Recently in Hate Crimes Category

Some African churches have taken a frightening literal turn: accusing children of witchcraft and torturing or killing them to purify their souls. 

Over the weekend, the Associated Press reported that more than 15,000 Nigerian children have been accused of being witches in the last decade, with around 1,000 of those children murdered because of the accusation.  These were not random acts of violence.  Instead, family members and pastors often executed their children claiming to literally follow the biblical injunction, "You shall not allow a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18).   In addition, thousands of children have suffered torture at the hands of "exorcists" who charged their impoverished parents vast sums to cleanse their children of witchery.

In Eket, Nigeria, local police try to stop the worst abuses.  But they confess, "We cannot afford to make enemies of all the churches around here" and say that the "vast majority" are involved in the practice.

Since the 2002 publication of historian Philip Jenkins' fine book, The Next Christendom, it has become popular in some Christian circles to romanticize African Christianity as more orthodox, spiritually vital, and morally pure than western Christianity.   Although Jenkins did not specifically say so (and it is a bit misreading to so claim), his readers have often depicted western Christianity as a tired and corrupt tradition awaiting the energy, insight, and vibrancy of a new Reformation springing from Africa that would remake the Jesus-faith for the future.   Indeed, some critics of western Christianity--as in the case of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.--embraced this analysis so completely that they have forged ties with various African churches in order to destroy the western forms of their denominations in favor of a new, "more orthodox," Africanized version. 

The combination of Jenkins' argument and its politicization by North American conservatives has sapped the confidence of some western denominations--thinking that their historical day was somehow over in favor of Christianity in other parts of the world.

But stories like this witchcraft story prove otherwise.  African Christianity is as vast and diverse as American Christianity.  Some of its most vibrant forms are its most progressive types--like the theologies that fostered justice in South Africa or sponsored the Truth and Reconciliation movements.  And, as the Associated Press points out, some of its most regressive forms are its most literal--like small town pastors who kill children they think to be witches. 

And it also shows that western Christianity--especially its liberal and progressive versions--has something important to say in today's world.  A few hundred years ago, western Christians killed witches, too.  In places like Massachusetts.  And they also interpreted the Bible literally--"You shall not allow a witch to live."

Our ancestors figured out that was a stupid interpretation and they embarked on a long theological quest to figure out what the Bible does and does not teach, how to understand it dictums, to explore its context, to discover the meaning behind the literal words.  This quest--the move from pre-critical Bible reading to a critical approach to the Bible--framed much of Christian history during the modern period. 

Contemporary Christians often take this quest for granted--because it was so successful.  Very few North Americans actually read the Bible literally.  Yes, there are those who believe in a six-day creation, think wives should submit to husbands, or burn books in God's name.  But can you remember a time when a person was excommunicated for eating pork or failing to cover her head in church?  Have you ever seen someone bring his slaves to church? Have you witnessed a Christian being chastised for "touching the skin of a dead pig" (that's in Leviticus--think football) or walk around maimed because he cut off his hand due to sin?  Even the most conservative Christians read selectively, metaphorically, and contextually--and they do so because the liberal, critical approach to Bible reading has been so thoroughly accepted in the west.

Critical reading is not the source of decline; it is the source of great spiritual vibrancy.  And literal reading is not a source of spiritual wisdom or moral purity; it is the source of serious distortions of faith.  Approaching the Bible with a critical eye restores scripture to its primary place as a collection of wisdom documents--the record of human experience that maps our understanding of God.  It isn't a rulebook or a phone book or a history book or a science text or a political science handbook.  The Bible must be understood in its context, as a series of different literary genres, as an inspired collection of ancient tales about life, God, and faith.  In this way, it possesses great insight into the human condition, about how to love, and about wise living. 

Western Christianity is a great tradition.  We've done things wrong--that goes without saying.  But we also are full of life, insight, and wisdom from historical experience.  We've been around for a long while.  We've learned a thing or two.  Like it isn't a good idea to read the Bible literally.  That killing and torture are wrong.  Always wrong.  Especially in the name of God.  Most especially when it involves the innocent and oppressed. 

