Ann Coulter: Republican Party will Lose 2012 if Romney Runs

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 14, 2011  08:40 p.m. EST

Ann Coulter appeared on Fox to show her support for Chris Christie in 2012.  He is, Coulter aruges, the only republican that could win the 2012 election, likening him to Reagan.  Moreover, she adds that "...it is amazing that [the republicans] have won any presidential elections at all."  Further, she adds that the Republican Party has yet to introduce a candidate that even comes close to having enough passion to run for the presidency, nor have their been very many that have been 'manly' enough to be elected...meaning a candidate with boldness.  When asked about Romney, she admitted that unless there is a star that rises up in the Republican Party, Romney will get the nomination.  She then added that Romney will ultimately lose to Obama if that is the case.

The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

The Christian Fundamentalist and Homosexual Clergy: A Critical Analysis

DISCLAIMER It does not matter if the doctrine of fundamentalism is right.  Nor does it matter if I agree or disagree with the views expounded in this analysis.  The point of this article is to provide an argument against a topic within a larger point of view.  So assuming anything about my personal views is prohibited, but pointing out the flaws in my argument is not.  I welcome and encourage your feedback.

There is a pattern that the United States is experiencing today.  Since the push for civil rights in the 1960s, our society has increasingly expected us to become more tolerant.  But the idea of becoming tolerant starkly contradicts one of the oldest traditions in the United States: Christian fundamentalism.  This analysis is not necessarily aiming to condemn or condone those who hold a belief in Christian fundamentalism.  For who is anyone to condemn an entire sect of Christianity with so little words?  The primary goal is to identify a fundamental flaw, a contradiction that many doctrines within fundamentalism share.

In America, social scientists classify Protestantism as a part of two categories: evangelicals and mainline.  Churches that practice Christian fundamentalism are evangelicals.  And one of the ways that they can be identified is that they tend to interpret the bible more literally than those mainline denominations.  Mainline denominations have a more liberal view than their Christian counterparts, the evangelicals.  The doctrines of mainline denominations tend to highlight knowledge in the theology of the scriptures as opposed to the knowledge of the contents of the scripture that the fundamentalists tend to emphasize.

Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, was a
prominent fundamentalist contributing to the rise of
what is known as the "Religious Right."

Take for example the creation story in Genesis.  Most mainline Christian denominations maintain that the story is a myth and not a verbatim account of how God created the universe.  Because fundamentalists take on a literal translation of scripture, their interpretation of the creation story is quite different, they believe that Genesis is a word for word account of how the world began.  Then it follows accordingly that if the scripture says that Adam was created from dirt and Eve was created from a rib that is literally what happened.  But there have been changes in this view.

A large denomination in the fundamentalist movement, the Church of the Nazarene, has fine-tuned their statement of beliefs in a way that welcomes other arguments.[1]  And although the tolerance of this denomination is represented by the questioning of the church’s traditional stance on creationism – primarily due to the arguments of scientists at Nazarene universities – there has yet to be tolerance in sexuality.

There is an intriguing parallel that exists within the church today.  It has been brought about by a relatively recent change in cultural norms.  There have been many times when changes in the norms of society have played a significant role in influencing the grey areas of Christian theology.  The Reformation alone yields voluminous examples.  But a revolution is not needed for a change in doctrine; a doctrinal change could be  caused by the changing factors in society or an acknowledgement by the church that they have changed, maybe too much or too little, with the factors of society.

There were many times when the United States experienced such significant changes in culture that churches elected to change their position on certain issues.  One good example of this can be seen in the wide acceptance of the female’s role in church practices and position.  The suburbanization of America drew families away from their urban kinships and melded them into community groups.  This led to them becoming a more-involved part of community groups, including churches.  During this time the churches of America experienced an influx of women that felt empowered, civilly protected and ready to serve.  An increasingly liberal view which allowed women of the church to be integrated into the clergy became the norm for the churches of the United States.  

Even though there was, at first, resistance from fundamentalists to allow women to be leaders of the church, it eventually became a waning effort and, over time, many denominations came to accept it.  Keep in mind that, unlike women, it is not out of the ordinary for denominations that practice fundamentalism to condemn an acceptance of homosexual clergy in a “no matter what” fashion.  But regardless of whether or not fundamentalists are intolerant toward allowing homosexual clergy, they are tolerant in having women as clergy.  And whether they want to acknowledge it or not, this acceptance of women was spurred, in part, by a change in the culture of the society.  But regardless if there are firm theological grounds for women to be accepted as clergy, there is still a flaw in their argument for the criteria to hold a position within the church.

