The Wall Street Journal ran this article about evangelical attitudes on immigration on the front page today. The placement tells me that a) shifting views among conservative Christians are surprising and b) what these believers think (and how they vote) matters. Some 300 evangelical leaders will gather in Washington next week to lobby lawmakers to overhaul immigration policy.
In some cases, according to the article, pastors who advocated a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants wound up alienating their flock. But it sounds like more people in the pews are coming around and seeing the immigration dilemma through a new biblical lens. Welcoming the stranger, helping the needy, doing what Jesus might have done.
The reporter also notes a more practical incentive:
[The evolving position on immigration]comes as many evangelical churches, much like the Republican Party, see an opportunity to add members from the swelling Hispanic population.
Of course, there are many, many evangelical conservative types who reject the biblical argument for amnesty. Texas U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith makes this pointed remark:
“The Bible contains numerous passages that do not necessarily support amnesty and instead support the rule of law,” he said. “The Scriptures clearly indicate that God charges civil authorities with preserving order, protecting citizens and punishing wrongdoers.”
Don’t get me started on all the vile laws Smith’s God has charged authorities with upholding. But it’s true that the Bible can be used to justify or condemn illegal immigration.
Another observation in this rather disjointed post: The online comments on the WSJ piece were pretty nasty. An example:
Let’s just take every barefoot beggar the world has to offer, sign them up for food-stamps, housing assistance, Welfare & cell phones; hope they get enough to qualify for an auto loan, and call it a day.
So you may have noticed Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has been generating some interesting publicity. First there were the web ads urging New York gun owners to moved to Texas. The pop-up ads when clicked directed people this Facebook page.
He posted the picture on his Facebook page. OK, I get it. Abbott likes gun rights. And while I see both sides of the gun debate currently gripping this country and really don’t have a strong opinion either way, I wonder if in the wake of the Newtown shootings the AG of Texas should be lamenting the absence of guns in our nation’s classrooms. Just feels a bit, I dunno, unseemly.
But what really stands out to me (as someone who has covered this issue in the press) is the suggestion that the Bible is not taught in schools. In fact, a great many schools in Texas are teaching the Bible in elective courses because of a legislative mandate in 2008. Abbott surely knows this. But he’s playing for effect here.
Speaking of those Bible courses, you may have already seen news reports showing that the left-leaning Texas Freedom Network did a study of the Bible courses and found many to be problematic. No surprise there. BUT the report is really fascinating and illuminating. I was looking for a kind of anti-conservative Christian bias, but honestly I didn’t see it. The report illustrates not only what public schools in Texas are doing wrong with these Bible classes, it also shows how some are doing it right. Highly recommend reading the full report.
But back to Abbott’s Facebook post: The image generated a mix of comments. What do you make of it?
Father James Martin writes on the CNN religion blog about the papal election of a fellow Jesuit, Jorge Bergoglio, now known as Pope Francis. Martin, for those of you who aren’t familiar with him, is the editor-at-large of the Catholic magazine America. He provides some helpful insight on the Jesuit order, which was founded in the 16th century by St. Ignatius Loyola.
Vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Challenging spiritual retreats. Lengthy novitiate programs. These are not your typical priests. Certainly not the type of priests who become bishops and cardinals. And certainly never pope … until now.
I was not familiar with the order’s discouraging ambition. Very interesting:
…[W]e are not supposed to be “climbers.” Now here’s a terrific irony. When Jesuit priests and brothers complete their training, they make vows of poverty, chastity, obedience and a special vow to the pope “with regard to missions”; that is, with regard to places the pope wishes to send us. But we also make an unusual promise, alone among religious orders as far as I know, not to “strive or ambition” for high office.
St. Ignatius was appalled by the clerical climbing that he saw around him in the late Renaissance, so he required us to make that unique promise against “climbing.” Sometimes, the pope will ask a Jesuit, as he did with Jorge Bergoglio, to assume the role of bishop or archbishop. But this is not the norm. Now, however, a Jesuit who had once promised not to “strive or ambition” for high office, holds the highest office in the church.
Martin concludes that St. Ignatius would be smiling at the new pope because, ultimately, you can’t be too rigid with your rules, especially if what you do is ad majorem Dei gloriam (for the greater glory of God).
We’ll see if the pope’s spiritual training makes this a different kind of papacy than we’ve seen before.
As we await the election of a new pope, I think this may be a good time to start blogging again.
What inspires me today? A group of letters to the editor in response to a recent op-ed by Bret Stephens in the WSJ. You can’t read the piece in the Journal unless you are an online subscriber, but I did find the entire version here. Stephens first acknowledges how risky it is to analyze the problems of a religion not his own. But in his column about Pope Emeritus Benedict’s resignation and the future of the Catholic Church, he rightly calls the church out on its mishandling of the abuse of children. This really nails it:
No institution whose existence rests on moral teachings can be so populated by sexual predators, or so complicit in their predations.
No problem there. But I knew he was poking a hornets’ nest when he wrote the following:
The obvious and needful solution is to abolish the celibacy of the priesthood, a stricture that all but guarantees the sorts of sordid outcomes described above.
Yeeeeikes. No surprise that he got some angry push back on today’s letters page. This letter really struck me because it comes back to what a lot of conservative Catholic clergy and lay people have argued over the last decade. “It’s not celibacy! It’s the culture!” Take a read:
Celibacy isn’t the crisis. It is the wider Western civilization failing to achieve a cultural condition reflecting norms largely accepted and independent of government and the force of law. It is its visible moral decay, its inability to persuade individuals to voluntarily forgo the excesses that human knowledge and organizations make possible.