Once upon a time, western Christians tried to inflict our views on Africans.  That, too, was a bad idea and came from a misreading of the Bible.  But maybe if we shared what we've learned about God, Jesus, scripture, and the Christian faith with humility and respect, we might actually be able to help our African brothers and sisters avoid some of our stupidest mistakes.  

Chris Rock had a great riff in one of his early stand up comedy routines which basically said how he was scared to death of white teenage boys.  This was the time around the Columbine shootings and the joke was funny because it played off of a contradicting mainstream American fear of grown black males, a demographic of which Chris Rock is of course a member. 

For better or for worse (neither I guess) we have witnessed a leveling of the American fear field as predicted by Mr. Rock. The bread and butter American fears of people of color and of different faiths have been complicated by recent events. The Jewish community experienced violence threatened and actualized by extremists from across the rainbow of color and religion first at the Synagogue in the Bronx followed by the Holocaust Museum in DC. In between we have a Christian doctor gunned down in church by an anti-abortion Christian extremist.

There is a fearful current in America that is beginning to violently surface.  Fox News analyst Shep Smith spoke about his experience of this anger:

"...in the wake of today's shooting at the Holocaust Museum, Smith went on the air today to talk about the emails he's been receiving for "the past few months," and how they've been getting "more and more frightening."

SMITH: There are people now, who are way out there on a limb. And I think they're just out there on a limb with the email they send us. Because I read it, and they are out there. I mean, out there in a scary place...I could read a hundred of them like this...I mean from today. People who are so amped up and so angry for reasons that are absolutely wrong, ridiculous, preposterous."

He went on to read an email, filled with the usual paranoid "birther" nonsense, which included an admonishment to Smith. "This is, I promise, a representative sample of the kind of things that we get here," Smith said.

Much of the anger that Smith is talking about is coming from those who feel disempowered and fearful under the Obama administration.  Fears about his supposed racisim and socialism are fueled on the internet and by some unfortunate pundits and politicians.  Where there is frustration and a sense of powerlessness there is also a tendency towards violence. 

America's new awareness of the truth that violence can and has come from any group at any time demands our response.  No single group can look at another and say the problem is them, because every demographic has its own extremists  It forces each of us to take responsibility for maintaining and lifting others to a higher ground within whatever racial or religious identity we hold.  When we encounter extremists within our own community we have the duty to disabuse them of their disturbed fantasies, and when they are threatening violence we should contact the police.

Being equal in fear is not a religious or American goal, instead it is to be equal in justice and respect.  Its up to us.  

With yesterday's shooting at the Holocaust museum, I was reminded of a story told to me several years ago by a professor of when he had been a doctoral student. 

An eminent post-modern theologian had come to his university to deliver a lecture on morality.  The guest insisted that morality was completely embedded in culture, "and that there was nothing that was universally wrong from one culture to another.  "Nothing," he insisted, "there is nothing that has been wrong in all places, all times, and to all people."  Then he added, "I dare you.  I dare you to tell me one thing--one thing--that is always wrong!"

My friend, whom I knew to be a liberal Democrat and was also a serious Methodist, rather sheepishly raised his hand.  "You there," the famous lecturer called on him, "can you tell me something that is always morally wrong?"  The young student responded shakily, "I think so.  One shouldn't burn Jews in ovens?"

The post-modern theologian stopped, and he looked as Paul might have on the road to Damascus.  "That's right," he thundered.  "One shouldn't burn Jews in ovens.  That is one, universally true moral principle." 

Well, there it is.  A universal moral principle--along with a corresponding principle, "One shouldn't walk into the Holocaust museum and start shooting people."

Yesterday, all of the news commentators agreed that James W. Von Brunn's action was morally wrong.  And, whenever a criminal breaks violates the communal moral conscience, everybody asks, "Why?"  What was the source of his evil?  Where did he go wrong?  What triggered this episode?

