The most disconcerting part of Obama's faith initiative is that they didn't seem to be aware of the volatile politics of one provision: whether faith-based groups can hire and fire according to someone's religion. "Any religious organization that does not want to comply with that requirement simply doesn't have to take the money," said law professor and Obama advisor Martha Minnow. "I don't think there's anything too controversial about that."
Not controversial, eh? Writing that Obama's proposal was a "fraud," the Catholic League's Bill Donohue declared, "If a customer walked into a New York deli and said, 'Let me have a hot dog on a roll--hold the frankfurter'--he'd likely be thrown out. That's what the public should do to Obama's faith-based initiative: since he wants to gut the faith from his faith-based programs, he should be told to junk it."
Or, from Family Research Council's Tony Perkins: "Obama's interpretation would be a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds."
Worst of all for Obama, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals -- a moderate -- said, "That's extremely disappointing."
In a later post I'm going to dive into the actual law but here I want to simply draw attention to a portion of Tempting Faith, the book by my Beliefnet colleague David Kuo, who was the deputy director of the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives under Bush. He describes how the Bush White House wanted to make a big deal about federal rules preventing programs from hiring on the basis of faith. They instructed the staff to find outrageous examples of religious charities being forced to abandon their principles:
"There was only onne problem. Hundreds of calls were made and not one additional example was found."
Why? Because "most of the faith-based groups that did contract with the federal government were large and well lawyered" and therefore skillful at working around the law so they could get the money.
Kuo tried to convince his colleagues that it was a minor issue and that downplaying it could help them forge a consensus. But, it turned out, building consensus really wasn't the goal. "Jim [Towey, the office's director] was fully engaged in West Wing politics and smart enough to know how best to tickle political fancies. The religious hiring issues was polarizing... More action on the same subject would mean more attention for Jim's efforts. Therefore the religious hiring issue was good."
In other words, the religious hiring issue is one of these classic Washington creatures that interest groups care more about than those on the ground. Liberals loved it when Bush moved the line because they could claim he was gutting separation of church and state. Conservative activists love it that Obama has taken his position because they can claim he's gutting faith.
The reality is that the rule - though dealing with some interesting and important principles -- affects few groups in the real world. The test for Obama will be whether he can keep this particular red herring from blocking real progress that would help the poor.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I'll take a look at the Scripture you laid out. Thanks.
The big issue that doesn't seem to make sense that you clarified is this other idea (that many Christians portray) of this world being completely scrapped for a "new earth." I think what you're saying with "a cleaned-out Earth" is much more consistent with other major factors such as Jesus' bodily Resurrection and the bodily resurrection promised to the faithful. The other idea of this earth going to the cosmic trash can would seem to imply a disembodied resurrection which is neo-Platonist. (I don't know if I'm making any sense. I'm just trying to make sense of it myself.) But let me take a look at all the Scripture and see if I can make more sense of it.
The other big thing is how this view of eschatology plays out in this life with issues such as... Obama v. McCain... Can you see now why I'm at such odds with these sorts of things? Too many things to figure out and work through all while I'm getting pounded by the world and my own misgivings all at the same time.
==Too many things to figure out and work through all while I'm getting pounded by the world and my own misgivings all at the same time.==
That's why we give it all to the LORD, having realized, through Jesus -- the Word -- that we can't figure any of it out on our own.
Is the world more powerful than Jesus and His Blood??? NO! Then -- and take this the right way -- stop acting as though the world is more powerful than He Who says that, sure, you're gonna get pounded by the world, but, He says, "So what? You got Me, don't you? And I conquered all that, if I remember correctly."
Reminds me of what I have been thinking lately about people who are depressed, as an example.
A woman, say, comes to you and says that she's depressed.
Well, she is confessing depression, and that confession will just enhance the depression, not save her. She should be confessing the LORD, through Jesus. But no. She wants YOU to confess her depression with her, so she can feel good about feeling bad. She wants your witness, a negative witness, not the witness of Good Things. If you oblige her, you're doing her no good, just helping her do bad, and Genesis 4:7 says, that, if you don't do well, sin "lieth at the door," and that brings up Job 1:22, then Jonah 2:7. It's all about "remembrance" of the LORD, through Jesus. Therefore, it behooves you not to help her not do well, rather to do well which sounds like "dwell," as in Psalm 23 and elsewhere: If you do well, you dwell, as well as do well, in the House of the LORD. There's a relationship there between doing well and dwelling in the House of the LORD. In other words, if you take the last verse in Psalm 23 -- dwell -- you can sub "dwell," not to change meaning, rather to get more understanding.
So, as difficult as it is -- and the LORD knows that it is cuz He experienced it -- He has provided a way -- THE Way, as a matter of Fact-- and He provides a demonstration of this Way in Matthew 4:1-11: Go to the Word when pounded by the world. Even when the world is seducing you with pleasantries and what seem like "gifts."
You'll notice that, in Matthew 4:1-11, Jesus doesn't engage in conversation -- filthy conversation -- with the Devil. He responds to the Devil's attack, not with reasoning which can corrupt and, itself, be corrupted, rahter with the Word. The Devil -- the world, "Egypt," the sin nature -- will always use "reason" try to make doing filthy things seem wonderful and natural cuz, well, reasoning IS natural.
However, we have to ask, "What reasoning is natural? All of it up'n'here? O'course not!" That's why we have to guard the gate through which the Devil has inroads, if we aren't careful. In Matthew 4:1-11, Jesus shows us how to be careful.
This works with your own "misgivings," too.
Hope this helps encourage you in the LORD, through Jesus. The real encouragement, though, is in the Word of God.
By the way...
I 'pose I coulda made it easier by posting the verses from Biblegateway. However, I think that this thing considers it spam and delays, or rejects, the post outright. That's not right. We oughta be allowed and able to post support by linking to that support, if for no other reason than simplicity and ease.
No worries, man. I actually enjoy looking the stuff up - whether it's breaking my Bible in some more or cruising around biblegateway. I still have my homework from yesterday. So I'll let you know how it goes.
1 Tim 4
2 Tim 3:1
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.