Today’s Topic: A Meeting of the Minds
Below I include a message I sent to Pastor Glenn Boyd, of one of the smaller but influential evangelical megachurches of note. This message was in response to an article in the New York Times, "Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock" by Laurie Goldstein, 30 July 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?ex=1154836800&;en=66058ca4043af345&ei=5087%0A).
I include this on my blog simply because it shows that not all evangelical Pastors are bent on supporting the far right’s side in politics, and I believe the same regardless of one's religious affiliations and political proclivities.
Directly after my message I include his response. One can then make the judgement about this man and his views on whether the Church as an entity has a place in playing politics.
Dear Pastor Boyd,
I'm writing, not as some leftist reactionary, but as someone who's own
pastor married both my sisters and my wife and I during his tenure at the
Herndon Methodist Church in Virginia (in other words, a generation of being
our pastor).
What I'm saying is that I appreciate your stance on distancing your
congregation from the ills of others whom would have their flock wear their
faith on their shirtsleeves, and would pretend that somehow the use of the
evangelical pulpit amounts to some higher level of moral turpitude than
others (particularly if they have the audacity to NAME those "others"). I
agree wholeheartedly that religion has no place in politics, although I
admit that politicians have whatever level of religious bearing as they
might have, and as such abide by their own faith in their decisions. I also
agree that this nation is not a Christian nation, but a nation composed of
all faiths, and as such our religious organizations should refrain from
allowing individual levels of activism from becoming the mission of the
church, including those whom wield the power falsely leading a congregation
into such avenues.
For instance, I am not for abortion. But I do recognize that abortion is a
moral choice for everyone as the laws stand today, and for any person or
organization to try to infringe on one person's legal rights is infringing
on all people's rights. If the question is truly a moral one, and it is,
then it should be a moral decision for each and every person if the need
might arise for that person to consider. The "people" don't make moral
decisions. Only the person affected can make the decision. Morality
doesn't come at the hands of a committee, nor the scope of a vote by a
congregation that is large enough to become a voting block. Since abortion
IS a part of the law of the land, it simply is a law, not an avenue for sin.
Certainly my moral choices should remain my own, for if not, if I am not
allowed the ability to make my own moral choices, then I cannot be a good
Christian for I have not faced those moral dilemmas which make good people
good Christians.
The same goes for political affiliations and such. If a congregation has
such power over it's individuals as to take away their ability to make their
own decisions on avenues as personal as a vote for a person for President,
particularly by making proclamations of moral certainty as to the character
of a man, then the process of voting and the rights of being an American are
negated. One person, one vote. It's not one congregation, 5000 votes, and
because of this I was very glad to read this article in the New York Times.
Sorry, I'm not trying to preach, but to show you that I am appreciative of
your efforts to get your congregation back on the track. And that track
just might be helping those who would choose not to have an abortion by
giving them a non-governmental body that would appropriately take care of
those given up for adoption, for obviously the system in place involving
governmental bodies has not fulfilled the requirements.
Obviously there are numerous passages in the bible that one could use to
argue for either side of any particular circumstance, hence I don't use such
ploys.
I will say this. Jesus held no truck for power, but neither did he attempt
to bring about the end of said power. His one act of violence, largely I
believe out of frustration from the foreknowledge of his fate, was more to
illustrate that the use of his father's temple for profit was far more
dangerous to mankind's evolvement into a true representation of
fraternalhood. He cared not whether Rome ruled through might and took major
steps to show himself quite the opposite with his teachings of love and
caring for others less fortunate.
Unfortunately I don't see much of this set of ideas amongst the preaching
of today's evangelicals. To be Christian does not mean to be a voting
block, and as soon any congregation begins believing that their numbers work
for particular actions in the political arena they lose sight of what
Christ's teachings were all about.
Remember, the Founding Fathers were mostly DEIST. And Christ was a Jew, not
a Christian. Probably Mary Magdalene was the first true Christian.
Sorry to waste your time as I'm certain you will be receiving all types of
emails after this article. And normally I wouldn't talk about religion one
way or the other. But when a man stands up for Faith and shucks the
trappings of congregational power ploys, I have to offer my applause. So
think of this email as the silence of one man clapping.
It's pretty hard to be brave today. And the line between organized religion
and Faith has become too blurred to differentiate any longer. What a shame.
Roger W. Norman
___________________________________________________
Hi Roger,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful feedback. We are DEFINITELY on the
same page. I'm receiving thousands of similar e-mails from people all
over the world. People all over the place are tired of the fusion of the
cross and the sword that has been taking place in American religion. I'm
happy to play a small role in helping people see a beautiful
alternative.
If you want to go further with this, you might enjoy Myth of a Christian
Nation.
In any case, thanks for your very encouraging words.
Greg Boyd
Ok, while this may be a little self-serving in that I obviously got a reply that I knew going in would probably be in line with my thoughts, and perhaps a little on the good Pastor’s part because he got a plug in, the point is that there are people of faith AND good conscience and they actually preach what they believe and refuse to preach or accept mandates for those things which they do not believe.
And the real point of the discussion is the failure of the Christian ethos to stand up for itself in the light of faith rather than succumbing to the ploys of power that so mark evangelical Christians as Bush’s base (again I have to say that it is strange that Al Qaeda means "the base" and Bush constantly refers to his own "base").
To me it is far easier to trust to your own ideas of faith and keep them to yourself as a bond between yourself and whatever you believe. That way, whatever you do during the day is influenced by your own faith, but your actions are those of one who understands the necessities of the day aren’t always consistent with that faith. My example in the email was that of the decrying of abortion as a movement of faith, when in fact it is the attempt to enforce one people’s faith on another. This goes against any of the tenants taught by Jesus, and it puts some serious strain on what I know about personal faith and how the Constitution works to apply the rule of law equally to everyone.
Again I was impressed with Pastor Boyd’s personal fortitude in holding against any of his congregation using his church for their own agenda. In the case of abortion and the Constitution, a church or group of churches shouldn’t be able to move an entire country away from providing rights to all the citizens. The obvious thing is that if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t have one if the circumstance comes up.
The other avenue is that, as Dennis Miller has said more than once, if you have a penis, you don't get a vote.
10:42:30 AM 
|
|
