Earlier today I issued a rallying cry to our Saskatoon Freethinkers group to make some noise about the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast taking place this weekend. Here's what I wrote -- join us in our effort to hold elected officials accountable to the actual people they represent (and not their version of an invisible friend).
This Saturday "his worship" Don Atchinson will be hosting the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast, an annual event he has sponsored since taking office in 2006. If you check out the list of special guests/speakers for this breakfast, you'll find a very evangelical Christian line-up.
This weekend, the Saskatoon Freethinkers Council decided that we, as a group, would like to take a vocal stand against this obvious breach of church/state separation. One member has already written a letter to the Star Phoenix, and another is readying a press release to circulate to media outlets, informing them of our objection to such a blatant religiously-endorsed civic event.
The following is a sample letter you may use to express your concerns over the prayer breakfast -- feel free to edit or personalize it as you wish:
As a resident of Saskatoon, I would like to express my objection to the “Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast” that will take place on Saturday, March 13, 2010. I find it troubling that Mayor Atchison, an elected official, is willing to use his civic title and position to promote a particular religious ideology while also appearing to turn a profit in ticket sales. The invited speakers and performers for the prayer breakfast appear to represent a very specific evangelical Christian ideology, which undermines the mayor’s credibility and impartiality as a public official who has a duty to represent all citizens of Saskatoon. Perhaps the Mayor’s efforts would be better directed in finding ways to benefit all Saskatoon residents, rather than only those who believe in his particular religious point of view. I hope that the Mayor and council will refrain from holding the prayer breakfast in the future.
If you would just like to email your concerns to the Mayor, his website is here.
Mailing and telephone information:
His Worship Donald J. Atchison Office of the Mayor 222 Third Avenue North Saskatoon, SK S7K 0J5
Phone: (306) 975-3202
ACT NOW!! The prayer breakfast will be held this weekend.
Here's the story of a Baptist preacher turned atheist:
There's much in his story that I can relate to, as an apostate myself. When he started talking about his tearful mother worried about his damned soul, I think my heart caught a bit.
The truth is, there is one judge, and God does not look around to your friends to ask their opinions.
My feelings of self worth do not come from within me, they come from an external source. That source was supposed to be God [... but] after the fall, we continue to look for affirmation from an outside source, and that source is each other.
If [his] redemption would have come from Christ, he could see himself more objectively. But instead, he was a slave to the jury of peers.
It really is a waste of your time to defend yourself to anybody but God Himself. And it’s even more of a waste of time to claim any defense other than Christ crucified.
Donald Miller is one of the more "liberal" evangelical authors out there right now, but he's coming across pretty fundy in this post, in my opinion. It's a bit hilarious to see him diminish the human desire to appeal to others for affirmation -- considering that, as human beings, we are COMMUNAL in nature. So rather than appreciate the natural elements of humanity, Miller sees this human attribute as a consequence of "the Fall." (yikes)
But the hardest part for me to stomach is the last bullet I've listed above: It really is a waste of your time to defend yourself to anybody but God Himself. And it’s even more of a waste of time to claim any defense other than Christ crucified.
I take issue with Miller’s contempt for being accountable to critics in an audience. What does it mean to say that the only person you are accountable to is God?
In my opinion, it’s this kind of seemingly solipsistic approach that has made the church so irrelevant in many peoples’ eyes today. If the only person you ultimately need to please is “God”, well then it doesn’t matter who you hurt or whatever criticism is directed your way. You’ll always have an “out” — you can just shrug off legitimate critique and assert that your only audience is God (however you define him/her/it). So not only are you not accountable to the people around you for what you say, but this dismissive perspective also is a backhanded way of silencing people from questioning you in the first place.
So much damage has been inflicted with this kind of attitude, especially in the church’s service. I don’t see Miller’s disregard for human critique as something to be admired. If anything, I think views like his give license to some of the worst forms of religion out there.
Part of what I teach my students is the importance of considering the audience in your communication. Now this isn’t to say that you can always answer everyone’s critique (or that you’re even obligated to in all instances) — but to simply write out any consideration of the audience (or to characterize critical interactions as “a waste of your time”), reveals more about the flaws in your message and yourself as a speaker than it does about the audience you are addressing. That kind of dismissive approach conveys a condescending attitude that doesn’t win over people to your message — whether you’re an engineer attempting to find financial approval for a proposal or you’re a minister spreading the good news.
