more theocrats

Had an interesting conversation today touching on the dangers of theocracy, and then ran across this from Paul Krugman in today's Times. Some of the most compelling current writing on the dangers of the so-called Christian Right comes from Chris Hedges, whose most recent work, American Fascists, recounts the frightening tale of the the rise and power of the Falwells and Robertsons and the next wave. One might surmise that the message is "be afraid, be very afraid." I'd prefer to think otherwise: be organized, be very organized.
Speaking of which, the Network of Spiritual Progressives in Northern Virginia is meeting at Clarendon this Sunday evening at 7:00. Hope to see you there.

The Theological Declaration of Barmen

With thanks, again, to Peg True!
With the Barmen Declaration we move from Reformation Confessions to Contemporary Declarations in The Book of Confessions. This Declaration was written in 1934 by representatives from eighteen German provincial churches – Lutheran, Reformed, and United (Lutheran and Reformed). They met in the industrial city of Barmen-Wuppertal as the First Confessing Synod of the German Evangelical Church. They were protesting interference in the life of the churches by the Nazi government and the resulting errors they saw in the Nazi-inspired “German Christian” movement. These brave church leaders would not vow their allegiance to Hitler nor would they continue to pastor in churches where Jesus Christ was less important than the current government. So they formed Confessing Churches which kept Christian faith at the center and risked their lives to remain true to their faith.
Authored principally by Karl Barth, the declaration is a clarification or explanation of the meaning of the older confessions and is applied to a concrete evil that threatened Christians in 1934. The action of the delegates at Barmen proved to be so right in their time, and so useful as a warning for Christians at all times, that it is included in our Book of Confessions. Their style of clarifying faith in the face of current problems in church and society served as a model to American Presbyterians in the writing of the Confession of 1967.
Two essential tenets, or beliefs, of the Reformed Faith are discussed in The Barmen Declaration. The first is the sin of idolatry. Reformed Christians believe that every person can know God, for that knowledge is in us. When we choose not to acknowledge God we create idols. In the Barmen Declaration the primary idolatry is giving ultimate loyalty to any idea, person, institution or purpose. Using the litany beginning, “We reject the false doctrine” they name the error of the “German Christians.” They spoke out against the idolatry of “prevailing ideological and political convictions; special leaders vested with ruling powers.
The second belief stated is the Lordship of Jesus Christ, proclaimed to be the “one Word, or revelation, of God, to the church and to the world. They also affirmed that Jesus Christ “is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins.
One of the most memorable figures in the struggle of the Confessing Church against Hitler was Pastor Martin Niemoeller who spent seven years in concentration camps. (Click to see a photo of his cell.) After the war he shared the guilt of the German people with these famous words:
"In Germany they came first for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t
Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade
unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
That’s what the Barmen Declaration says to us today! As Christians we must keep Christ at the center of our lives and be an active member of our society assuring that all people can live together in freedom and peace.

Check it out!

Noah Budin. Metaphor.

It’s not often that one gets to witness firsthand an artist come into full flower. Those who have followed the performing and recording career of Noah Budin have experienced this growth and blossom over the decade since the first seeds were sown in his joyous debut CD, Hallelujah Land, in 1997. With the release of Metaphor this spring we hear an artist in full.

If all language about God is metaphorical, all of Metaphor is about God. Indeed, at their best, Budin’s songs sound like a deep correspondence between the divine and the ones imprinted with the divine image. Yet Budin manages this without ever sounding in any way traditionally “religious.” This is, indeed, music for those who are deeply spiritual without necessarily being religious.

The disc opens with the powerful percussion of “Metaphor.” The liner notes suggest that the title track emerged from a song-writing workshop whose participants were asked to develop metaphors for God, and the song weaves them together to powerful effect. But the more I listened to the song, the more I began to imagine it as a love letter from the creator to a creation that has forgotten how to recognize the divine in its midst. “I am that I am that I am and will be,” perhaps God sings to us, “but you are everything to me.”

