Test jesus under plastic

On Sunday (28 Sep 08), a small group of thirty-two pastors set up a bait for the federal government.  They used their Sunday sermon to specifically endorse Barack Obama or John McCain for the Presidency, in violation of 1954 IRS tax code that prohibits non profit, tax exempt from intervening on behalf of any political candidate.  Their goal is to bring attention to the issue of first amendment speech being curtailed by the Internal Revenue Service.  Critics say that they are seeking to erode church-state seperation for a chance at political power.

This is a confusing issue and I'm unsure on where I land.  Convincing arguments are made by both sides.  I don't follow Rev. Barry Lynn's (American's United for the Separation of Church and State) cynical prophecy that the "religious right is trying to forge America's houses of worship into a partisan political machine."  That's loaded language that carries more political content itself than concerned dialogue.  And I think it's answered successfully by Erik Stanley (Alliance Defense Fund), when he reminds that churches on a wide spectrum of "right" or "left" were encouraged to participate.

Church historian Martin Marty writes a column in opposition, but I don't find his argument—intentionally breaking the law isn't Christian—at all convincing.  There goes churches illegally helping free slaves in the South and every other counter-culture moral move made by churches in resistance to the law on the books. I'm honestly disappointed by how weak his argument appears to me.

Maybe the best argument against is the same for general separation of church and state:  a slide towards political power for churches has historically, fromt the Constantinian captivity on, been bad for the faith of the churches.  And in a pluralistic society, comprise in governing is required (and I don't think detrimental to the an inherrently non-power, relational, counter-cultural gospel).

Some Georgetown academics talk throught the possible legal ramifications of the move.

But at the end of the day, I think I find the Alliance Defense Fund's arguments against the 1954 Johnson amendment have some merit.  I won't see eye-to-eye with them on abortion and homosexuality being the key moral issues for Christians.  But do we want the IRS dictating pastor's speech?  The current division allows them to speak on "issues" but not candidates.  I think this is an artificial separation, and rosier than it sounds.  It also allows them to say anything they want once they exit the building... as private citizens.  But theologically I'm not a fan of such a private/professional split.  Not the mention the sacred/secular implications.

At I write... I think I'm arriving at a conclusion.  I support their effort and would support a change in the law, with one provision:  if we could find language to partially ensure that pastors would be speaking on their own accord, and not paid or compensated to do so by political campaigns.

"One purpose of this chapter is to situate today's Christian theologian by calling attention to the church's global context and to remind us that no language or culture has a monopoloy on God, the gospel, or theology.  This is an important and timely prophetic blast against the monstrous regiment of systematic theologians, in whose company I count myself.

It is undeniable that the church has entered a new era.  ... The reign of the sovereign knowing subject, and of universal method, is coming to an end. ...  But does it necessarily follow that systematicians must go the way of the Elves, whose time had ended, setting sail (appropriately enough!) toward the West?"

Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer, writing in typical Smile: It's Theology! form. His chapter is in Globalizing Theology, co-editied by one of my current professors, Dr. Craig Ott.

Communication theorist Walter Ong speaks about communication ages: orality (pre-literate), literate, and secondary orality (age of radio, TV, etc). It seems appropriate, with the debate (likely?) coming tonight, to note some of his thoughts on presidential debates:

"The contrast between orality in the past and in today's world well highlights the contrast between primary and secondary orality. Radio and television have brought major political figures as public speakers to a larger public than was ever possible before modern electronic developments.
…
The old style oratory…is gone forever. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, the combatants--for that is what they clearly and truly were--face one another often in the scorching Illinois summer sun outdoors before wildly responsive audiences of as many as 12,000 or 15,000 persons…The debaters were horse and physically exhausted at the end of each bout.