First of all, it's first notable that my current president acknowledges such groups (as compared to his predecessor) -- but what's even more interesting for me is to note some of the religious right's response to this meeting. Case in point, CBN (Pat Robertson's domain of the Christian Broadcasting Network) presented this news report:
A few things to point out in this "news" segment:
First of all, don't you love that last-minute quote thrown out at the end of the report that "99.9% of Americans believe in a higher power"? Did you notice how the statistic is made EXTRA accurate because it's verified by the speaker asserting "and that's about accurate"? I suppose I should just take his word for it. So much for the accuracy of the 2008 Pew Forum's report on the US's religious landscape (which found that 92% of people believe in a supernatural force, but only 6-in-10 people view God as a personal, relational being).
In the report/article the CBN reporter outlined the three objectives the Secular Coalition wanted to discuss with the Obama administration -- here they are, in all of their godless glory:
First, to protect children from what they call "neglect and abuse" for parents who cite religious reasons to deny their children medical treatment.
Second, to end coercion of military men and women from being proselytized or forced into participating in religious events.
Third, to make sure that faith-based organizations that receive federal funds cannot hire on the basis of religion or proselytize to those receiving their services.
Aren't these demands utterly OUTRAGEOUS?! <-- sarcasm
Seriously, what is wrong with this list? Why would the religious right want to call foul over these issues? Are they saying that children should NOT be protected from neglectful parents who choose prayer over insulin? Should it be US military policy that all soldiers be forced to participate in religious rituals whose beliefs they do not subscribe to? Would evangelicals be so protective of Faith-Based initiatives if most of faith agencies receiving governmental funds were of the Muslim, Hindu or Mormon faith systems that discriminated and proselytized?
But the kicker for me is the fight over preserving the "under God" portion of the pledge of allegiance. Did you notice how protective the news report was over that phrase? Whenever someone gets red-in-the-face arguing for preserving the pledge, their ignorance is revealed. The "under God" portion of the pledge wasn't added until 1954, when it was inserted during the McCarthy era as a way of distinguishing us good Americans from the red-commie atheist Russians. I'm sure Jefferson is still rolling in his grave over that insertion. Would these defenders of the phrase be so adamant if we said "under Allah" or "under Zeus" instead of "under God?"
Ah well. Nothing like a little CBN watching to brighten my day. Earlier this afternoon I was subjected to watching a graphic propaganda film on abortion. I'm continually amazed at how easy it is to mask unethical approaches under the guise of religious belief.
Best Occupational Category You're a CREATOR Keywords: Nonconforming, Impulsive, Expressive, Romantic, Intuitive, Sensitive, and Emotional
These original types place a high value on aesthetic qualities and have a great need for self-expression. They enjoy working independently, being creative, using their imagination, and constantly learning something new. Fields of interest are art, drama, music, and writing or places where they can express, assemble, or implement creative ideas.
2nd Best Occupational Category You're a SOCIAL MANAGER Keywords: Tactful, Cooperative, Generous, Understanding, Insightful, Friendly, and Cheerful
This very social type enjoys working in groups, sharing responsibilities, and being the center of attention. Fields of interest are instructing, helping, nurturing, care giving and instructing-especially young people. They discuss and consider feelings in order to solve problems, lead, direct, persuade, guide, organize and enlighten others.
It's a bit eerie, though the skeptic in me wants to think it's probably more coincidence than the "world's most accurate career testing instrument" (which is the website's pitch to get you to buy the full report of your colorology career path).
Despite my sister's results lining up pretty close to her personality, Jerry took the test and somehow managed to get the EXACT OPPOSITE personality results of who he is. This test pegged him as an "organizer" and "doer" -- someone who is systematic and good with machines and tools. (hahahaha, he'll always be my philosopher Luddite!)
The whole quiz reminded me of this scene from A Mighty Wind:
Take the quiz and experience for yourself the POWER! of color in your career choice. Or something.
Now normally I wouldn't care so much about this kind of thing -- because, well, I left the "emerging church" movement years ago, and now I don't even think there is a god -- but for some reason, I'm fascinated by watching the fury unfold over McLaren's latest theological work.