If “Metaphor” is the creator singing to creation, the conversation continues in “Blessing,” a gentle prayer for grace to cover the generations as their circles dance to the divine music of creation. Full disclosure: I know several of the generations of the artist’s family including the spirit-filled youngest daughter who served, in part, as the spark for “Haruach.” That personal relationship has, if anything, left me a less patient listener longing for the fullness of the music to emerge from the promise of Hallelujah Land. It does so in the rich arrangements of Metaphor, and certainly in this song of spirit that highlights the keyboard work of Edward Ridley, Jr. and a fine sax riff from Norm Tischler.

Budin has surrounded himself with excellent musicians throughout this recording, and they are nowhere more evident than on “Let it Burn,” which must be the rockingest Hanukkah song ever recorded. I’ll confess, that as a Protestant pastor I don’t have a deep knowledge of the range of comparable holiday songs, but as one who grew up with the rock soundtrack of America in the 1970s, I promise you that Sam Getz’s screaming guitar more than holds its own while Budin’s voice rocks out strong and clear in a song that connects the candles with the fires of justice and promises to let it burn.

While many of the images used in the songs come directly from Budin’s Jewish roots, the music never falls into religious cliché. The beautifully turned “Reason to Believe” draws from a range of human relationships and natural wonders to trace the roots of faith: “It’s the lightning in the sky/your perfect smile your Godly eyes.”

The range of musical styles and influences is almost as wide as the range of faith influences. From the traditional folks roots of the raucous “Carry That Rock,” to the gospel sounds of “Take Me Back,” Metaphor displays a musical virtuosity rare in our genre-driven age. You may ask, “What’s a Jewish singer-songwriter doing joining voices with The Prayer Warriors on a gospel song?” Well, this is the same artist who introduced the world to accapella “Jew-wop” on Hallelujah Land, and under the production hand of his older brother, David, the various musical threads weave together seamlessly.

The disc closes with a final weave: the Jewish experience of slavery and exodus hope with the African-American experience. Borrowing from Rabbi Heschel’s memorable insistence that his “feet were praying” as he marched with Dr. King, the last track, “Every Step a Prayer,” reminds us that “it’s holy ground we walk upon/this journey that we share/in every breath, a miracle/and every step a prayer.”

While I leave the judgment of the miraculous to others, every breath of Metaphor is certainly a prayer, and the totality bears repeated listening.

Westminster and Catechisms, 1647

Thanks to the Rev. Peg True for this post: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms are the best known of the Reformation era creeds among Presbyterians. For over three centuries they were the sole doctrinal standards of British and American Presbyterianism, until it was included in “The Book of Confessions” that was created in 1967 by American Presbyterians.

The Westminster Assembly, so named since it met at Westminster Abby, was appointed by Parliament to work on a confession that would be agreeable to the many ideologies that existed in England at that time. Members included representatives from the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Puritans and Presbyterians from Scotland. It was a time of great unrest between the Church of England and the Puritans who were reformed and wanted a representative form of government as described in the Bible. The Confession was passed by parliament and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms were developed to instruct adults and children in what the Westminster Confession taught.

One of the most important beliefs outlined in this confession is the sovereignty of God. In our scientific times we are quick to dismiss the idea that God causes everything that happens but that is not what the Divines were saying. The meaning they gave to the sovereignty of God is that we are created in relationship with the living God. Reformed theology presented here says we glorify God by listening to what God asks of us in Scripture and using the many gifts and talents we are given in creative activity. By living as we are called we are free to be actively engaged in the world as we live out our faith. The first question in the shorter Catechism is, “What is the chief end of humans? And the response is, “The chief end of humans is to glorify God and enjoy God forever.”

Interpretation of Scripture is another part of the Confession that is relevant today. There are seven rules of biblical interpretation given in The Westminster Confession that were used in the Presbyterian Church USA document “Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture” written twenty years ago. This confession continues to influence our lives and define our history as a denomination. While it contains some things we may not choose to believe it gives us a firm foundation for believing we are children of a God who loves us and walks with us through life.

Walking with the Wind

I met someone this week who is working on a documentary film about John Lewis, one of my personal heroes. A few years back, when I read his memoir, I wrote this in response:

Walking With the Wind

We are broken vessels, nothing more than jars of clay

But the light that shines within us, shone from the making day.

