(Ir)religiosity

Today was supposed to be for another Diana Butler Bass post.

But then the gays had to go and cause a tornado in Minnesota.

Like a lot of people yesterday I read John Piper’s outrageous post claiming that God caused a tornado in Minneapolis to send a message to the ELCA:  God doesn’t like gays and doesn’t want them in His (yes, His) church.  And like a lot of people I was angered.

I left this comment on Piper’s post:

It is deeply disappointing to see such a prominent Christian leader yet again contributing to the narrative of fear. You’re peddling a poisonous and toxic theology Mr. Piper. And you join the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in doing so. Yours is a Christianity that betrays the heart of the gospel. I highly doubt you will, but I pray that you retract your words.

I was in a hurry so here’s a few more thoughts.  (My hope is that more people (people who, unlike me, have voice and influence) will call Piper out on this because the last thing we need is another excuse for people to write off Christians has gay-bashing, fanatical, wing nuts.)

The theology is ridiculous. I’m hesitant to even call this theology because Piper’s cutting and pasting of scripture tells me that he is more interested in justifying his own ideology with religious authority than he is in serious reflection.¹  It is very destructive and obviously raises some disturbing issues when it comes to theodicy and the nature of God.  The burden of proof is on Piper to explain every other natural disaster.  Who is being punished in all the other tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes?  And what kind of God dishes out punishment of that magnitude?  What of grace?  If God is in the business of unleashing holy hell on those God pleases then why does God only seems to care about who is having consensual sex with whom and who is marrying whom?   Aren’t there other issues that might seem at least a bit more pressing, like say, war or starvation or economic exploitation or disease?  If this is God’s way of dealing with things the why hasn’t the United States been wiped off the map for failing to care for its own as the wealthiest nation in the world or for starting bogus wars abroad in order to secure its “interests?”  What kind of hierarchy of sins is this that sex is at the top and other problems that directly affect persons livelihood don’t even seem to register?  Why doesn’t God give a damn about those?

When you push the thought to its inevitable conclusion, Piper’s God begins to look more in more like the mean kid killing insects with a magnifying glass.  God is a sadist who enjoys inflicting cosmic pain on others.  If that is true then I have no interest in God.  And if religion consists of me running scared for the rest of my life hoping that God isn’t out to get me then I’m out on that too.

Christianity is not a religion of fear.  From beginning to end, it’s narrative is one full of hope for the redemption and restoration of all things.  Piper, in his post, is more interested in a narrative of fear that dehumanizes the other, casting God as a cosmic antagonist, the ultimate mob boss who will kill you on a whim if you look at him the wrong way.  This is not the gospel, indeed it betrays the very heart of the gospel by opting for fear and hate instead of hope and love.  “Perfect love casts out fear.” Jesus modeled that perfect love and brought the narrative of hope to its apex.  He had a ton of opportunities to go postal on someone who didn’t get it or deserved to be punished, but he didn’t.  In fact, in the third act of the story Jesus shows us just how absurd the whole system of punishment and fear really is.  Is that not the clearest and most unambiguous embodiment of the very nature of God?

God does not create tornadoes to “send messages.”

God sent the best message God could 2000 years ago and the message is this: love, not hate wins; hope, not fear, has the final say.

You, John Piper, are on the wrong side of history.  Homosexuals pose no threat to the church nor does God hate, despise, or want to punish them.  We should be welcoming them with open arms to join us in participating in the restoration and renewal of all things.  Justice demands it.

1. To be sure, we’re all guilty of this to some extent, but there are good interpretations and bad interpretations. [↩]

I have written a post on this day the last two years.  My feelings on the subject haven’t changed much.  Frankly, I’m tried of saying that same thing over and over, yet I feel compelled to do so nonetheless.

I find it very difficult to celebrate the founding of a nation that is now the world’s largest imperialist power and has all but abandoned the principles upon which it was founded.  To commemorate nationalism, consumerism, capitalism, sexism, racism, militarism, and exceptionalism all on the same day and have the audacity to call it patriotism is a little much for me.  Even the fact that we still declare ourselves “Independent” every year on this day reeks of a dangerous type of collective ignorance and amnesia that is all too common in the good ‘ole USA.  We are not independent.  We haven’t been for a long time.  We are very much dependent on the rest of the world — “they” are the lifeblood of our now failing economy.  And we’ve mortgaged their well-being, their ability to live “the American dream” — to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on their own terms — in order to secure our own position of privilege.

But of course we’re not spending gross amounts of money on fireworks and firing up the grills to celebrate our current situation.  No, the whole point is to commemorate the signing of the Declaration of Independence and as Howard Zinn points out:

The Declaration of Independence is the fundamental document of democracy. It says governments are artificial creations, established by the people, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and charged by the people to ensure the equal right of all to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Furthermore, as the Declaration says, “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” It is the country that is primary–the people, the ideals of the sanctity of human life and the promotion of liberty.