Maybe it's because I'm still holding onto good memories of McLaren. 5 years ago, when I was backing away from the church and my faith, it was his books (specifically his "A New Kind of Christian" series) that gave me some hope that maybe I could stay in the church, despite my nagging (and growing!) doubts. His series and theological approach really shook my evangelical upbringing, in good ways. Of course, we know what direction I took when it came to my religious beliefs -- but I still deeply respect McLaren as a communicator.
So you can maybe imagine my surprise when I started reading some of the religious community's FURIOUS responses to his latest book -- throwing around accusations such as: "a true son of Lucifer", "False teacher", "arch-heretic", "outright, rank, unapologetic apostasy. He hates God", etc.
As sorry as I'm feeling for these slams against McLaren, I have to admit I'm enjoying what his book and proposed theology is forcing to the surface in his dissenters. I haven't yet read McLaren's book, but I've watched several clips where he describes some of its contents, and I've read many book reviews that quote huge chunks of his text. So far, I really don't understand where all the sound and fury is coming from -- if anything, McLaren's theology seems downright reasonable (so says the godless atheist, which to some who are reading this post automatically disqualifies me from having a worthwhile opinion on such matters).
Here's a video of McLaren, discussing his new approach to understanding the authority of the Bible -- see if you can pick out what is causing so many religious folk such conniptions:
McLaren advocates seeing the bible as a "library, a collection of documents" as opposed to considering the bible as a go-to "constitution," a text that people can refer to it as a lawbook, citing article/section/subsection (or book, chapter and verse)
I love how he says that the church's struggle over biblical authority comes down to POWER -- "it's really about the authority of people interpreting the bible" (yes!!!)
Rather than being "over the bible interpreting it" or "under the bible submitting to it," McLaren thinks we should instead be "in" the bible, with conversations being open and questions being unanswered.
I think I'm so attuned to what McLaren is saying here because I can see a confluence between his theology and the lectures I heard a couple weeks ago from the religious scholar, Timothy Beal. In his talks, Beal also pushed his audience to see the bible not as a book of unchanging moral guidelines but as an "inconclusive process we're invited to join" -- a book that "resists conclusion and univocality", but instead "canonizes contradiction."
What a liberating way to see a book that can be so oppressive! No wonder so many pastors and theologians are foaming at the mouth over what McLaren has to say in this new book. It's revolutionary! Both McLaren and Beal are advocating a true Reformation -- putting the bible back into the hands of the people, giving everyone the chance to struggle and work through it, eliminating the need to have prerequisite degrees in Greek or pedigrees of systematic theology that enable the "one meaning" of the text to be revealed. The answers aren't restricted to biblical scholars anymore.
Now I don't necessarily agree with the new biblical paradigm that McLaren is posing in his book -- but I do appreciate how he's challenging the static doctrines of the church and forcing his audience to see the bible in a different light.
And what do his critics accuse him of? Of being "liberal." According to one critique of McLaren's book, here's a list of the damnable qualities of liberal belief:
1. Liberals believe doctrine needs to develop to meet the needs of contemporary thought. 2. Liberals emphasize the need to reconstruct traditional beliefs and reject the authority of tradition and church hierarchy. 3. Liberals focus on the practical and ethical dimensions of Christianity. 4. Liberals seek to base theology on something other than the absolute authority of the Bible. 5. Liberals drift toward divine immanence at the expense of transcendence.
Is this list supposed to inspire shudders down the spines of anyone who doesn't identify themselves as liberal? Again, this list seems *perfectly reasonable* to this atheist -- in fact, I would want the people who consider these qualities to be detrimental to admit holding onto their opposites.
So, instead of the liberal belief that doctrine "needs to develop to meet the needs of contemporary thought," these conservatives/evangelicals/fundamentalists (pick a label) should admit to believing doctrine "needs to remain static and not meet the needs of contemporary thought." Likewise, if liberals supposedly "focus on the practical and ethical dimensions of Christianity," to be not-liberal means you "focus on the impractical and unethical dimensions of Christianity," and so forth. Bring it, I say!
Anyway, part of me is really proud of McLaren stepping up and vocalizing his views, despite the piously-righteous backlash he's receiving from his fellow believers. Who knows, he may even have an atheist pick up his book and give it a read -- heck, if more Christians were willing to challenge dogmas like this, I wouldn't have nearly so much to rail against.