Seek the light within you, hold others in it too

Even when they turn their backs, hold on to what is true

It’s a long way to the promised land. We’re gonna walk it hand in hand.

Sing the songs of freedom friend. Stand up tall we will not bend.

We’re gonna keep on walking with the wind.

We’ll walk the road before us; we may stumble, we may fall.

There’s another hand to pick us up when we follow freedom’s call.

The road to freedom winds on down through valleys of despair.

Nashville, Selma, Birmingham: our footsteps echo there.

It’s a long way to the promised land. We’re gonna walk it hand in hand.

Sing the songs of freedom friend. Stand up tall we will not bend.

We’re gonna keep on walking with the wind.

With the steps of kings and framers and the working of their hands

The seeds of freedom have been sown so we can take our stand.

The arc of justice is mighty long, but it bends toward holy ground.

And when we do the work of love, it bends the whole world round.

It’s a long way to the promised land. We’re gonna walk it hand in hand.

Sing the songs of freedom friend. Stand up tall we will not bend.

Keep on walking straight and proud; keep on singing strong and loud.

We’re gonna keep on walking now; we’re gonna keep on talking now.

We’re gonna keep on walking with the wind.

Q & A, part II

Q: What's the Heidelberg Catechism?
A: The 1563 answer to that famous conundrum, "it all depends on what the meaning of is is."
Well, perhaps not exactly. The Heidelberg Catechism developed in the midst of the splintering of the early Protestant movement between its Lutheran, Zwinglian and Calvinist branches. While the breakup of the Protestant movement can be traced along geopolitical lines in the devolution of the Holy Roman Empire, it also divided theologically. Heidelberg reflects that split, particularly over the meaning of the sacrament of communion.
What did Jesus mean when he said, at the Last Supper, "this is my body"? Luther interpreted the words literally and thus argued that Christ is literally present in the bread of communion. Zwingli understood it metaphorically arguing that Jesus could not have meant this bread is literally my body when he was, in fact, bodily present in the room. Calvin took a third tack, arguing that Christ is spiritually present in the elements of communion. That classic Reformed perspective is reflected in the liturgy of our time when the officiant says "set aside these common elements for a sacred purpose."
On such distinctions churches split and empires rise or fall.
In addition to articulating a Reformed sacramental theology, Heidelberg stresses the essential Reformed commitment to stewardship as a way of living. We are saved, the catechism stresses, in order to serve the purposes of God in the world. As such, how we use the resources at our disposal is a reflection of God at work in our lives.
Here's a taste of the catechism, which opens with this question and response:

Q. 1. What is your only comfort, in life and in death?

A. That I belong--body and soul, in life and in death--not to myself but to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, who at the cost of his own blood has fully paid for all my sins and has completely freed me from the dominion of the devil; that he protects me so well that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that everything must fit his purpose for my salvation. Therefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

Q & A, part 1

Q: What's a catechism?
A: Well, according to Answers.com,
cat·e·chism (kăt'ĭ-kĭz'əm)
n.

1. A book giving a brief summary of the basic principles of Christianity in question-and-answer form.
2. A manual giving basic instruction in a subject, usually by rote or repetition.
3. A body of fundamental principles or beliefs, especially when accepted uncritically: “the core of the catechism of the antinuclear left, the notion that the threat to peace is technological, not political” (George F. Will).
4. A close questioning or examination, as of a political figure.

Hope and the News

Last Friday I walked in procession with 3,000 or so folks from 48 states gathered in DC to witness for peace. It was cold, snowy and windy as we walked three miles from the National Cathedral to the White House. As we walked we sang songs -- Amazing Grace, Down by the Riverside, O Beautiful for Spacious Skies.
I was with a friend who remembered verse two:
O beautiful for pilgrim feet, whose stern, impassioned stress
a thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness
America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.
I don't think they sing that verse in the White House these days, where they acknowledge no flaws yet flout many laws as it suits them.
As is so often that case, the paper of record hereabouts failed in its coverage of the event. Oh, sure, the Post got most of the facts right in its story. But facts are not the same thing as truth.
For the paper to have told the truth, it would have had to report that Jim Wallis spoke truth to power or that the faithful gave a rousing ovation to the offering call or that the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta is filled by a worthy successor to Dr. King, and continues to be a beacon of hope. Don't believe me; check the video of the service at the Cathedral's web site.
To get it right, at the very least, the Post would need to have published a photo like the one here, from the Cathedral's web site, rather than the scary looking tattooed man who made a striking photo, to be sure, of an easily dismissed peace movement.