Presidential debates on television today are completely out of this older world. The audience is absent, invisible, and inaudible. The candidates are ensconced in tight little booths, make short preparations, and engage in crisp little converstations with each other in which any agonistic edge is deliberately kept dull.
…
Candidates accommodate themselves to the psychology of the media. Genteel, literate domesticity is rampant. Only quite elderly persons today can remember what oratory was like when it was still in living contact with its primary oral roots."

Walter Ong is most famous for his book Orality and Literacy.

This past week has accelerated me to the absolute top speed I have. I could tell sitting in certain classes that my brain was over-CPU crunched and starving for extra cycles. Last I night I had to leave Romans early just so I could recover enough to do three hours in Contextualization this morning. My reading list is ruling my life!

Meanwhile, this weekend I'll be traveling for GCM down to central Illinois to help at I-Life's Fall Retreat--leading two training sessions on mentor discipleship and leading the weekend-closing session including communion. I look forward to seeing old and new friends, talking about topics I'm excited about, and getting away from the books for a few days.

And should I get one of these??

Downside: camera is reportedly taking as long as 10 seconds to take a picture!  And it doesn't have Microsoft Exchange push, but I don't care.  It DOES have a few feature the iPhone doesn't, including gMail push, an amazing new "compass" mode for Google Maps Street View (you just move the phone to "look around"), and the thing that's kept me from jumping to Apple:  a full QWERTY keyboard!

ps - I realize I can't "get" a Google Android.  The open-source operating system will show up on multiple phones in the next year, T-Mobile's G1 being just the first new example.  And I agree with Don Reisinger--there's no reason not to expect Google to do well, even in the face of the iPhone.

Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 CE) writing a letter to Abbot Mellitus, speaking of the missionary work of Augustine of Canterbury:

After mature deliberation on the condition of the English, [I have] decided upon, namely, that the temples of the idols in that nation should not be destroyed but the idols which are in them should be destroyed. Let holy water be prepared and sprinkled in said temples; then let altars be erected and relics set in place. For if those temples are well built, it is right that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God, that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed may abandon the error in their hearts and know and adore the true God, while still resorting familiarly to the places to which they are accustomed.

And since they have been used to slaughtering many oxen in sacrifices to devils; some solemnity should be substituted for that On the day of dedication, for example, or on the nativities of the holy martyrs whose relics are there deposited,[6] they may build them selves huts of branches of trees around the churches which have been converted to Christian use out of temples, and celebrate the solemnity with religious feasting, offering no more beasts to the devil but killing cattle for eating to the praise of God and returning thanks for their food to the Giver of all things, to the end that while some outward pleasures are permitted them they may more readily accept the inward consolations of the grace of God.

 Comments:

• Interesting example in the history of theology (more missiology) and culture.
• Assumes English native religion is of Satan
• But is remarkably accomodating to allowing the architecture and sacrifice practices to remain, but "re-purposed" toward a Christian worldview.
• Issue:  can existing systems of meaning be changed?

This has me laughing so hard I was tearing up. Can't believe how well Tina Fey picked up Sarah Palin. Gotta wonder if anyone on the current cast could have done as well. Still, I think SNL's got some juice to it. Plus, I love nerdy political humor.

James F. White has a great short historical summary of Christian worship practice (A Brief History of Christian Worship).  Speaking of the Reformation period, he quotes Luther radically new views saying "the preaching and teaching of God's Word is the most important part of divine service."  Yet White points out,

"This insistence on lessons and sermons is not he pattern of the early Church at all.  Luther probably did not care but other Protestant leaders seriously thought they were restoring primitive practice in making scripture central to a people's office."

North Park University is evacuating two of it's undergraduate dorms that have proximities close the little Chicago river tributary we live on. I've never seen it this high. There are homeless undergrads wandering around all over outside. And it's supposed to keep raining.

We're about as far as you can get from Hurricane Ike right now.  But we're still gettin' hammered with rain that's already been around for 24 hours and supposed to last for another 2 days.  I woke up twice last night to the huge roar of drops forced like a million grains of sand on the window.
The radar is a snapshot at 0930 CST.
Our current radar.