2 million Muslims but only four mosques. Possibly in response, the king of Saudi Arabia wants to support a new mosque in the heart of Russia. That’s fine, the Russians said, but only if they can build an Orthodox Church in the Muslim holy land. Fat chance.

These two proposals have sparked an often intriguing discussion by Russia’s Muslims and Christians over the role religion plays in defining the two societies and about the role of law in regulating that, a discussion that could either enrich or complicate the Kremlin’s relations with Muslims inside Russia and Muslim states abroad it is currently trying to court.

Julia Duin of the Washington Times writes:

As we all know, the Saudis have a habit of constructing mosques in dozens of world capitals while forbidding houses of worship for any religion whatsoever outside its Wahabist brand of Islam. They’ve gotten some bad PR locally for some of the hate language in textbooks at the Saudi Academy in northern Virginia. Not only are hapless Christians terrorized and jailed for daring to hold private prayer services in Saudi Arabia, but God help them should they try to convert someone to their religion. And that’s for a fellow People of the Book: One can only guess at what the treatment of Buddhists and Hindus must be like.

Wouldn’t it be so ironic if the Russians were the first Christian body to win acceptance of the right to build a church in, say, Riyadh? (Some of the Russians are calling for a church in Mecca, but the chances of any other religion getting a foothold within walking distance of the world center of Islam is less than zero.) Of course we all know the Saudis aren’t about ready to let Bibles or other religious literature, let alone a church, anywhere near their homeland, but all the same, it’s amusing to see the Russians give the Saudis a taste of their own medicine.

4 Comments — Leave your comment

December 7, 2008 | 4:44 pm

Another book critical of Islam inflames tensions

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Seems like there is a story every other week about Muslims who are really, really angry—sometimes violently angry—about a cartoon or film or book that is critical of Islam or the Prophet Muhammad. The latest installment, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, via the Holy Weblog, is Lars Hedegaard’s book Groft Sagt, or “Rough Talk”:

It is a collection of about 100 of his favorite newspaper columns from a Copenhagen daily. Many of the columns are critical of Islam. In addition, the book features 26 new illustrations from Kurt Westergaard, whose drawings of the Prophet Mohammed in the newspaper Jyllands Posten in 2005 sparked a wave of violent protests.

An Israeli security center is sounding the alarm about calls for a violent backlash after noticing a series of incendiary posts on jihadist web sites. According to an International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) release, someone identifying himself as Abu Salem posted comments about Hedegaard’s book on a website called Hanein, “a mouthpiece for Al-Qaeda and other jihad organizations”:

“Abu Salem requests that all who love the Prophet Muhammad help spread the news of the upcoming publication and notify religious leaders of what ‘these pigs’ are attempting to do. One forum visitor responded to the post, suggesting that Bin Laden attack Copenhagen, repeating the call: ‘Bin Laden, Copenhagen!’ several times. Another forum visitor wrote: ‘Our blood… our souls… our children… our money… all that we have… the entire world… anything so that a single hair of your distinguished head [i.e. Muhammad] is not harmed.’”

0 Comments — Leave your comment

December 5, 2008 | 2:58 pm

LA Times op-ed: Extending marriage to gays doesn’t go far enough

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

One of the core arguments social conservatives employ in opposing same-sex marriage is that it would set a dangerous precedent—pushing the institution of marriage down a slippery slope toward state-sanctioned bestiality. I’ve thought this rationale to be vacuous.

But an op-ed in the LA Times ought to stoke the coals. Robert Epstein, a visiting scholar at UC San Diego who thinks gays have been fighting too narrow a battle, writes:

If anything, I think that same-sex marriage is a shortsighted idea that doesn’t go far enough.

Most Americans insist that they want the word “marriage” to continue to mean a long-term, opposite-sex union, as it has in the Judeo-Christian world for nearly two millenniums. To put this issue into better perspective, imagine that English were more like German and that the word marriage had a lot more syllables: longtermoppositesexunion. Should same-sex couples wed under that label? I say no—and that gay activists have been fighting the wrong battle.

The real challenge is to have the state begin to recognize the full range of healthy, non-exploitative, romantic partnerships that actually exist among human beings. Gays are correct in expressing outrage over the fact that official recognition, the power to make health decisions, inheritance rights and tax benefits, have long been granted to only one kind of committed partnership in the United States. But wanting their own committed relationships to be shoe-horned into an old institution makes little sense, especially given the poor, almost pathetic performance of that institution in recent decades. Half of first marriages fail in the U.S., after all, as do nearly two-thirds of second marriages. Is that really a club you want to join?

Even if marriage were redefined to accommodate same-sex couples in California, would any real benefits ensue? The state’s current domestic partnership law—wait, I mean its longtermsamesexunion law—does everything a state can do for a romantic same-sex couple, creating complete parity between gay and straight couples. Gay “marriage” adds nothing except the label, still leaving those all-important federal rights—accelerated immigration rights, Social Security and federal tax benefits, veterans benefits and many others—completely inaccessible.