Not Alone

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Here's another sign of the bending from recent days.
And here's a kids' anthem to go along with the notion:

Bending the Arc

In my tribe we got lots of different faces

In my tribe people come from different places

In my tribe we got lots of different races

In my tribe we’re bending the arc with love

In my tribe inspiration fills our lungs

In my tribe every banner will be hung

In my tribe we’re singing songs of every tongue

In my tribe we’re bending the arc with love

In my tribe young and old will join the band

In my tribe straight and gay walk hand in hand

In my tribe all the people share the land

In my tribe we’re bending the arc with love

In my tribe we got joy and pain and sorrow

In my tribe we see a vision for tomorrow

In my tribe we’ve got love enough to share and some to borrow

In my tribe we’re bending the arc with love

Scots

The Scots Confession, written in 1560 by John Knox and five other Scots reformers, is the oldest English language Reformation confession. Knox and his friends worked almost literally under the gun, as their work put words to a vision of ecclesiastic and political unity in a Scotland emerging from a long and bloody fight for independence from both the Roman Catholic French and the Protestant monarchy of England.
While the political intrigue of a Europe emerging from the Middle Ages into early modernity was shaped by the particular institutions and individuals of the time, the broad social, political, economic and intellectual tumult bears some striking parallels to our own age. New communications technologies (the printing press), rapidly expanding trade (flowing forth from Columbus' exploration of the New World), an emerging economic order of capitalism, and the first stirrings of democratic political yearnings (though still two centuries away from the American Revolution) marked the age much as the emergence of the internet, global trade, and post-colonial political yearnings continue to mark our age.
So, in the midst of that world-altering change what did the fathers of Presbyterianism choose to focus on? A church marked by right preaching of the word, right observation of the sacraments, and discipline in ecclesiastical order. Is it any wonder that we Presbyterians are "decent and in order in all things"?
The Scots Confession is a clarion call to commitment to the church (the Kirk, the word Knox chose as closest to the New Testament Greek kyriakon), and its passion is captured in what stand as, perhaps, is most well known words:
"The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, with which must be associated the Word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. Then wherever these notes are seen and continue for any time, be the number complete or not, there, beyond any doubt, is the true Kirk of Christ, who, according to his promise, is in its midst. "
Against the tumult of the age, the Reformers called the faithful to live in fidelity to the true Kirk. In our age, the question is similar: what are the marks of the church today? What does it mean to be authentically the church of Jesus Christ in the post modern world? How do we confess our faith now? What can the Reformers teach us, who would be reformers still?

Lent

"The purpose of Lent is not only expiation, to satisfy the divine justice, but above all a preparation to rejoice in God's love. And this preparation consists in receiving the gift of God's mercy - a gift which we receive in so far as we open our hearts to it, casting out what cannot remain in the same room with mercy.

Now one of the things we must cast out first of all is fear. Fear narrows the little entrance of our heart. It shrinks up our capacity to love. It freezes up our power to give ourselves. If we were terrified of God as an inexorable judge, we would not confidently await God's mercy, or approach God trustfully in prayer. Our peace, our joy in Lent are a guarantee of grace."

- Thomas Merton, in "Seasons of Celebration"

Well, it's a good thing, too, because Lenten commitments are no easier to keep than New Year's resolutions. Thus, having promised myself that I would keep to the practice of this journal/blog daily during Lent I find the entrance to my own heart narrowed by the fear of not getting things done. So, under an increasing pile of "to-dos" the blogging slides by. But this day will get a double dose.