If that is true I wonder if we really realize what we are celebrating. Why don’t we take this stuff seriously instead of allowing our minds to be colonized by the status quo?  Why do we assume that global capitalism is here to stay and reject any alternative wholesale?  Why do we assume that the way in which we organize ourselves is the best or even the most effective way to do so?  Why are we afraid to try something different, to open ourselves up to a Derridean “democracy to come?” Here I find it quite ironic that many white liberals who have been on the side of dissent in this fashion for the last 8 years or so are suddenly quiet now that a new regime is in place and a new face represents the empire.  I like Obama, to be sure, and I voted for him.  But I am kidding myself if I believe that there will be any real, deep change.  There will be changes, but they will be cosmetic and like any well-oiled machine it will be just enough to blow off the steam and excess heat that is needed for things to keep moving.  Any system needs a good vent;  I’m afraid that too often our dissent only serves that purpose, thereby fulfilling an important requirement in maintaining the status quo.  We shouldn’t settle for a change in cosmetics and verbiage, we should demand a radical rethinking of our conceptual framework.

Of all people I think Christians should be on the cutting edge of this type of revolutionary imagination.  Jesus himself was executed by the state for preaching a message about an anarchic kingdom that existed under the nose of the status quo.  But still we continue to be co-opted by the forces of jingoistic nationalism.  So, though I disagree with him on some major points, I think Stanley Hauerwas is on to something when he brazenly claims:

I assume most of you are here because you think you are Christians, but it is not all clear to me that the Christianity that has made you Christians is Christianity. For example: How many of you worship in a church with an American flag? I am sorry to tell you that your salvation is in doubt. How many of you worship in a church in which the fourth of July is celebrated? I am sorry to tell you that your salvation is in doubt.

The kingdom of God respects no nation knows no boundary.  This is why I think there is a truly subversive kernel to Christianity, a kernel that, if redeemed, can serve as a catalyst for revolution and evolution of thought.  But that cannot happen unless we shake free from all our various forms of dogmatism, be them religious, national or political.

And that’s why I find it increasingly difficult to celebrate holidays like the Fourth of July.  Not only because we have forgotten who we really are, but because the commemoration itself represents our penchant to complacently hide behind dogmatism writ large rather than allowing the creative imagination to conceptualize something beyond what we already know.

There is a war going on for your mind. If you are thinking, you are winning.

Click image to enlarge.

(ht)

Yesterday was indeed a day of tremendous rejoicing.  Barack Hussein Obama — a man whose father was a poor immigrant from Kenya, a man who not long ago wouldn’t have been able to sit across the table from a white man in a restaurant, and a man who only 4 years ago many Americans, upon seeing his name in writing might label as a ‘terrorist’ — took the oath of office and was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States of America.  Truly a historic moment and a historic day.

I look forward to someday in the future telling my children and grandchildren where I was on the day that we the people chose to officially ratify the words written on that document so long ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” For many these ’self-evident truths’ became a very visceral reality on January 20, 2009, the dawn of a new era in the American story.  That day will live on in the pages of history as a moment when America set aside its partisanship and differences and embraced the hope and inspiration that lies within us all.

But that was yesterday.  And today is, well, today is the beginning of tomorrow.  The beginning of the continued tomorrow that is the world after Obama’s inauguration.  A world where Guantanamo Bay still exists as an aberration of human rights; a world where the United States is still fighting two wars and occupying at least one country; a world where the violence and turmoil in the Middle East — whichever ’side’ you may choose — are almost unbearable; a world where the global economy and world markets are tanking and taking the poorest among us as their first victims; a world were the twin monsters of classism and yes, racism still very much exist; and a world where the choices of past and present are undeniably threatening the existence of the future.  This is the world in which Obama, and all of us, live, move, and have our being.

My relationship with President Obama has changed. Because of his position and responsibility as President, and because of my position and responsibility as a citizen, I must raise my voice in either dissent and criticism as the time arises; I must maintain prophetic distance, not because I dislike President Obama, but because he is now the representative and leader of the American empire, the largest, most powerful nation on earth — and he, like those before him, must be held to account.  It is my responsibility as one on the margins to aid in ensuring that that happens.  For what it’s worth, I think it may be happening a lot less these next four years than in recent memory, but it must happen.  And when the time arises to criticize, those of us with that vocation must not fail to speak out.

Watching him during the inaugural ceremonies yesterday, I get the very real sense that President Obama truly feels the gravity of his office — especially now — and the very real urgency of our situation.  I have a sense of hope — not messianic hope mind you! — in his presidency that I have never felt for a political leader.  I have faith that this feeling of hope will deliver.  And I am willing to place my trust in President Obama for a while.  We will see what happens.  If he holds true to his word and remains transparent and honest, then we may very well be in for a ride.  In a good way.

So yesterday I celebrated, I raised my glass to President Obama and the history that his inauguration symbolizes.  But today. . .today I begin the work of the continued tomorrow, not because I don’t like President Obama I really do, but because I have committed myself to always remain on the side of justice.  And that commitment will at times place me against President Obama simply by virtue of his office.

Related articles by Zemanta

• History of Inauguration
• It’s Official: My Hopes are Up
• Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States of America

I don’t know what to make of Burger King’s latest ad campaign.  It’s abductive, that’s for sure.  But I can’t help but find it at least a bit arrogant and maybe even culturally imperialistic.  Here’s one of the original commercial that aired a few weeks ago.

