Reweaving the Rainbow

What Does the Bible Teach About Capitalism?

According to Rabbi Spero, the ancient Israelites were ahead of their time in their "ringing endorsement of capitalism as a moral endeavor." And in support of this seemingly anachronistic claim he cites Old Testament passages that praise hard work, prophets profit, and so on.

Of course, the Old Testament also condemns slavery, at least slavery of the children of Israel, and it forbids the mistreatment of strangers "for you [this is addressed to Israelites who formerly were enslaved in Israel] were aliens living in Egypt" (Exodus 22:21).  But the good rabbi does not cite that passage. He also does not cite that passages that prohibit taking "advantage of a widow or orphan" (Exodus 22:22). Or the Psalmist's blessing of the one who "executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free; the LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down; the LORD loves the righteous. The LORD watches over the sojourners, he upholds the widow and the fatherless; but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin" (Psalms 146:5-9).

These seemingly anti-capitalist themes would, of course, later take on particular importance in the teachings of Jesus, who began his ministry by proclaiming that the following prophecy of the ancient Jewish prophet Isaiah had been fulfilled in the ears of those listening:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.

(Luke 4:18-19).

I'm not sure I would call this an endorsement of capitalism, let alone a ringing one. The early Christians, for their part, did not seem to take it that way. Hence the following passage from Acts:

And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.

(Acts 4:33-35). Indeed, this passage may well have been the inspiration for the Jewish political economist Karl Marx's famous dictum, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." 

Which, of course, isn't to say that communism or Acts offers workable economic policies for society as a whole (as opposed to, say, the body of committed believers who make up the church). But it's hard for me to see how the communist ethic of sharing is any further from the Bible's vision of morality and community than the faceless, brutal, ruthless global capitalism of today.

(Image via XaliberDeathlock)

Is Obama at War against Religion?

That's what a number of a conservative Christians argue. And as exhibit A they cite the new HHS regulation requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives, which some religious groups (including the Catholic Church) complain violates God's creative design for sexuality and, hence, their religious liberty.

I sympathize with their complaint. Because I read the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion broadly, I would have exempted not just churches themselves from the contraceptive mandate, as the Obama administration did, but all religious organizations, including religiously-controlled hospitals and universities.

But the fact remains that the government already requires religious organizations and religious people to provide material support for all sorts of causes and actions that they deem to be inconsistent with their faith.

To take an easy example, consider the Amish. As pacifists, they do not support the state's power to kill under any circumstance and therefore reject the legitimacy of both the police and the military. And yet all sorts of laws require the Amish to do everything from report certain crimes to the police (e.g., sexual crimes against children) to pay taxes in support of the police and military.

It's hard to argue those kinds of "Anti-Amish" laws are illegitimate. Analytically, however, there is no difference at all between them and the new Obamacare contraceptive mandate. The only thing that makes them different is that many more people object to the morality of birth control pills than they do state-controlled violence.

But our view of the First Amendment and its scope cannot be based on the popularity of the religious belief at issue. Either it protects all religious groups from all state interference, or it does not. And if not - as almost everyone agrees - then the only question is where the line should be drawn.

I agree that Obama drew the line a little too far to the left in this case. But that hardly makes him at "war" with Catholicism anymore than the vast majority of us who support both the police and state - and who recognize that such support must to some extent be compulsory - are at war with the Amish.

(Image via Gila Brand)

What Does the Religious Left Get Right?

Last week, inspired by Thomas B. Edsall’s series in the NYT, I put forward my take on what the fundamentalists get right. But what about religious liberals? What do they get right?

Here are three suggestions:

1.  Religious liberals see more clearly than conservatives that faith without works is dead (James 2:17). This insight is demonstrated in many ways, but above all in the concern of liberals for the poor, the sick, the dispossesed (including the many of victims of capitalism’s “creative destruction”), and historically marginalized groups such as African Americans, immigrants, women and gays. At the same time, liberals correctly insist that effectively helping these groups will frequently require structural changes to society, including the church.

