Recently in Christians Category

Tom Krattenmaker is a Portland, Oregon-based writer specializing in religion in public life and a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is the author of the new book "Onward Christian Athletes" examining Christian engagement with pro sports. 

            It's midday Sunday. Soon I'll be watching the Minnesota Vikings--the pro football team of my dreams since I was eight--playing the Green Bay Packers. I'll be watching. But not with a clear conscience.

It's becoming harder and harder not to feel creepy about enjoying and supporting an enterprise that uses up men's bodies--and healthy brains--for the sake of entertaining the masses each weekend of the football season.

            The ugly and increasingly unavoidable reality about pro football was brought home for me last week by two chilling articles.

One, by the New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell, explored the mounting piles of evidence of the devastating effects of football-playing on the combatants' heads and cognitive health. As Gladwell provocatively asked, is football all that dissimilar from the "sport" of dog-fighting that we unanimously reject as cruel and barbaric?

The other convicting piece was a blog post at the Sojourner's website in which writer and football fan Ernesto Tinajero said Gladwell's piece had hit him "like a ton of bricks." He announced that he has watched his last Super Bowl.

I wonder if I'm on my way toward a similar declaration.

Truthfully, the bloom has been coming off the pro football (and pro sports) rose for me gradually over the past seven or eight years. In researching and writing my recently published book "Onward Christian Athletes" on Christian engagement with pro sports, I've had to examine the object of my fandom with a critical eye and a scholar's skepticism.

What was once fun and games for me--drama, eye-popping athleticism, the thrill of victory and agony of defeat--has become increasingly tarnished by my awareness of the profit-driven abuses and excesses of big-time sports in America. I have come to see our fixation on the sports spectacle as borderline idolatrous and largely unproductive in a time when so many urgent common-good needs are going unmet.

As a progressive, I have also found pro sports disturbingly complicit in the promotion of militaristic patriotism and religious nationalism. As I explore in my book, sports-world Christianity has often aligned strongly with the Christian Right ideology and interests that have harmed not just our national politics, but Christianity itself.

The taste in my mouth just got worse.

To read Gladwell's article is to feel your good conscience absorb a bone-crunching tackle by Ray Lewis or one of the other ferocious linebackers roaming the fields of the NFL. Retired players are experiencing off-the-charts rates of dementia brought on by the innumerable blows to the head that are a fact of life in pro football. We are witnessing more tales of ex-players suffering breakdowns, cognitive dysfunction and/or suicide. (Cases in point: Mike Webster and Andre Waters.)

            Gladwell's gift is his ability to see things, and show them, in a different light. Given the drama around NFL quarterback Michael Vick and his incarceration for running a dog-fighting ring, Gladwell's comparison of football and dog-fighting is a highly effective attention-grabber. And absolutely convicting for anyone with a religious and/or moral compass. It has me asking how I can continue enjoying pro football knowing that some of those players entertaining me will end up with their brains scrambled and their lives in shreds.

Imagine the dilemma for the Christian men and ministry organizations that have helped make pro sports, and football in particular, one of the most outwardly religious sectors in American popular culture. Since the formation of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes more than a half-century ago, sports ministry has devoted itself to leveraging the visibility and influence of big-time sports to reach the public with the evangelistic message. It's called using "The Platform." But what if the platform is becoming so morally degraded that it robs the gospel message of any authenticity and credibility?

            This unfolding drama is shot through with other dilemmas as well.

            Contemplate the bind in which Commissioner Roger Goodell and the rest of the pro football power structure find themselves. If they appear dismissive or calloused about the mounting evidence and alarm, and a public relations disaster awaits. Exhibiting too much concern could lead them down a dead-end alley. Let's face it: Other than forcing players to wait longer before returning to action after concussions, there appears to be little that football can do to protect players from head injuries without turning football into something other than the action-packed, high-thrill (and violent) spectacle that it is.