As pundits discuss these questions on the airwaves, their answers will fall into two predictable camps.  Conservatives will emphasize that Von Brunn was a "lone wolf," a deeply troubled man, who, acted on a bad belief (hatred of Jews) and made a bad choice (to pick up a gun and shoot people).   Liberals will analyze anti-Semitism, placing Von Brunn's actions within a larger framework of structural sin involving racism.  Some may also comment on institutional sins--gun control laws, the current economic crisis, and the "climate" created by talk radio for example--as sources of Von Brunn's actions. 

This is, of course, an old argument.  For almost a century, conservatives and liberals have been arguing the same point about sin.  Conservative theologians believed that sin is a personal matter, a choice made to break a moral code, usually based in some flawed belief system; liberal theologians believed that sin resulted from structural evils, whereby people act out of subservience to some form of institutionalized sin.  Hence, conservative sought to reform individuals while liberals sought to reform systems.  What made someone sin?  The soul or structure?  The individual or institution?  And this theological division made its way into political life--and it has shaped the way we argue about moral events in our public discourse.

In the 1990s, biblical scholar Walter Wink wrote a series of books arguing a new progressive understanding of sin.  He suggested that Christian theologians needed to re-engage the ancient biblical idea of the "principalities and powers,"

In the biblical view the Powers are at one and the same time visible and invisible, earthly and heavenly, spiritual and institutional . . . the Powers are simultaneously an outer, visible structure and an inner, spiritual reality. (Wink, The Powers That Be)

In other words, sin--the "powers" are both.  They exist in the malformed soul and are intrinsically tied up in the ways in which the world and culture are structured.  Everything--and everybody--has both good and evil within. 

This integrated understanding of sin goes a long way to help understand Von Brunn, where inner and outer "powers" combined to push him toward a form of racial idolatry and personal wickedness that resulted in killing another person.  But an integrated understanding of sin also begs the question:  Where was I in this story?  What do I do to resist these dehumanizing powers?  What systems and structures that I am part of perpetuate the evil from which Von Brunn acted?  (Talk radio hosts, take note....)

To say that Von Brunn was a lone gunman in a lone incident misses the point.  However, to say that D.C. has weak control laws (which were recently weakened by the NRA) also misses the point.  Von Brunn lived--as all of us do--in a complex, connected web of unredeemed powers that act as a cancer in the world. 

Walter Wink proposed that:

Redemption means actually being liberated from the oppression of the Powers, being forgiven for one's own sin and for complicity with the Powers, and setting about liberating the Powers themselves from their bondage to idolatry.  The good news is nothing less than a cosmic salvation, a restitution of all things, when God will "gather up all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth". . . The gospel, then, is not a message about the salvation of individuals from the world, but news about a world transfigured, right down to its basic structures. (Wink, Powers That Be)

Progressive Christianity is in no way a morally relativistic vision; instead, it is emerging as a morally integrated theology.  We need to examine all the powers-at-play in Von Brunn's reprehensive moral act--to name and resist the Powers is one way to transformation.   It is wrong--in every case, everywhere, for everyone, and every institution--to target people and deny them basic human dignity because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual identity.  And equally wrong to let the "little" sins that contribute to the bigger evils to pass unchallenged.  

(cross posted from Faithfuldemocrats.com)

            Last week, I had the honor of sitting next to a group of Gold Star Moms during the National Memorial Day concert.  We talked about their sons and exchanged some tearful hugs during the extremely moving concert.   The next day, the militant pro-life group, Operation Rescue, sent a mass email to its members entitled "Tiller Abortion Worker Honored At White House By Obama."  The email condemned President Obama for inviting to the White House a woman who volunteered in George Tiller's clinic as "yet another connection between Obama and late-term abortionist George Tiller."  The woman in question was a Gold Star Mom, and she was invited to the White House on Memorial Day (along with all the other Gold Star mothers I'd sat with at the concert) for no other reason than to commemorate their sons and daughters who were killed in action. 