Fundamentalist Pat Roberson was also
a leader of the Religious Right movement.

The fundamentalist doctrine maintains that the practice of heterosexuality is the only acceptable type of sexuality, outside of celibacy, that, when practiced, can sustain purity.[2]  In addition to sex being between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, it is also necessary that they be married.  Any violation of or deviance from these specific criteria, is considered absolutely immoral as well as undesirable traits for those holding positions in the clergy.[3]  Therefore, the single act of having intercourse with someone of the same sex is a sin and the ongoing act of being in a homosexual relationship is a contradiction to the one male, one female concept in Genesis.

This is very much an argument of fundamentalists.  Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and any marriage outside of the Adam and Eve covenant/model, like a marriage between two people of the same sex, goes against the perfect plan God set about in the beginning.  The basic argument here, that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve as clergy, becomes intriguing once the existential traits of a single act of sin is contrasted with those of ongoing acts of sin.

If, in having sex, a sin is committed, the violators are not necessarily obligated to continue in sin.  Jesus was the sacrifice that took the stead of everyone and therefore, anyone can be forgiven from any sin as long as they honestly repent – or, in other words, decide today what your purpose will be from here on out.[4] [5]

To sin is to err.  To continue in sin is to be devoted to sin.  And to be devoted to sin is to be a sinner.[6]  Scripture tells us that a person cannot serve two masters; to be devoted to one is to deny the other.[7]  Therefore sin can only be abolished if we truly repent from the way in which we were living our lives before we asked for forgiveness.

Take for example adultery.  If someone commits adultery, the initial act of having sex with a person outside of the marriage with your first spouse is a sin.  And to continue in the sin of adultery is to be an adulterer.  This is the same for homosexuality.  The act of having sex with someone of the gender is seen as a homosexual act.  And, as the logic goes, those continuing in homosexual acts are homosexuals.  Repenting requires both the turning away and refusal to continue the sinful act or acts from which they have asked for forgiveness.  Therefore, because no one can be forgiven for sin that will be committed in the future, those who elect to continue in sin are not forgiven, regardless if they ask for forgiveness or not.  To know forgiveness is to bear fruit.  Therefore, you will know those who are forgiven by the fruit that they bear.[8]  When Paul speaks about fruitfulness in Galatians, he highlights that those bearing the fruits of the spirit have “…crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”[9]

Those who repent are given a clean slate and are empowered by Christ to not continue in the same sins that are often treasured activities of their past.[10]  The sinner may be driven by his penitence to ask for forgiveness, but it is his repentance through the power of Christ that breaks the continuity of sin in his life.  Therefore, the sinner that is forgiven continues not in sin until he freely elects to do so.[11]

Continuing in sin implies that sin will be committed in the future.  And according to this view, even if same-sex couples often ask for forgiveness they cannot be forgiven because they obligate themselves to commit sins in the future by not repenting from their lifestyle.  But is the eschewing of the homosexual lifestyle congruent with the beliefs and practices of a fundamentalist church?  Well, not exactly, especially when considering their theological argument for a different, but rather more openly accepted group of continuing sinners.

As it has been established, the sinful nature of homosexuality is directly dependent upon the individual’s repentance of sin.  Although the repentance of sin does not, by any means, guarantee a sinless future, the individual does turn away from the particular life for which he had asked forgiveness.[12]  The interesting part of this is not in how adamant fundamentalist churches are in maintaining their stance on homosexual clergy.  It is in the absolute contradiction of holding tight to that view.

In the fundamentalist denominations, a key argument in condemning homosexual clergy is founded upon the idea of the unwillingness to repent, or, in other words, they choose to continue in sin.  But it seems they are ignoring something.  Homosexuality is not the only sin in the bible that defines a continuance in sin.  In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus defines another type of person that, in a particular situation, would be considered as continuing in sin.

Matthew 19: 1-9

 ¹ When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.

² Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

³ Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a]

⁵and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’^[b]?

⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

⁷ “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

⁸ Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

⁹ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Mark 10: 1-12

¹ Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

² Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

³ “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

⁴ They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

⁵ “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

⁶ “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’^[a]

⁷ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,^[b]

⁸ and the two will become one flesh.’^[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

⁹ Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

¹⁰ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.

