Freedom: Religious and Other
As I listen to the music from “Dances with Wolves” and imagine the visual of looking out at the plains from atop a horse post Civil War. This morning I’ve read many news reports and blogs about the bills in several legislatures dubbed, “religious freedom act.” I’ve not spent a lot of time reading the bills themselves, but the “think tanks” behind these bills, as best as I can tell, care little about religion or freedom for anyone that does not identify with their brand of Christian witness. Two perspectives seem competing, yet, broadly settle on the indefensible nature of the latest Arizona bill that has drawn national media attention, scrutiny and shown light on others like it moving through state legislatures around our Nation.
Rachel Held Evans claims the identity “evangelical Christian.” I’m not sure why except that her theology, that I’ve gleaned from her writings, embraces the approved dominant Christology and soteriology. She is an “evangelical” that, like Jim Wallis, is balancing a practice of the ways of Jesus alongside a belief in Jesus Christ. Crudely stated, what one does after being saved is as important as being saved itself. It is this kind of evangelical that I feel a kinship with, appreciate, and with whom I think mainline Protestants and Catholics must unite to reform Christendom from a Colonial/kingdom worldview and a prosperity Gospel. Here are a few of Rachel’s words on this topic.
Waling the Second Mile: Jesus, Discrimination, and Religious Freedom
And I think that refusing to serve gay and lesbian people, and advancing legislation that denies others their civil liberties in response to perceived threats to our own, does irreparable damage to our witness as Christians and leaves a whole group of people feeling like second-class citizens, not only in our country, but also in the Kingdom. There may be second-class citizens in the U.S. and in Uganda and in Russia, but there should be no second-class citizens in the Kingdom. Click here to read more.
And, a second perspective from John Stewart at The Daily Show. Caution, if you are a youth that reads my blog this content could be inappropriate; and now that I’ve said that I’m sure you are going to follow the link. I would have when I was your age, but I’m not encouraging the language that John uses. What I like about John Stewart is that he is in the satire business and quality satire makes one think even as it offends with language and ideas. It is why I’m a fan of George Carlin and Lewis Black. John and his staff take satirizing culture, politics, and day to day life seriously without taking themselves too seriously. After all, it is “the fake news.” Often his “making fun” of culture, of news outlets, of us as a Nation, of our legislative Reps, and of himself are what I think serious news shows (the so called “hard news”) wish they would do: point out the obvious contradictions, point a path to the connections, and actually shine light on what is deemed “news worthy” that day, but the corporations that own the news cannot afford to let that happen. Today, our news choices can be as gated as some of our communities and schools. Last night John Stewart’s opening block addressed the Arizona “religious freedom” bill. Click here to watch the second half of that opening block which I think compliments Rachel’s words and also begs the question, “What is morally repugnant?” That would be a good Top 10 List for a future blog. It would, of course, require some definition of terms.
Word, brother.