Nicene

The oldest of the Christian creeds, the Nicene, developed over the course of more than 100 years from its beginnings at the Council of Nicaea in 325 to its adoption as a definitive statement of Christian faith by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It is the most widely ecumenical statement of faith in all of Christianity, being accepted by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and much of the Protestant world.
As with many of the creeds and confessions of the church, the Nicene arose from conflict. Constantine had unified an empire but not a church when he called together more than 300 bishops to meet in Nicaea and settle their theological differences.
The church was divided theologically over a fundamental question concerning the nature of God and the divinity of Christ. Current debate in the Presbyterian church over trinitarian language suggests that the debate remains unsettled some 1,700 years on. The prinicple divide in the fourth century concerned the "substance" of God, and reflected a growing fascination with Aristotle's philosophical language of sustance and word, or ousios and logos -- Greek ideas that far outstrip the English translations. The wording of the creed -- Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father -- reflects the controversy of the time, much of which centered on the positions of a priest named Arius -- for whom a heresy was named! My kind of guy.
The creed remains in use. I'm interested in what its language means to you. What is helpful? What creates stumbling blocks?

Enough

We're doing a Lenten series in our house called "Enough." A group of us is coming together once a week to talk about what it means to live with enough. This evening one of the things we did together was imagine a "perfect day." We went around the group sharing aspects of a perfect day. There were common themes: friends, family, creation, good food and naps. Good conversations and good work were common, as well. I noticed some things that no one included: watching TV, shopping, expensive spas. In fact, the perfect day was remarkably free of consumer culture. So: what's in your perfect day?

Ethics and Doctrines

Just as I am preparing to put up the next post on the confessions, I run across this quote:

"I once took a count of what sort of things Jesus thought important enough to confront people about in the gospel of Luke. Nine times Jesus confronted people for not showing love in their actions. Nine times he confronted folks for their greed and hoarding, which get in the way of single-minded service toward God and loving action toward the needy. Nine times Jesus confronted people for having divided loyalties, rather than serving God alone. Eight times he confronted people for showing by their actions that they did not recognize his authority. Eight times he confronted people who were seeking places of honor and reputation, and urged instead the way of servant-like humility.

"Seven times he emphasized that the crucial question is whether we actually do what he teaches, versus the hypocrisy of claiming to be on the side of righteousness while not doing God's will. Seven times he called people explicitly to repent, to take the log out of our own eye, to stop being self-righteously critical of others and insisting on our own way, and instead to be more humble and loving toward him and toward others.

"It is dramatically striking how Jesus' confrontations, and his pronouncing woe, all had to do with ethics. By contrast, he never confronted people about their doctrines. How far some of us have drifted from the way of Jesus!"- Glen H. Stassen, Incarnating Ethics

Discerning?

I’ve been doing a lot of work on discernment lately, right up to and including laying groundwork for creating a discernment center. Then I ran across an article suggesting that discernment is impossible. The author argued that knowing the mind of God is, in principle, not possible for human beings so, therefore, the whole enterprise of discernment is doomed to failure before it ever begins.

Is the great I Am, a God whose very name surrounds the Holy One in sacred mystery, essentially unknowable? Does the truth that Isaiah speaks, that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are our ways God’s ways (Is. 55:8), mean in principle that we cannot discern the will of God? Can we never know God’s ways, or God’s will for our way?

I believe we can. What’s more, I believe that our primary task is to seek this truth and pursue it with all the energy, imagination and passion we have to give it.

After all, the same Isaiah assures us that God does not speak in secret, in a land of darkness (Is. 45:19). And, while we may not be able to boast with certainty about God’s will with respect to every strategy we pursue, scripture is pretty clear about the directions we ought to follow.

What does the Lord require of us? Micah is pretty confident of his discernment of God’s will around that question: do justice, love kindly, walk humbly with our God.

Micah’s words form our listening tube for the work of discernment, our screen for sifting, our framework for understanding. In other words, do the work of discernment on the basis of doing justice, loving tenderly — as the Jerusalem Bible translates it — and walking humbly with God.

We know, from the witness of scripture and from the history of people of faith like Bonhoeffer and King, that God calls us to the work of justice. So, as we listen for God’s call and claim on the particulars of our own lives — where should I work, where should I spend my money, where should I spend my time — we listen with attention to issues of justice that are before us.