¹¹ He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

¹² And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” 

(emphasis added)

The lesson that Jesus teaches here helps to shine more light upon those clergy that are currently allowed in many of the fundamentalist churches, but, as with those who are homosexual, continue in sin.

In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus teaches that divorcing for the wrong reason, those reasons outside of what is given in the bible, is sin.  Further, the person who divorces in this particular situation and marries a person that is not their first spouse, in fact, commits adultery.  As scripture says, the act of marrying someone that is not your first spouse is a sin.  And, therefore, not repenting from the sin of marrying someone other than a first spouse sets into motion a continuous string of sinful acts.  Consequently, the only option of renewal from an adulterous relationship is to divorce any spouse outside of the first.  From there, the individual only has the choice to stay single or remarry his first spouse.  And just as the disallowing of clergy that are homosexual is built upon the idea that they live in continual sin, the allowing of clergy that are continually living in sin because of an unbiblical remarriage is, in fact, hypocrisy.

Fundamentalists have become extremely tolerant on the issue of divorce.  The changes of cultural norms within society have caused a change in their doctrine.  This increase in tolerance, though, has led to the discrimination of others wanting to become a part of the church.  The prominent counterargument is that those who have remarried outside of these guidelines can be redeemed by Christ as he redeemed the woman at the well in John 4.  The woman at the well had been married before, but it was not clear that she was married after her redemption.  Therefore, it cannot be rightfully deduced that there is redemption for those who wish to marry outside of their first spouse.  And just like the homosexual who continues in sin, so do those individuals who divorce for the wrong reasons and then marry someone that is not their first spouse.

This is the reality of the doctrine of fundamentalism.  Fundamentalist denominations have to make a choice: either support the integration of homosexual clergy, or rid their sanctuaries of those that clearly violate the doctrine they follow.  The denial of one group is just as wicked as the justification of the other.  Amending the truths set forth by a specific doctrine is a part of being an established church, regardless of how difficult the adoption may be.  And the adoption of those truths that may arise over time can only come in a church that is open and willing to change when they cannot provide a comparable rebuttal to a biblically based argument guided wholly by the doctrine they follow.

---

[1] Church of the Nazarene. Manual of the Church of the Nazarene 2009-2013. Nazarene Publishing House, 2009. (p.373). “903.9. The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless

interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind (Hebrews 11:3). (1, 5.1, 7)”

[2] When translated literally, these verses represent the fundamentalists’ position on condemning homosexuality: Genesis 1:27; 19:1-25; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1^st Corinthians 6:9-11; 1^st Timothy 1:8-10.

[3] 1^st Timothy 3:2, 12 – Although speaking of the clergy, it is still applicable in this context: ‘overseers/deacons are to be a husband of but one wife.’

[4] Metanoeo n./ Metanoia v. – Meta meaning "after" and noia meaning "mind" – having an “after-mindedness” or deciding today what your mind will be tomorrow and there on out.

[5] http://www.heavendwellers.com/sb_107_metanoeO.htm

[6] Hamartōlos – to be devoted to sin, sinner.

[7] Matthew 6:24

[8] Matthew 7:16

[9] Galatians 5:24

[10] Romans 7:14-25

[11] Not to be confused with the forgiveness that comes with salvation, the sinner spoken of here is one who has already accepted Christ.  Both Armenians and Calvinists believe that there is freewill outside of salvation.

[12] This assumes that the individual’s repentance was pure and true and not an empty, disconnected commitment.

What constitutes a violation of US National Security?

Everyone has an opinion.  And whether or not the opinion is true is not necessarily the most significant factor. The most important issue with an opinion is how well it can be disseminated into the general public.  Moreover, another important aspect of an opinion is how well it can change the public’s mind.  It can be especially damaging if it were to be false, persuading, and reach into the majority of the public.  This is such the case, more so today than any other time in history.  The world, brought so close through technology, has become an intimate place in which to live.  Someone from the United States could very much get to know someone in Germany without moving away from their keyboard or cell phone.  Like many of the advances within the world, not only can it be used for a positive impact on the general public, it can also be used for attack.  At the stroke of the keyboard, sensitive information can be sent to a community of people within milliseconds.  This is the method used by cellular and cyber-bullies as well as others who wish to do damage to larger entities like corporations and governments.  After the actions of some dissenters of the United States government, it became blatantly clear that many of the citizens within the United States do not know what national security is exactly and the steps necessary to secure the future of the largest, most powerful country in the world.  It seems that there is confusion with what information indicates foul play and should be publicized, and which information necessarily needs to be classified.  Most importantly, this culture which calls for government transparency is manufacturing a false sense of justice for the curious by counterfeiting value in the publicizing of sensitive information.