This one, written by a South Dakota priest, is even more alarming:
The church’s erosion into secularity is confirmed by secular prejudice. Those who want the church to change will never be satisfied until it ceases to be what it was. I have seen with my own eyes that chickens will peck and tear a mouse to pieces if they can catch it; they will not tolerate its presence. Secularists will peck at the church, meek as a mouse (cf. Matthew 5:5), until they have destroyed her. Yet their attitude was expected by Jesus: “As they have persecuted me, so they will persecute you” (John 15:20, NAB).
What the world needs is not an abolition of celibacy, an ancient discipline, but a world where men and women live with great integrity, honesty and humility.
Actually never heard secularity as the noun form of secular. Secularism, but not secularity. But I digress. I agree that Stephens shouldn’t have suggested that celibacy is the root of all the abuse, but the placing the blame on the non-religious? Come on. The gruesome image of the chickens pecking to death the mouse, the suggestion that Jesus was warning his followers about secularists … it’s all a bit much. This is meant to stir fear and hysteria. And it’s a magician’s trick, a distraction from what’s really going on. Look at those secularists! They’re trying to get in and ruin us! But secularists have nothing to do with it. This is the church’s problem. The church created it. The church compounded it. The church needs to own it.
Thankfully, the last letter was very sensible:
I think Father Richard McBrien got it right several years ago when he sagely observed that those who think celibacy is the whole problem are wrong; but those who think celibacy has nothing to do with it are equally wrong.
Another post from the world’s worst blogger. This one about the faith column in today’s Wall Street Journal. Religion writer David Gibson takes on American bishops 10 years after their historic Dallas meeting, acknowledging the “critical steps” taken with the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, but pointing out how bishops protected themselves.
But throughout it all, the bishops exempted themselves from accountability—even though records showed that feckless inaction by many bishops, or even deliberate malfeasance by some, had allowed abusers to claim so many victims.
The best answer the bishops had to this in Dallas was a behind-the-scenes “fraternal correction” policy, by which a bishop would quietly pass along any concerns about another bishop to that bishop. Church tradition was invoked to preclude any external oversight by laypeople or other prelates. As always, each bishop would answer only to the pope, who alone had the authority to remove the head of a diocese.
Now, as the bishops gather next week in Atlanta for their annual spring meeting, they will hear an update on the Dallas charter but are unlikely to address this enormous loophole—despite events that make it all the more urgent.
It’s an excellent and timely column. And it stirred up some memories from my early days on the religion beat. I cannot believe it’s been a decade since the bishops crafted their charter — and that I was there covering it for the Austin American-Statesman. I was brand new on the beat and had a lot to learn about how the church operated as an institution (even though I was raised Catholic, I didn’t really understand the inner workings of the hierarchy). More importantly, I had much to learn about the impact of sexual abuse. The victims who showed up in droves to the Dallas meeting seemed so angry and demanding. Just raw emotion that, in all honesty, rather frightened me. I couldn’t relate to them.
I still can’t fully appreciate how damaging it is to be abused in this way, especially by a person who represents God. But after interviews with many victims over the years, I do have a much better understanding of their desperate need to be heard. For many of them, it had been decades of silence and shame, and those few days in Dallas marked the first time they were acknowledged. And even then, the response from the bishops was disappointing.
The problem, I think, still remains: The bishops by and large did not feel that raw pain. They did not treat the sex abuse scandal — which came to light despite their efforts to conceal it and only because a dogged team of reporters from the Boston Globe did not give up — as the real crisis that it was …. and is. What happened to so many children and adolescents — what was ALLOWED to happen, what was, in effect, facilitated by the hierarchy — is the epitome of evil. Lives were ruined. In the face of that, concern over money and power and influence and protocol is ludicrous. Plain and simple.
Forget the institution. If you mean to follow Jesus and take care of your flock, you have to be willing to burn the institution down.
From what I can tell, the bishops aren’t willing to do that.
So much happening on the gay rights and religion front.
There was, of course, the North Carolina vote on the constitutional amendment driven by passionate Christians, including Billy Graham, who oppose gay marriage.
Then Obama’s declaration. (For the record, I’m glad he put a rest to that “evolving” nonsense, but I still think gay Democrats should be furious he didn’t do this sooner.) As expected, the president’s support of gay marriage rights lands him in hot water with some black churches. (But, as my fellow religion writer Joshunda Sanders noted, perhaps we need to revisit the notion that there is a unified black church that opposes gay marriage.)
Then progressive Christian scholar Walter Wink died like a tree falling in a forest (more on that in a minute).
And THEN — here’s another moment I desperately wish I were still the local religion writer — the Episcopal Diocese of Texas announced two churches, including one here in Austin, will be allowed to bless same-sex unions (pending a vote by the national church).
That’s a lot of fodder for religion reporters. Sexuality has been and will continue to be one of the key dividing issues among Christians for years. Here’s another piece on Catholic theologians’ views on gay marriage (apparently not all agree with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — gasp!).
Back to Wink, who died last week in my native Berkshire County and whose death did not receive any media attention to speak of. I’d interviewed the author and theologian a couple of times on Christianity and homosexuality. This 2005 story I did on a constitutional marriage amendment in Texas has always remained with me. Wink was one of four scholars I interviewed for the Austin American-Statesman piece on what the Bible says about homosexuality. We chose several biblical passages for the scholars to analyze. Here’s one:
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
‘If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.’
… For Wink, these passages are plainly anti-homosexual, but readers [he said] must summon the “courage to . . . say on certain things the biblical commands have to be understood in a new light. The most extreme form of saying this is to say the Bible is wrong on some issues, including slavery . . . the treatment of women and the whole sacrificial cult.”