2. Religious liberals have made peace with science and therefore don’t waste time on the misguided and oftentimes embarrassing efforts of fundamentalists to promote the teaching of creationism in public schools or to deny the challenges modern biblical criticism poses to our faith. Of course, liberals sometimes go to the opposite extreme and mistake whatever the current state of scientific knowledge happens to be for Truth. Consider, for example, that until the Big Bang theory gained acceptance in 1950s and 60s, most scientists denied the universe had a beginning in time, a truth that orthodox Christians had always accepted despite its lack of scientific support.

But the basic attitude of liberals here is correct: Christians have nothing to fear from science. Science, after all, is nothing more than humanity’s attempt to understand the natural world in which we live. And since God created both nature and reason, science can never finally contradict the teachings of our faith. It may seem to do so for a while, but sooner or later we will find either (1) that the science was wrong or incomplete (as with the Big Bang) or (2) that somewhere along the way our theology went off track (cf. Matthew 15:9: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”).

3. Religious liberals take a much more sensible approach to such vexing questions as whether other religions contain truth or their adherents can/will go to heaven. Here we must tread carefully, but, at their best, liberals remind us that the gospel is not the (very bad!) news that God has completely ignored everyone in history except the chosen few Jews and then Gentiles who were lucky enough to have heard of Christ.  

On the contrary, the gospel is the incredibly surprising and yet wonderful news that the One whom all people in all times have been seeking and feeling after (Acts 17:27) - the God whom we had at our best always been worshipping, in some way or another, though without full understanding (John 4:22) - has now revealed himself to us in the fullest, most definitive of ways possible here on earth: (1) by actually becoming one of us, living with us as a flesh-and-blood human being, teaching us what it means to love, and then showing us by dying at our own hands, yet forgiving us and then rising again, and (2) by sending his Holy Spirit to live within us so that all that's broken about us and our communities can be fixed and our communion with God and one another restored.

(Image of Joey Velasco's "Hapag ng Pag-Asa" via Resty S. Odon)

Has the Promise of Political Power Led Christians to Make a Pact with the Devil?

That's not quite what David Nef argues in Christianity Today, but close:

The 150 evangelical leaders who met behind closed doors on January 14 to anoint a Republican candidate for President were wise not to have invited me.

I believe that Christians have an urgent duty to engage the social, economic, and moral threats to a healthy society. That requires a wide variety of political action. However, one thing it doesn't call for is playing kingmaker and powerbroker.

By conspiring to throw their weight behind a single evangelical-friendly candidate, they fed the widespread perception that evangelicalism's main identifying feature is right-wing political activism focused on abortion and homosexuality.

I sympathize with Nef's view, but I think he misidentifies the issue. The problem is not that Christians - evangelical or otherwise - are attempting to discern collectively whether certain candidates for public office deserve our support over others. The problem is the inherently unchristian theology that is informing the politics of so many on the Right.

Remember John McCain's campaign slogan in 2008, "Country First"? Think about that for a moment. Think about it literally. And then ask yourself why almost no one on the Right even questioned whether putting one's country first might not actually be a form of idolatry.

Which is not, of course, to say it's somehow wrong to love America. It isn't. But America is not God. It's not the church either. And it was to the church that our Lord entrusted his mission of proclaiming the good news, teaching his commandments, and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When Christians forget that - when we let ourselves be lulled into thinking of America or, even worse, some political movement as our first love - we succumb to the same satanic temptation the gospels say Christ resisted:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

(Matt. 4:8-7; NIV).

Are Gays More Likely to Have Psychological Problems?

 

Stanton L. Jones - a psychology professor at evangelical Wheaton College - cites scientific studies concluding that we are. He notes that gay activists blame the social stigma associated with homosexuality for this correlation, but counters:

The correlation between social stigma and psychological problem is real, but the empirical case for the first causing the second has yet to be made. This has not stopped advocates, however, from battling alleged stigma by increasingly framing all “anti-gay sentiment” as a form of prejudice.

The professor's description of anti-gay stigma as an "alleged" phenomenon is a nice touch, particularly since Jones' own stated goal is to oppose "those relentlessly advancing the full acceptance and normalization of homosexuality." It's almost enough to make you start quoting Bible verses about how the Devil is the father of all lies and those who lie are his children.

But I will restrain myself and put it gently: If, as Jones claims, there are large swaths of society that still view homosexuality as abnormal and that continue to not accept - and hence reject - those of us who are gay, then the claim that gays are stigmatized would seem to be something more than a mere allegation, no? Something more like, well ... a fact?