The rhetoric from the far right often saddens me but seldom generates a real emotional reaction, but I was furious when I read Operation Rescue's email.   At first, I couldn't decide whether I was more upset that Operation Rescue was trying to score cheap political points off of the death of this woman's son, or that they were so intent on proving their point about the threat of Obama's pro-choice administration that they felt completely justified in twisting the facts and ignoring the truth.   But following Tiller's murder by a man who regularly posted on Operation Rescue message boards, I have decided that while using a U.S. soldier's death to try to score political points is more deplorable, the complete disregard for the truth in a pursuit of justice is more dangerous. 

Obama didn't "honor a Tiller abortion worker," and the Gold Star Mom event in no way demonstrated another connection between Obama and Tiller.  When Christians decide lies are the best way to inspire the "faithful" to fight for justice, and when Christians demonstrate through our actions that we believe that any means are justified as long as the end is just, we are lost.  The annoying thing about morality and ethics is that sometimes they make it difficult for us to get what we want immediately...and they may even make us reexamine our motives and priorities. 

As our society becomes increasingly governed by the sound bite and as we divide into ideologically homogenous groups to get our news, discuss our faith, and engage in our politics, we see more and more examples of Americans deciding morality and truth are luxuries we cannot afford in our righteous quest for justice.  We break 200 years of tradition and torture prisoners because we face threats so dire that laws of man and God no longer apply.  And lest the left get too self-righteous, there is little difference between Operation Rescue hosting chat rooms where protestors are encouraged to target Tiller's church and opponents of Prop 8 posting the names and home addresses of donors to the gay marriage ban.

As our specific causes become increasingly important in our own eyes, as the perceived threats to them become increasingly immediate and dire, and as our opponents are increasingly turned into demonized caricatures void of feeling or humanity, "justice" becomes just another word for "revenge" and we teeter on the verge of becoming Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor who kills Christ to save the Church...because Christ's message of meekness and mercy is not what the times call for.   

  And so while Operation Rescue may not have pulled the trigger, they created a culture that justified their web team's decision that in the times we live in they did not need to follow Christ's command to be truthful in all things or to comfort the suffering since such commands would have hobbled their righteous and just purpose...and tragically, it was just a small step for someone who was constantly bombarded by their alarmist rhetoric to decide that Christ wanted him to murder another of God's children.  

Every time we demonize another, stand as righteous judge over our brother, and seek justice devoid of grace or mercy, there are consequences.  And when we decide that we will fight God's battles with the devil's weapons of lies and force, we should not be surprised when we create monsters. 

CHANGING LEADERS AND ENDURING VALUES

Rev Dr. C. Welton Gaddy
January 18, 2009
Northminster Baptist Church
Monroe, LA

The sermon for today is not what I intended, but perhaps more needed than what I had planned.  Of course, I am aware that this is the Sunday prior to the inauguration of a new president for our nation.  My original plan for today was to acknowledge the inauguration of this president here at Northminster in the same way I have treated the inaugurals for his two immediate predecessors--in each instance, in worship, devoting the pastoral prayers to intercessions for the new occupant of the Oval Office, his family, and our nation.  

However, about a month ago, when, for the first time, I turned to the recommended lectionary readings for today, my eyes immediately widened as I read the caption for the lesson from the Hebrew Scriptures regarding "transitions in power."  The ancient narrative reflects the incomprehensible importance of a change of leadership at the national level.  Set before us on this particular Sunday, the old story holds a promise of profound relevance for a nation and a church on the eve of the inauguration of a new leader.  But, whether in ancient Israel or in contemporary America, the subject of a change of leadership pulsates with a potential for controversy.  Yet, within the church, and hopefully within our nation, the threat of controversy is never a reason to avoid paying attention to truth.  