Let’s fight a larger battle, namely to have government catch up to human behavior. That means recognizing the legitimacy of a wide range of consensual, non-exploitative romantic partnerships, each of which should probably have its own distinct label.

Read the rest here. Comment below.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

December 5, 2008 | 1:08 am

Congress to get even more Jewish

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

As expected, the new U.S. Congress will have more Jewish members than ever before.

After seeing a record number elected to Congress in 2006, the Jewish community sent an additional two politicians to the Capitol Building. The number in the Senate remains at 13 while the House’s Yiddishkayt will grow by two when the new Congress is sworn in.

JTA does the roll call.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

December 3, 2008 | 9:57 pm

Conservatives to split from Episcopal church

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s finally happening: Conservatives in the Episcopal Church are starting their own denomination.

The impetus, as you well know, is the acceptance of homosexuality by the U.S. arm of the Anglican Church. This schism as been building for years—in fact, you could say the schism has existed for years, even between brothers—but it’s about to become official.

Laurie Goodstein at The New York Times has the story:

Conservatives disaffected from the Episcopal Church are expected to declare on Wednesday that they are founding their own rival Anglican province in North America, the biggest challenge yet to the authority of the church in a five-year battle over the ordination of an openly gay bishop.

The move threatens the fragile unity of the Anglican Communion, the world’s third largest Christian body, made up of 38 provinces around the world that trace their roots to the Church of England and its leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is the first effort to create a province defined by theological orientation, not by geography.

The schism would create two competing provinces on the same soil, each claiming the mantle of historical Anglican Christianity. The conservative group plans to unveil a constitution and canons for its new province in an event at a large evangelical church here in Wheaton, which is outside of Chicago, on Wednesday evening.

“We’re going through Reformation times, and in Reformation times things aren’t neat and clean,” said Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, who is expected to be declared the head of the new province. “In Reformation times, new structures are emerging.”

In October, Bishop Duncan led his diocese out of the Episcopal Church.

The proposed new province will have about 100,000 members and take in four Episcopal dioceses and dozens of parishes in the United States and Canada that recently voted to leave the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

They claim those churches have broken with traditional Christianity in many ways, but the development that precipitated their departure was the decision to ordain an openly gay bishop and to bless gay unions.

Besides Pittsburgh, those dioceses are Fort Worth, Tex., Quincy, Ill., and San Joaquin, in the Central Valley of California — representing four of about 100 dioceses in the Episcopal Church. However, not all the parishes and Episcopalians in those four dioceses agreed to leave the Episcopal Church.

The new province in North America would also absorb a handful of other splinter groups that had abandoned the Episcopal Church decades earlier over such issues as the ordination of women, or revisions to the Book of Common Prayer. One of the groups, the Reformed Episcopal Church, broke away from the forerunner of the Episcopal Church in 1873.

Conservative leaders in North American say they expect to be granted approval for their new province from at least seven like-minded primates, who lead provinces in the Communion’s Southern hemisphere — in Africa, Australia, Latin America and Asia.

These are the same primates who met in Jerusalem over the summer at the “Global Anglican Future Conference” and signed a declaration heralding a new era for the Anglican Communion. Most of these primates boycotted the Lambeth Conference a few weeks later, the international gathering of Anglican bishops in England held once every 10 years, which is considered one of the “instruments of unity” in the Anglican Communion.

Bishop Duncan and other conservative leaders in North America say they may not seek approval for their new province from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, or from the Anglican Consultative Council, the leadership group of bishops, clergy and laity in the Communion that until now was largely responsible for blessing new jurisdictions.

Bishop Martyn Minns, a leading figure in the formation of the new province, said of the Archbishop of Canterbury: “It’s desirable that he get behind this. It’s something that would bring a little more coherence to the life of the Communion. But if he doesn’t, so be it.”

Read the rest of Goodstein’s story here.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

December 3, 2008 | 4:59 pm

More legal trouble for Tony Alamo

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Tony Alamo—you know, that odd Christian minister whose compound was raided back in September—is now facing eight more sex charges in his criminal case. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports:

An indictment unsealed Tuesday accuses evangelist Tony Alamo of eight more counts of transporting underage girls across state lines for sexual purposes over the past 14 years, including at least one violation that occurred while Alamo was completing a prison sentence at a halfway house in Texarkana.

The original indictment against the 74-year-old leader of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries, a multistate ministry with headquarters in southwest Arkansas, accused him of transporting a girl across state lines in 2004 and 2005. The new charges, contained in a superseding indictment handed up by a grand jury Nov. 19, add eight counts involving four more girls from 1994 through 2005.

A court clerk entered a note in the court record last week disclosing that the new indictment had been handed up, but it remained under seal until Tuesday, when U. S. Magistrate Judge Barry Bryant entered an order accepting Alamo’s plea of innocent to the charges. Alamo entered the plea through his attorney, John Wesley Hall Jr. of Little Rock, in a court filing last week.

On Tuesday, Hall said the charges are “more of the same stuff, and we’ll defend it the same way.” “It’s all just the same kind of stuff put out by the anti-Alamo groups,” Hall said.

1 Comments — Leave your comment