A country’s goal in national security policy is the securitization of those assets, at home and abroad, which guarantee the country’s longevity and are essential for that nation to attain those goals set by its people.  It is not necessarily an easy task securing resources vital to the operation of a country.  And often there are disputes – sometimes violent – over who gets what.  There are also agreements between two parties which lead a country to acquire resources non-violently.  Obtaining resources both violently and non-violently is dependent upon information.  The more informed the government is the better chance they have at controlling that resource.  This information does not just appear out of nowhere, nor does it come served on a silver platter.  It is provided by those people who lay their life on the line, to gather information in a foreign land that is, more often than not, unfamiliar to those working in it.  Although dangerous, this is often the case.  The informants pepper the urban landscape.  Some are recruited in-country, some brought to the country, but all are spies.  These people are often funded with money not traceable to one certain government, person, or company.  But this is not unknown.  As a matter of fact, this is something for which Japan is often noted.  Their equivalent of information gathering agencies, like the CIA and NSA, are those businesses within their country.  In addition to the U.S. government’s use of private businesses as informants, they also have governmental agencies in other countries.  Recruiting of informants for the goings on within the country happens with both businesses and governmental agencies in the U.S.  Although the government agencies are accounted for in the U.S. budget, the businesses which work with the agencies within each respectful country are not.  This is an advantage for the U.S. because it can enter a country by funding an opposition under the radar.  It is often done this way; it is not anything unavailable to the general public.

It should be obvious that the funneling of money to a coup that is set the overthrow or disrupt any foreign country is illegal, regardless if it is done through businesses or by any other means.  It is this very scenario which is the foundation of the United States’ national security policy.  Because of the means by which the government operates to implement and develop its national security policy, there are often many questions which arise concerning the morality of the U.S.’s operations.  Much of the public curiosity originates from the knowing of operations the U.S. was associated with in the past.  The causes for dissent lay in not knowing the correct context in which to view the operations.  This goes for past and present operations.  Dissenting without considering the context of the situation often leads to a mistaken view of the actual intent of the U.S. government’s actions.  And although the context can vary from situation to situation, there are certain situations that necessarily call for the publication of governmental operations.

First and foremost, any actions which violate the constitutional rights of any U.S. citizen in a domestic or foreign land, regardless if it is something necessary to keep the masses safe, should be publicized.  It is better to ask for forgiveness than for permission – especially when those you are protecting are unaware of the gravity of the situation.  One of the most publicized programs of this sort is “Program MKULTRA.”  This program was funded by the U.S. and sought to use U.S. and Canadian citizens to study the effect of many extreme measures (LSD, Isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, etc…) on the human psyche.  Another program, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, was a study on the natural progression of syphilis in the human body.  This was preformed on impoverished African-American sharecroppers which were United States citizens.  But violent acts upon United States citizens is not necessarily the only carte-blanche situation that calls for the immediate publication of government covert actions.

There is a fine line between a major case of human right’s abuses and genocide.  The latter obligates the U.S. to intervene, the former does not.  Any connection of the state to genocide – or “the G-word” as it is known in the State Department, is a crime against humanity itself and any covert or overt programs are difficult to justify, even as an act of national security.  Moreover, a military or violent action against an entire culture of people, justifying it by national security, is considered immoral on many different levels as well as an international crime against humanity.  The repulsiveness of these actions is usually dumbed-down through euphemisms.  For example, in the Rwandan revolution between the Hutu and the Tutsi, the genocide of the Tutsi people was referred to as “bush clearing.”  By referring to the genocide as bush clearing, the seriousness of the acts of murder and rape calmed the public’s perception of the magnitude of the mayhem going on right under their nose.  This is a tactic often used by the Nazi’s in the holocaust, communism in Russia, China, and Cambodia and the Socialist Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia.  Therefore, because violations of international crimes against humanity – domestic or foreign – ultimately endanger the criminally acting nation’s civilians and the receiving nation’s civilians, the actions of the state that is violating international law should be publically known.  The problem with human right’s abuse being separated from genocide is one that can only be determined with a definition of both terms.  Most interestingly, the United States government, to the best of my knowledge, has failed to define either.  It is not surprising though, because if there were explicit definitions of the two, it would then obligate the U.S. to intervene in all future escalations – and that is a difficult and demanding responsibility.