I am well aware that some people in our congregation consider the president-elect the worst possible choice among candidates who sought the office of the presidency and dangerous beyond measure for our nation because of his politics, his priorities, his vision, and, yes, sadly I must say, because of his race.  At the same time, I also know others in our congregation could not disagree more with such thought.  Indeed, for you, this presidential inaugural stands as a peak of hope on the political landscape in our country.  So, all are listening for my bias either to pounce on it critically or affirm it enthusiastically.  My preference is to fulfill the expectation of neither and deliver a biblical sermon, knowing that, if anything, I likely will prompt the ire of both ideological points of view.

During the interim between the national elections and the inauguration of a new president, at their invitation, I have had several meetings with the presidential transition team to discuss specific concerns related to religion-based hatred that can give rise to hate crimes and to my specialty--the so-called faith-based initiative.  The Obama transition team asked me to share with them my criticisms of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives established by President Bush and to propose ways to achieve the purposes of that office in a manner compatible with the Constitution.

I have been told that at least one of my three recommendations may be implemented almost as recommended--compliance with non-discrimination practices as should be guaranteed by civil rights laws--and that Mr. Obama agrees with my second recommendation.  However, I also have learned that my third recommendation, which actually was my first priority, has virtually no chance of implementation--that is my request for the complete dismantlement of any faith-based office in the White House.           

All of that is to say that I have cooperated with the president-elect's transition team even as I cooperated, when possible, with various offices in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all the while criticizing both for their dallying with charitable choice legislation.  But, I am a minister, not a politician.  My goal is the preservation of a secular government that appreciates and protects religion even as it recognizes and defends the rights of non-religious citizens.  I want no part of an infusion of the government with religion or the intrusion of government in religion.  History, both sectarian and secular, dramatically demonstrates the horrendous problems produced by institutional intercourse between religion and government.

The scripture readings for today present grand guidelines, but by no means a blueprint for our government or for how transitions of leadership in this government are best made.  At the time the Hebrew Scripture for today was written, Israel knew only one form of government--a theocracy--in which supposedly God chose all leaders and told them precisely what they should do and say.  Surely, no one has to be convinced that, though many in our nation claim to support a theocracy, such a national pursuit would be unimaginably destructive given the diversity of religions and non-religious citizens in our land and the audacity and vigor of arrogant people among us who aspire to be Theo.

The historical text from Samuel is a narrative about God-chosen leadership.  Our governmental leaders are elected by their peers through national elections, not as the result of a divine declaration. However, place the Samuel text alongside the other biblical texts for today and you develop a profile of the values needed by the person who serves as our president and by all who claim to be good citizens.            

Vision is important, critically important.  

"The word of the Lord was rare in those days;" the narrative declares, "Visions were not widespread."  That is not the case today.  Rather, it seems that everybody has "a word from God."  So prolific are such claims and so loud are such boasts that the challenge we face is discernment regarding who is speaking personally and attributing the message to God and who is faithfully seeking to represent the divine will.

A leader without vision is not a leader, rather an impostor who represents more threat than promise.  Too narrow a vision will bury us under our own difficulties and isolate us from wise and helping hands in the global community.  But too broad a vision will foster an "imperial hubris" among us, dissipate our strength, and leave us devoid of moral and political influence.  A clear vision informed by basic moral values can lead a nation out of trouble, help construct a just society, and contribute to building a more peaceful world.

There is, however, a hurdle to be cleared, a temptation to be avoided.  Freedom is also important.  "You were called to freedom," the apostle Paul wrote.  

A good leader must not only have a good vision but also the wisdom, humility and patience to pursue the implementation of that vision without jeopardizing other people's freedom.  Real leaders develop loyal followers not by force or law but as a result of garnering respect and trust.  Authentic leadership is earned and recognized not declared and enforced.  