            To say there is a lot at stake is an understatement. Pro football is an enormous money-making enterprise, its two most valuable franchises (Washington and Dallas) worth an estimated $952 million and $851 million, respectively, in 2008.

            I can't help thinking, too, about the race overlay. Like pro basketball, the NFL draws most of its talent from the African American community, meaning it's mainly black guys getting their heads bashed Sunday after Sunday. One has to be careful about going too far with this; the dynamics of football competition being what they are, offensive linemen appear to be the ones most exposed to head injury, and that's a "trade" within the NFL where large numbers of white men still find employment. Nevertheless, Gladwell's likening of pro football to dog-fighting seems especially poignant in view of the unmistakable race dynamics.

            A day of reckoning may be coming for pro football--and those of us who watch it.

I've often wondered why progressive Christians don't typically celebrate All Saints Day on November 1 with more enthusiasm.  It is, next to Christmas and Easter, my favorite church holy day--I eagerly await reading the texts of our Christian ancestors and the communal singing, "For All the Saints," in my Episcopal church.

Earlier this year, I published a history of Christianity, A People's History of Christianity, a book focused on "saints" of the liberal and progressive tradition--people like Origen, Perpetua, Abelard and Heloise, Katarina Zell, Lazarus Spengler, Anne Askew, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Maria Stewart, and Samuel Green.  The stories told therein are about generosity and justice, about prophetic preaching and speaking truth to power.   As a result, I've spent the better part of 2009 in mainline churches and with progressive Christian groups talking about history and why history is important to both our spiritual lives and to enacting social justice.

And I've listened to many mainline Christians share their reticence about engaging history, thinking about tradition, and the stories of our saints. 

Of all Christians, liberal and progressive ones have the most awkward relationship with history and tradition.  After all, liberal Christianity developed from "modernism," a way of looking at the world that privileged new ideas, philosophies, and sciences as part of God's revelation in human culture.  Modernists broke with tradition.  They looked to the human past and saw much wanting--superstition, violence, and repression--and willingly abandoned that past, especially the religious past, in favor of reason and enlightenment.  In the nineteenth century, many Christians accepted modernism and worked to adapt their faith to the new intellectual climate.  At its birth, progressive religion was the offspring of a certain sort of historical ambiguity.  In the last two centuries, western Christians willingly shattered memory because the past was too painful, too oppressive, and too morbid for modern sensibilities of tolerance and equality.  Better forget than remember. 

The other reason that progressive Christians don't engage history as eagerly as more conservative ones is that progressives are more critical and less given to hagiography.  Indeed, progressive Christians actually look for flaws in their "saints" (I once heard William Sloan Coffin make this point) instead of celebrating the contributions of the wise leaders in their community.  Indeed, we will often dismiss the insights of an otherwise good leader or role model by whispering, "Well, did you know that he wasn't very open about women?" or "She was really a racist..." Over the years, we've developed a bad habit of undermining the wisdom of the past on the basis of contemporary attitudes--thus displaying a spiritually unpleasant lack of historical humility.  Not a nice trait in people who claim to believe in human goodness.

On this All Saints Day, I'd like to call progressives back to history for two important reasons: 

First, progressive faith takes new ideas seriously and we try to bring the best of contemporary thought into our theology and congregations.  That's who we are and we will always be.  But--and this is important--western societies no longer suffer from too much history.  We are suffering from too little history.  Two hundred years ago, it was a very good idea to step away from the past's darkness.  Today, however, most people suffer from spiritual amnesia--that we have no idea what our history is, and have little idea who we are because we are disconnected from that past.   Younger generations of seekers are yearning to find their story--and to experience meaning that comes through belonging to a community that remembers. 