Similarly, Jones may be right when he says scientists have yet to prove that social stigma causes psychological distress. (Indeed, one wonders what sort of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study could prove that link without causing actual harm to the subjects of the study.) But most thinking, feeling people do not need permission from scientists to conclude, for example, that schoolyard bullying of a child because of his perceived sexual orientation is likely to hurt the child's feelings, induce feelings of worthlessness, and perhaps even cause some combination of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal ideation. And if that same child comes home from school and finds that his parents have rejected him for the same reason, most of us can perceive - without the benefit of a doctorate in psychology - that his psychological distress will likely be magnified.

But don't take my word for it. Just ask Eric James Borges, the gay 19 year-old who talks in the video above about how his name growing up was "faggot" and how his parents rejected him for being "disgusting" when he came out to them. One thing, though. You'll have to wait until you get to heaven because last week he committed suicide.

Are You One of the 53%?

You are if you pay federal income taxes. And if you haven't seen the tumblr devoted to the conservatives among us, check it out. It features dozens of photos of what appear to be decent people holding handwritten notes talking about how they work hard and haven't been handed anything and yet are somehow managing to get by, so everyone who isn't should just shut the fuck up and get a job. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has just revealed he paid an effective federal tax rate of just 15% in 2011. Well, here's what I think of that:

'For God So Loved the 1 Percent...'?

That's the title of an op-ed in the New York Times by Kevin M. Kruse examining this remarkable claim made by Mitt Romney:

When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus 1 percent, you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.

Sadly, the political analysis of Romney - whose sprawling Massachusetts mansion is pictured to the right - is probably correct. Most Americans continue to speak of their personal wealth as a blessing, which implies it is something that God gave them. But when it comes to taxing that wealth, you'd never know it. Then, suddenly, people start to act an awful lot like they believe they are entitled to keep every cent. Why? Because, well, because they worked hard for it, dammit. But that only raises another question: Why go to the trouble of thanking God for something you really believe you deserve?

One possibility is that you're thanking God not so much for what you have, but for all the thousands and thousands of things outside your control that have contributed to where you are today. You might be thanking him, for example, that your parents raised you to have the values it takes to succeed. Or that you had the benefit of attending good schools, which, in turn, allowed you to enter the profession of your choice. Or that you recently managed to win an important client that will help your business thrive. Or that you happen to live in 21st century America rather than, say, 14th century Europe, a time and place when, statistically-speaking, you probably would have been a serf with few rights or prospects (not to mention the fact you would have had a one in three chance of dying from the Black Plague).

And so you thank God. You thank God because you realize that your hard work only tells half (and probably less than half) of the story of your success. And the natural reaction to that realization is gratitude. Gratitude that the Lord your God has given you - and continues to give to you every day - life and comfort and joy.

Which, of course, brings us back to the subject of taxes. And the question of how much of what the fantastically wealthy 1 percent "earn" should be contributed to feeding the poor, taking care of the aged and infirm, and building aircraft carriers so that oil continues to ship freely through the Strait of Hormuz. I doubt there's a single right answer to that question. But it strikes me as exactly the sort of thing a nation that has put itself "under God" should ask itself from time to time.

Will Gay Marriage Lead to Man and Goat Saying, 'I do'?

That's the fear of Rick Santorum and other traditionalists. It's enough to give even the most libertarian of us paws (sorry the pun). But it was Ellen Degeneris who first drew our attention to the unique practical challenges posed by inter-species marriage:

 

 

What Do Fundamentalists Get Right?

The New York Times’ Thomas Edsall has an interesting piece about what liberal activists and academics say conservatives get right. What’s remarkable is just how familiar it all sounds. I live in Washington, D.C., where almost everyone self-identifies as liberal. And yet I can’t count how many times I’ve heard my friends confess - often in hushed tones - how they wouldn’t mind if the left did more to emphasize individual responsibility, acknowledge the social importance of good parenting, or use policy to promote the “institutions and traditions that provide our moral exoskeletons (such as the family).” Actually, not even my friends, smart as they are, use the term "exoskeleton" in polite conversation. But that's one thing Jonathan Haidt, a liberal professor of psychology at UVA, is quoted as saying conservatives get right.