In a recently published memo to President-elect Obama a popular writer encouraged the president to function as a religious leader and spark a religious revival within the nation.  I could not disagree more strongly with that advice.  The electorate in this nation voted overwhelmingly for a president and commander-in-chief, not for a pastor, shaman, priest, imam, rabbi, or some other kind of religious leader.  We need a president who is a sharp politician, an adept international negotiator, a wise counselor, an effective change-agent, a relentless peace-maker, an economic rainmaker, and an expert administrator and motivator.  Our government does not need a president who seeks to function as the nation's chief religious leader.  Indeed, if our president must ever choose between being biblical or being constitutional, I expect him to be constitutional.  If he must ever choose between compromising his conscience and enforcing the constitution, I expect him to resign from the presidency, thus protecting the integrity of his personal conscience and the authority of our nation's constitution.  Only such decisions as these protect our freedom.

Finally, there is the matter of the enduring value of integrity.  

I never will forget a conversation that I had one morning with Helen Thomas, the dean of the Washington Press Core and the woman who, prior to the last four years, always was called upon to ask the first question in presidential press conferences.  When I called Helen about doing an event together, an interview with her had just been published in a popular national journal.  So, as we started to talk, I told her I had seen the interview and liked it.  "What did I say?" she asked.  "Well," I responded, "Among other things you said that all presidents lie."  "They do," Helen interrupted, this woman who knows presidents like few others among us, "All presidents lie," Helen Thomas reiterated before she went on to say, "What is important is what they lie about.  I expect them to lie about their personal lives sometimes.  But, they should never lie about the affairs of state, their work for the nation."

Yes, of course, I wish a president never lied.  But, I tend to think Helen is right.  At one time or another, a lie serves a president better than the truth.  That is the reality that drives some Press Secretaries crazy.  No lie is right morally speaking, but one lie is not the same as another in terms of national interests.  We have a right to expect the president to tell us the truth about our nation, its economy, its education, its military involvements, its greatest problems, and its promise.

The elderly leader named Eli insisted that truth, integrity, be the mark of the young man on whom responsibility for the leadership in Israel was to fall.  Eli knew God's disclosure to Samuel involved bad news for his (Eli's) administration, but Eli said to Samuel "What was it that God told you?  Do not hide it from me."

Vision, a commitment to freedom, and integrity--these are enduring values that should mark the character of every leader.  But, now here is the kicker.  We should not expect of our leaders that to which we do not aspire and give ourselves.

No one can do what needs to be done in our nation working alone.  Remember, we are inaugurating a president, not creating a deity.

Our constitution has made this inaugural possible--a freely elected president of African-American lineage.  But it did not just happen.  We have had the constitution since the late 1700's.  Rosa Parks had to bow her back and refuse to move to the back of a bus, knowing the possible consequences of that revolutionary act in a racist culture.  Martin Luther King Jr. had to decide that the bombing of his home and threats against his life and the wellbeing of his family would not stop him from giving leadership to a new movement to assure civil rights for all people.  Discrimination suits had to be filed.  Thousands if not millions of voter registration campaigns had to be launched.  Medgar Evers had to stand in front of an angry mob to enroll in a university.  Five little girls had to die in Birmingham and highlight the sheer meanness and lawlessness characteristic of dehumanizing bigotry.

Barack Obama is not the savior.  He cannot accomplish what needs to be accomplished in this nation alone.

Whether you support the new president or not, I am certain every one of us supports this nation.  So, as Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Tuesday and becomes the leader of the free world, I hope that each of us, silently or audibly, will voice an oath of responsible citizenship that involves, at the very least, promises to work for liberty and justice for all people.           

Whatever our politics, our hopes and our dreams, a time for changing leaders is a time for us to reaffirm enduring values.             

I hope that on Tuesday Chief Justice Roberts will not ask president-elect Obama to end his oath with the words "so help me God."  Those words are not a part of the oath of office enshrined in the constitution for good reason.  However, if the man repeating the oath sincerely wants to emphasize the importance of his promises by adding "so help me God," I hope he will speak those words.  And, I urge that our self-constructed pledge of responsible citizenship and our determination to live in this nation as faithful Christians be declarations of such importance and strength of resolve as to justify each of us saying "so help me God."

Amen.