So far, the justification for publicizing confidential government documents has been limited to the disclosure of violent acts against citizens of the United States for national security and violence against a specific culture or race because they are a part of the culture or race – regardless if they are in a foreign or domestic setting.  The final point which may justify publicizing confidential government documents is simply any actions a country takes which evoke fear or terror within other people or countries, but more specifically, those actions are being executed without the justification of national security.  And those acts employing a counterstrike should be supported by sufficient evidence, intelligence and information.  Moreover, the intelligence and information is the most important part of these counterstrikes because they hold the keys to the knowledge needed to accurately and successfully defend the country and attack the enemy.  But the most important issue does not end with the obtaining the information, it must be conveyed in a way that is unknown to the enemy.  And regardless of the efforts of the Ambassadors for the U.S., a breech in the confidentiality of the method information is sent to the White House proves disastrous to any foreign relationship, regardless of how strong the relationship was when the line of communication was perceived as secure.  Therefore, any information disclosed to the general public at the expense of national security, should, in fact, be seen as an attack, not only on the confidentiality of our information, but more seriously, as an attack on the United States itself.  And because the information available to a sphere of people unfamiliar with the context of the confidential material - including those in the host country - it should, more importantly, be seen as a lingering threat needing to be taken out, immediately.

The Gospel According to Glee

I am one of those who likes to sit in my living room with my laptop and “watch” television. Although I may not catch the show or movie in its entire detail, most of the time I do pay enough attention to know what is going on, in case my wife asks what just happened, as she often does. A few of Tuesdays ago, we sat in front of the television. We both were writing, as is often the case, when Glee came on after The Simpsons. Instead of simply acknowledging it was on and going back to our merry authoring, we were a little more attentive. This week was…well, different. In the midst of that particular week were the highly publicized suicides of homosexual teens. These events, atrocious as they were, helped shed much needed light on the ignorant act of bullying. It was something that I could have probably guessed was happening, but in my fairytale world of princes and thieves, I conveniently disregarded it as being their problem, whoever they are. Because of these events and the media’s focus on Glee, my wife and I were interested in seeing how that particular episode, “Grilled Cheesus,” would unfold.

Although important, I am not writing to address the ignorance of those who are intolerant, nor am I writing to condone or condemn a particular lifestyle. The issue of focus has to deal with truth. Not a truth that is particular to any one belief, but one that clarifies the message each of the many world philosophies attempt to communicate.

There is a certain point when a belief in one’s lifestyle compromises the belief of another. And although the current evangelical belief maintains that the United States must disallow laws which do not glorify God, it seems to be forgetting their doctrine of free will. Although there has been a great debate since the beginning of the role of free will in the obtaining of salvation, an overwhelming majority of evangelicals believe that, outside of salvation, we have free will to choose whether or not we honor God with our lives.

The philosophy that wishes to establish a semi-theocratic government actually suppresses all other belief systems and, therefore, by necessity, suppresses their own belief through the backlash of their adversaries. On the other hand, if there were a law which mandated that, from this day forward, all marriages can only be between two persons of the same sex, throwing out the thought of heterosexual marriage, there would be a need for those who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong to stand up, be heard and show why it is wrong. Because of this filter of truth through reason, society could only truly glorify God when the majority of the people have the freedom to do so by their own choice. Without that filter of reason, there tends to be more intolerance.

Intolerance is the point at which one lifestyle hinders another lifestyle from practicing its belief. If the Christian’s goal is to use the country to glorify God, they need to be aware of the paradox with making non-believers glorify a God in which they do not believe. Rather than developing an approach that suppresses society, why not focus on presenting a message in a way that lets the country choose to glorify God? If society’s goal is to allow many lifestyles to coexist, then those lifestyles must be portrayed accurately.

The fact that two people tolerate one another does not necessarily mean that they accept each other’s beliefs. Tolerating another's belief without debate is not in itself a problem, but it does severely suppress the truth. For that reason, a point should be made to debate these disagreements in a civil fashion. But, more often than not, this does not happen in our society.