It sure got my attention when I first saw it.  Another ad with basically the same format wonders if other “Whopper Virgins,” this time Transylvanian farmers, will chose, as have Americans, the Whopper over the Big Mac.  Even more interesting  is the mini-documentary that Burger King has released on its new “Whopper Virgins” website.

They tried pretty hard to make it seems pure and innocent there toward the end, but I’m not convinced.  The way the whole thing has been marketed, starting with the name — Whopper Virgins, conjuring up sexual imagery that unnecessarily marginalizes those it is applied to  — seems to suggest that these people are just another means to the larger end of promoting Burger King around the globe and raking in more cash that will ultimately be bequeathed to the new transnational empire of consumer capitalism.  And I don’t for a second think that benefits the Transylvanian farmer or the Thai peasant.  It just uses and abuses them — making them the punchline for yet another cutthroat marketing scheme.  Sure, it’s ingenious, but it’s also, in my opinion, immoral.

Maybe I’m way off base here, but I just think that the resources used to fund, manage, and implement this project could be put to much better use in way that doesn’t orientalize or exoticize persons in other cultures.  We don’t need more people in service to American hegemony, transnational corporations, or global consumer capitalism; we need more people to actually take the time to learn about other cultures and communities and intentionally look for creative ways to help local economies.

What do you think?  Does this cross the line, or is just another harmless ad campaign?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Burger King under fire for Whopper Virgins taste test challenge
• BK Ads Flame-Broiled in Controversy
• Cultural Arrogance or Brilliant Marketing?
• We’re no Whopper Virgins
• Whopper Virgins: it doesn’t get much more offensive than this

For easy access, here are all the links for this series.

Part I: Only Americans Matter
Part II: We Draw Our Circle Too Small
Part III: Patriotic Fixations
Part IV: Media Violence and the Ease of Abstraction
Part V: Final Thoughts

Part I: Only Americans Matter
Part II: We Draw Our Circle too Small
Part III: Patriotic Fixations
Part IV: Media Violence and the Ease of Abstraction

I suppose it’s time to wrap this series up.  It’s been a couple of weeks since I posted on this topic, so let’s revisit a few things.

In Part one, I introduced the overall thrust of my thought: in the western world — particularly in the US — nations tend to suppress, ignore, and even omit non-domestic acts of war, violence and terrorism.  The most obvious and visceral example for me as American — there are of course numerous such examples, too many to recount in a single post really — is the recent and ongoing lack of coverage and general unconcern en masse about the occupation of Iraq. Read the rest of this entry »

Part I: Only Americans Matter
Part II: We Draw Our Circle too Small
Part III: Patriotic Fixations

Last time, I mentioned the problem of patriotism and its synonymic relationship to nationalism and ethnocentrism the by-product of which is the arrogance of American exceptionalism not to mention the sorrows of empire itself.

The final reason for this cult of indifference and triumphalism — at least when related to non-domestic acts violence in the manner I have for this series — may be perhaps the least obvious of the three and its influence, while subtle, is very damaging.  This phenomenon as less to do with media coverage and national pride and more to do with our unconscious reaction to violence in the globalized information age.

The reality is that we have become desensitized to violence in general have little to no reaction when faced with actual violence perpetrated in acts of war. Read the rest of this entry »

Part I: Only Americans Matter
Part II: We Draw Our Circle too Small

Last time, I mentioned the first reason we as Americans tend to both individually and collectively — individually as preoccupied public population and collectively via the manufacturing of consent through the politically driven corporate media machine — suppress and ignore non-domestic acts of violence: the political symbolism of the current Bush regime and the reality of assumed indirect consequence.

I concluded by noting that we “draw our circle too small” only including in our spheres our care those who look and act like us; in short, those who remain “citizens” of the particular and arbitrarily created — usually as a result of geopolitics and social convenience — “nation-state” in which we live.

The second justification for our indifference stems from, and is the direct result of, the first.  It is the intense and deep-seated emotional feeling most of every American, of virtually every political stripe is overcome with this time of the year.  I am of course speaking of the feeling of many, rightly or wrongly, call patriotism. Read the rest of this entry »

On this day last year, I wrote a post expressing my regret and distaste for the Fourth of July also known as Independence Day in the United States.  The celebration of any empire is, to me, to undermine the better qualities of human nature not mention to the rejection of the teachings of Jesus.

To be clear, I still hold those convictions, perhaps even more today than last year given the state of affairs in the US and the climate of the global economy, but that is another matter altogether. However, to associate those convictions with Independence Day is somewhat of misnomer because July 4, 1776 isn’t so much a commemoration of the United States and the celebration of American empire itself as much as it is a commemoration and celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the document on which the United States was founded and the document — along with what is left of the Constitution — from which it dubiously justifies its imperial existence.

So, I will celebrate the fourth of July not because I’m an American nationalist who will rally around the flag, praise the prospects of empire, eat grilled meat, and blow stuff up.  No, I will celebrate the fourth because I want to commemorate the Declaration of Independence and because I want to actually take it seriously. Read the rest of this entry »