Walter Breuggemann says the Biblical definition of justice amounts to this: sorting out what belongs to whom, and returning it to them. With respect to the question of call, what’s at stake is simply this: our lives belong to God, just discernment is about returning those lives to God.

We Need This

The Christian Peace Witness is drawing closer. March 16. Please come if you can. The congress needs to hear from each of us ... from all of us. We need to hear from each other. We need to know that we are not alone. We need to light candles in the darkness and pray for peace. We need to hold hands and then let go to reach out further. We need peace.

Credo

As kids, many of us learned the Apostles’ Creed, the second confession in the Presbyterian Book of Confessions. Why begin with the second confession instead of the first? Well, because “many of us learned” it as kids, and relatively fewer of us learned the church’s earliest confession, the Nicene Creed. Start with what you know!

Or, if you can’t really manage that, start with the beginning: “I believe …”

What does it mean to us to say, “I believe …” and follow that with “God the Father Almighty” and “Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord … Virgin Mary … sitteth on the right hand … quick and the dead … Holy Ghost … holy catholic Church” and so on?

Is “confessing” our belief in these the same as saying “I believe Einstein was right about relativity” or “I believe the Braves will win the pennant” or “I believe the war in Iraq is wrong”? Those statements, whether you agree with them or not, stand open to the judgments of science and history, of knowledge and time, in ways that the Creeds do not, unless we imagine God in the role of ultimate lab technician or final historian.

Even if we imagine God in those roles we ought to acknowledge a couple of things:

First, those roles – scientist or historian – are thoroughly modern notions that would have been utterly foreign to the framers of the early creeds. Second, the creeds themselves never imagine God in such roles even if one accounts for the different cultural referents.

That raises a question: Does “God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” spend time judging whether or not our statements of “belief” about the divine godhead are any more accurate than my statement of “belief” – or, is it faith – that the Braves will ascend to their rightful place atop the National League East.

“Belief” – or, is it faith – that, perhaps, is the key question when pondering the creeds and confessions. What does it mean to say “I believe”?

If it means “I give my intellectual assent to this propositional statement,” then I will confess some significant difficulties with the Apostles Creed, and others that we’ll get to in the next few weeks. Confess, or, should I say scruple (and invite you to find the use of this au courant word in this none-too-trendy piece by Nathanial Hawthorne, whose use of the word a century and a half ago I find edifying. To get a handle on its contemporary use in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I recommend reading a post from former GA Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase.)

But I digress. These difficulties that I scruple would have to include, at least, these:

God the Father

only Son

Virgin Mary

ascended into heaven

These few scruples name in shorthand theological controversies concerning the masculine image of God, exclusive salvation in Jesus, the incarnation of the human being Jesus, and the meaning and “location” of salvation. Forests have been felled and libraries filled to give full expression to the various positions on those topics.

What I happen to believe or disbelieve – that is to say, what I think about any one of them doesn’t much matter here. Because the heart of the matter is not what I think, but rather what will matter enough to me to stake my life on.

The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart, here. The first word of the creed in Latin is credo. It is adequately translated as “I believe.” A deeper rendering might be “I give my heart to.” Marcus Borg explains the distinction, if not the Latin, well when he says, “when we say the creeds, we are saying, "I give my heart to God." Which God? The maker of Heaven and Earth. I give my heart to Jesus Christ. And who is that, the one whom we tell stories about as born of a virgin and suffered under Pontius Pilate and so forth? Credo means giving one's heart to God and entering into a relationship of personal allegiance, not to the statements, but to the one about whom these statements are made.”

Richard Rodriguez, in his Hunger of Memory, includes a central section called “Credo,” in which he describes the Latino immigrant Roman Catholic culture of his childhood. He describes there not a set of beliefs written down in church doctrine, but rather an entire web of community that marked the very timing of one’s life: “the Church rocked through time – a cradle, an ark – to rhythms of sorrow and joy, marking the passage of man.” Credo was not words or arguments but the narrative of life itself.