All of which led me to wonder what it is about fundamentalist Christianity that those of us on the so-called left side of the protestant-evangelical-catholic-orthodox spectrum of Christianity would praise. Here are my suggestions:

• Their reverance of the Bible as the living, breathing Word of God that speaks to us directly and intimately, so much so that Moses, Ruth and the woman at the well come to feel more like friends, family members and neighbors than characters in an ancient text.

• Their willingness to ask basic, pressing questions of everyday life, such as how the hell can I learn to put up with my asshole/bitch boss (though typically, of course, they do so without using profanity).

• Their gumption in calling sin, sin, and good, good, and evil, evil (even if I don't always agree with their conclusions regarding the same). All too often liberal and moderate Christians come across as timid, even neutered creatures who lack the courage of our convictions. I'll never forget the moment I realized this, when, as a teacher's assistant at Duke Divinity School, I was reading a paper about a film that featured a flawed hero who had murdered a man after discovering he'd had an affair with his wife. The murder was, the paper noted dryly, an act of which "many of us would not approve."  Indeed!

• Their awareness that Jesus did not just come to save “the poor,” if by that we mean those who are different from or have less money than we, but every single one of us, including those of us who are materially well off and about whom Jesus said: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matt. 10:24-25). In contrast, liberal congregations tend to take it for granted that their central mission is to the “less fortunate,” an entirely secular phraseology that almost always means people other than those in attendance and that in practice turns Jesus’ beatitudes on their head (“Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.” (Luke 6:20-21; KJV)).

• The way they take church seriously, if not always in their ecclesiology, then certainly in their actual practices, such as lingering in the sanctuary after Sunday worship to catch up with one another, sharing their weekly ups and downs in Sunday school, and eating supper together on Wednesday nights (at least in the wonderful Southern Baptist I grew up in).

• Their continuing use of the King James Version of the Bible, the Bible I grew up reading and memorizing in the 1980s and 90s and which even the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens praised thus:

Though I am sometimes reluctant to admit it, there really is something “timeless” in the Tyndale/King James synthesis. For generations, it provided a common stock of references and allusions, rivaled only by Shakespeare in this respect. It resounded in the minds and memories of literate people, as well as of those who acquired it only by listening. From the stricken beach of Dunkirk in 1940, faced with a devil’s choice between annihilation and surrender, a British officer sent a cable back home. It contained the three words “but if not … ” All of those who received it were at once aware of what it signified. In the Book of Daniel, the Babylonian tyrant Nebuchadnezzar tells the three Jewish heretics Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego that if they refuse to bow to his sacred idol they will be flung into a “burning fiery furnace.” They made him an answer: “If it be so, our god whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thy hand, o King. / But if not, be it known unto thee, o king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”

Was the World the Slaves Made Christian?

This excerpt from Eugene Genovese’s Roll, Jordan, Roll sheds some light on this complicated question:

In Wilkinson County, Mississippi, an old slave gravedigger, accompanied by a young helper, asked a white stranger a question:

“Massa, may I ask you something?”

“Ask what you please.”

“Can you ‘splain how it happened in the fust place, that the white folks got the start of the black folks, so as to make dem slaves and do all de work?’

The younger helper, fearing the white man’s wrath, broke in: ‘Uncle Pete, it’s no use talking. It’s fo’ordained. The Bible tells you that the Lord fo-ordained the Nigger to work, and the white man to boss.”

“Dat’s so. Dat’s so. But if dat’s so, then God’s no fair man!”

Later on in the book, Genovese explores how the slaves came to view Christ in a way that ultimately subverted slavery, something we would do well to remember this MLK Day:

The slaves had a special and central place for Jesus, but a place that whites had difficulty recognizing. Julius Lester has given us, with a few short strokes, a convincing reading. The slaves, he writes, “fashioned their own kind of Christianity, which they turned to for strength in the constant times of need. In the Old Testament story of the enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians, they found their own story. In the figure of Jesus Christ, they found someone who had suffered as they suffered, someone who understood, someone who offered them rest from their suffering.”

Moses had become Jesus, and Jesus, Moses; and with their union the two aspects of the slaves’ religious question – collective deliverance as a people and redemption from their personal sufferings – had become one through the mediation of that imaginative power so beautifully manifested in the spirituals.