Second, one needn't engage in uncritical ancestor worship in order to celebrate our past.  Hagiography is one thing; a realistic view of history is another.  In our quest for realism, we've forgotten that people may do good as well as evil.  Every great leader in the history of Christianity had flaws--some had seriously misguided ideas and violent prejudices.  Our ancestors were both saints and were profoundly human at the same time.  To use the language of prayer, they did things they "ought not to have done."  They were, as we are, men and women of their own times--even sparkling insights of the divine were mixed with their own personal sins and the sins of their own cultures. We need to engage a practice of historical generosity when studying the past.  Indeed, one day, we too will be held accountable for what our great-great-grand children deem hypocritical, stupid, or wrong.  We hope they might be kind to us; we hope they will understand that we were doing our best. 

A few months ago, I heard Jon Meacham explain why he'd written about Andrew Jackson--a flawed historical character if ever there was one.  Meacham explained, "History is to a country what memory is to an individual."  Indeed.  History is to a religious movement, a tradition, a denomination, a church what memory is to an individual.  Loss of memory isn't funny.  Loss of memory can be fatal.  Progressive Christians have much to celebrate about the past.  We have much to learn from history.  And we have much to reclaim.  Progressive faith is a great Christian tradition--and we have many great saints.  

This All Saints Day, remember.  

Randall Terry is back with his after-life threats just in time for Halloween as reported by Associated Press:

WASHINGTON -- Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry is calling on people to burn effigies of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this Halloween, as part of a "Burn in Hell" video contest to protest the health care legislation in Congress.

Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, said Tuesday that the contest serves as a political and spiritual statement that "gives people a chance to peacefully vent their rage."

"If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid force us to pay for child killing and they die unrepentant, they will burn in hell for this," Terry said in a telephone interview.

But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called the contest "unfortunate."

"I don't think appealing to people's anger and in effect inciting them to acts which either display or in any way project violent acts is consistent with rational discussion of very critical issues," Hoyer told reporters.

A YouTube video of the contest instructions shows how to print a poster of Reid and Pelosi and construct a stand for it. The clip shows a person dousing the Democratic leaders' images with flammable liquid. The next scene shows their picture going up in flames. People are then encouraged to take pictures, record and submit online the footage of their Oct. 31 protests.

"No, this is not a threat to their body," an unidentified man says in the instructional video, "but it is a threat to their soul."

While this is a pretty spooky ploy I think most pro-lifers are embarrassed by these tactics finding them counter-productive as well as opposed to the American spirit of civil debate and disagreement.  Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, whom I know to be personally opposed to abortion, responded to Terry's Burn in Hell proposal with this statment:

Hey Christians!  Stop putting a camel hair rope around Halloween on October 31^st, and instead take advantage of what happens on Nov. 1^st - All Saints Day.

It seems like we used to hear more from Christians who decried Halloween as a time to glamorize demons and the devil.   If observed at all, some Christians decided to create their own versions of haunted houses called "Hell Houses"  with the purpose of scaring people into belief by showing regretted abortions, gay people with AIDS, and addicted prostitutes.   In 2009 a more accurate Hell House might be a family that has lost their home to foreclosure, a baby starving for lack of food, or a polluted water supply.  But maybe Hell Houses should just die its ghoulish death in 2009.

I say let kids have fun on Halloween.  I mean, how bad can God be offended with kids dressing up as cowboys, princesses, matadors, hobos and even as ghosts (Charlie Brown anyone?).   The only real sin here is gluttony as kids pack candy into their faces.  But that has its own immediate punishment offered by nature - the stomachache. 

Instead of worrying about Halloween, take advantage of it as the springboard for Nov. 1, which is known as All Saints Day and Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead).   All those faux scary spirit world reminders of Halloween can be used as a springboard for a conversation about the real 'life beyond life.'   All Saints Day is a great time to talk about what happens when we die, to commune with our loved ones who have died, and celebrate their life and their presence with God in heaven. 