When I consider the creeds and confessions this way – as stories about the God to whom I give my heart – I can recite them faithfully and with integrity. No matter what historic circumstances, what theological or political battles were being waged in the words, I can claim these words – or be claimed by them.

Indeed, the very fact that different historic circumstances will occasion different confessions, reminds me that it is a matter of heart, first and foremost. So I can join my heart to the place the writers of the Apostles’ Creed aimed for in these ancient words and set aside for another time the intellectual arguments over their claims to a lesser truth.

How do you respond to these words? Or picture (which turned up from an image search of credo.)

buzz ... zzz

Some lucky reader yesterday became the 5,000th viewer of this blog. I'd give out prizes if I could. But since that's not gonna happen, here's a little present for you all: it's Yonkle, the Cowboy Jew! Actually, it's a poster for Yonkle, on display at the Ellis Island museum. Sorry the photo is lousy, but, what could be better, I wonder, than Yonkle, for telling the story of America? If Yonkle were around today, you can bet he'd have a You-Tube video floating around!

I Don't Care

Ok, enough with Anna Nicole Smith already. I really, really, really, really, really don't care. I just want to turn on a John McCutcheon CD and forget the news of the day, which seems to be 24/7 about this dead woman's body or baby or whatever. So, here's the song we should be listening to just now; it would be sooo easy to add 10 years of new material:

I Don't Care
Words & Music by John McCutcheon

Where did it come from, this love of the lurid?
When did reality just get too tame
From the Washington Post to the Weekly World News
It seems nobody has any shame
But when gossip abounds I have recently found
A remedy when I despair
To this junk that I see I respond with ennui
And say I really don't care

I don't care
I don't care

Who shot JR? Is Patty Hearst lying?
I don't care
Liz Taylor is marrying, Elvis is dying
I don't care

I don't care
I don't care
Let the rich and the glamorous ruin their lives
Going through fortunes and treatments and wives
And poor Donald Trump, he just barely survives
But I don't care

Rosanne & Tom, they'll not be a pair again
Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan
Does Michael Jordan gamble on golf?
Why does Hillary Clinton tick Rush Limbaugh off?

I don't care
I don't care
Though the National Enquirer says that it's so
For their lies and distortions they're paying good dough
But there are some things enquiring minds don't need to know
I don't care

Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie
They me that Oprah can wear a size 3
There's a piece of John Bobbitt right here on display
And there's OJ on twenty four hours a day

I don't care
I don't care
Though your troubles are mounting and you work like a drone
It's more fun to watch than to live on your own
Do you think Princess Di made those calls on her phone?

I don't care
I don't care
I really, really, really, really, really don't care
It's the same old sad story the whole world around
We build up our heroes wherever they're found
Then spend the rest of their lives tearing them down
I don't care

©1995 John McCutcheon/Appalsongs (ASCAP)

Searching for Mr. Wright?

My sister points out that I've made the N.Y. Times, albeit with my name (de blog) mispelled. Well, if they're searching for a candidate, perhaps I should be, too. So, what to look for? Molly Ivins' "good head of hair and a good line of talk"? When I google image searched "Mr. Right" this picture turned up. Perhaps a certain competence might be important. So many candidates ... and so much time before the election. How to choose ... how to choose? Suggestions for Mr. Right? Or, Mr. Wright?
Of course, the search for a candidate raises all kinds of questions for the so-called Christian Right, beginning with tax exemption! I'm still not sure how Jerry Falwell managed to hold on to any tax exemptions after declaring that anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian had to vote for George Bush.
On the other hand, that also raises for me the question of when it might become a "status confessionis" to oppose a candidate. That phrase come into renewed currency during the struggle against apartheid when the World Alliance of Reformed Churches declared that apartheid was a sin and that support for it was heresy. (I highly recommend the Kairos document.) In more narrowly construed politics, for instance, could one confess Jesus Christ and not oppose Hitler? In recent American elections, could one confess Jesus Christ and not oppose David Duke? At what point along that spectrum is the current Administration? Does illegal, immoral war determine one's response? Does the loss of civil liberties?
What is Christian Wright to do? What is the right Christian response to the politics of the day? Just asking -- no endorsement is expressed or implied!