For Latin cultures this generally means going to a cemetery and having a party around the graves of family members.    This might sound spooky for those who have not grown up with the practice, but it isn't experienced that way.   It is a family celebration that reinforces the ties of commitment and love that continue even after the death of a loved one and an encouragement that there will be a similar party for us once we have died.

All Saints Day, like Ash Wednesday, can be a time of reflection on our own mortality.  The line between the living and the dead is very thin and we will all cross it some day. On Ash Wednesday as I impose ashes I say to congregants the powerful words:  "Remember that you are made from dust and to dust you shall return."  But then I add in a whisper just for the individual: "So care for your soul, which is eternal."  

All Saints Day is a celebration of those who cared for their soul by fulfilling Jesus' commandments of Love of God and Love of Neighbor.  It is a reminder of that one true task that Jesus has set before us.    Instead of cordoning yourself off this weekend, embrace this opportunity to reflect on the reality of death and celebrate the Saints who now live in God's eternal embrace. 

This week, the Vatican announced that it would make it easier for conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians--those uncomfortable with women priests and accepting gay people--to join the Roman Catholic Church.  The move surprised Anglican leaders who, evidently, had no idea that the Vatican planned a massive sheep-stealing campaign.  The news sparked lively--and sometimes mean-spirited--debate in both print and online media. 

Most stories pointed to the historic nature of the Vatican's action.  Evidently, not since the Protestant Reformation has Rome invited so many of its former children to come home.  There have been many remarkable individual "returns" of Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church--most notably the English theologian John Henry Newman or the American bishop Levi S. Ives in the nineteenth century.  But historians strain to remember a mass invitation like this one.

Reporters, however, have missed something important.  While it might be unusual for Rome to formally invite Protestant to return to Mother Church, it is in no way odd for Roman Catholics--especially those in Europe, North America, and Australia--to abandon Rome for Protestant denominations.  For decades, cradle Roman Catholics have been leaving their church in favor of finding congregations that are open to divorce, practice birth control, support women in the ministry, and respect the dignity of gay and lesbian people.  Indeed, according to a 2008 Pew survey, one in ten adult Americans is an ex-Roman Catholic--with the Roman Catholic Church showing intense decline among Anglo- and African-American populations (Hispanic immigration is helping RC membership hold steady). 

A Catholic News service story from 2005 noted that the change was a "constant trickle," saying:

Among those changing denominations, the Roman Catholics generally say they long to breathe the "free air" of the Anglican Communion, with Catholic priests usually saying they plan to marry, the bishop said. The Anglicans usually say they have had enough of the "woolly thinking" of their leadership, he added.  "Anglicans who become Roman Catholic generally become very conservative Roman Catholics, while Roman Catholics who become Anglican tend to become very liberal Anglicans," he said.

These observations have been backed up in a number of academic studies--including my own work.  From 2002-2006, I conducted a Lilly Endowment funded research project on vital mainline churches (findings may be found in Christianity for the Rest of Us) and found that successful mainline congregations had large populations of former Roman Catholics, sometimes as many as a fifth of the members would have once been Catholic (in two Hispanic congregations, every member was a former Catholic). Several of the project pastors had also been Catholic.  In every case, the former Catholics praised the intellectual and spiritual openness of the mainline church as the major reason for switching. And the mainline congregations had accommodated many Roman Catholic faith practices--everything from centering prayer to Marian devotion--to help converts be more comfortable in the new Protestant setting.  

In western Christianity, religious switching is a way of life.  That the Vatican has just figured that out only proves they read polls.  That's it.  This isn't really news.  Churchgoers are a migrant lot--and they are voting for their favorite theologies with their feet.  Sometimes they vote liberal (as in the case of RC's leaving their church) and sometimes they vote conservative (as in the case of Protestants becoming Catholic).  But that they do it--and that their denominations engage in sheep-stealing to boast sagging membership rolls--should surprise no one.  When liberal Anglicans join the Roman Catholic Church en masse or conservative Catholics chose to become Episcopalians....well, that would be news.