Many have gotten too comfortable and are not willing to even debate their beliefs. When considering today’s society, it seems the debate has turned ruthless and disrespectful. This can lead to many destructive situations. It could cause a one sided debate where one debater screams to overpower the other. It also may lead to the following of an ideology which fails to question the primary motive of those who tell their followers what they want to hear.

The classic case of an evangelical church begins with a doctrine that believes in a literal translation of the bible. In other words, they believe that the creation of earth happened in seven days, Adam and Eve were real people, and the earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old. Evolution is sometimes accepted, but only happening within a species, and never morphing into a separate species. The evangelicals also believe that America’s founding fathers intended the country to be an entirely Christian country. Although academia debates this concept and accepts that America was founded on many secular writings and non-Christian beliefs of the founding fathers, they disagree with much of the evidence that says differently. There is an immense amount of both political and ideological conservatism within this group. Even if logic contradicts their interpretation of the bible, they still stand firm and refuse to change what they believe.

There were many controversial topics that surfaced during Glee’s “Grilled Cheesus.” The most obvious one to address would be the separation of church and state. The episode sets up the issue by the cheerleading coach, Sue, recruiting a fellow atheist, Kurt, to file a formal complaint on the Glee club for singing religious songs. It is evident that an evangelical would probably find it obligatory to focus on the separation of church and state. But, as long as Christianity is allowed to be preached and practiced, they have more than enough freedom to do what they are called to do. And if the general public does not accept the message, there isn’t anything that can be done. Forcing others to accept a message isn’t biblical. It is biblical, though, for a Christian to assume that their message will not always be accepted by others.

So, if the separation of church and state is not the most significant topic of the episode, what in Glee should be addressed? Kurt was invited to church by Mercedes. Mercedes attended a charismatic, evangelical church, as previously described. Before her amazing performance of “Like a Bridge over Troubled Water,” she began to talk to Kurt. In front of the entire congregation, Mercedes singled Kurt out and explained that she knows people sometimes believe in different things. She then proceeded to console him by telling him that it is cool he had his own opinion about ‘religion’ (“to each [his] own”), but he had to believe in something. Adding to the inconsistency, the members of the congregation shook their head in agreement.

I am not trying to debate whose belief is right, or whether or not there is a God. I simply disagree with the false portrayal of the evangelical church as a new-aged and further evolved Christian church. Moreover, it isn’t the way the scenario raveled out with which I disagree. It is that a basic foundation of the church’s doctrine, evangelizing, was missing. Am I objecting to the liberation of a conservative movement? No, because I am a part of the movement to liberate the conservative. But I am objecting to the fact that the evangelical church was portrayed in a way that is contrary to its identity. Glee’s script implies that this particular movement tolerates the belief in the antithesis of Christianity. This is absurd. And it should be seen as absurd to both Christians and non-Christians alike. Fundamentalists, all too often, do not tolerate other belief systems, period. Mercedes’ line “…you gotta believe in something” would not be something you hear in the type of church portrayed on the show. And the congregation agreeing to the validity of Mercedes’ line wipes away any inkling of truth that the portrayal might have showcased.

So, could the writers have represented the church’s real beliefs with tact? Of course it could have. The writers of the show are very talented as evidenced by their show holding a top spot on Fox. I am sure they could have developed something which could have correctly portrayed the church in the correct light. But they didn’t. Why? Is it because they did not know better? I doubt it. Christian fundamentalism has spread far and wide throughout the country. Or was it because they did not want to offend their viewers with a message that claimed to be the one and only truth? Indeed. Christian fundamentalism is considered so radical compared to the larger society that it cannot be both purely portrayed in its entirety and accepted by the secular world.

This episode obscures the real identity of evangelical Christianity. It may not be obvious at first, but it should be a concern for both the Christian and non-Christian individual. The evangelical church adamantly maintains that its God is the only God, and no others are beside or above Him. To the non-Christian, portraying the church like this is to their benefit. If a group claimed to know the absolute truth of life, then it is more likely that they will be subjected to scrutiny by those investigating their claim. If the non-Christian community’s beliefs are correct and there is no more truth in this religion than there is in others, then it opens the door for those of the Christian faith to be subjected to more investigation. The writers of the show may have dodged a little controversy, but neglecting to portray the evangelical church in a true light may have had negative implications relative to their intentions, which was, essentially, to bring society as a whole closer to the truth.

Is the Church the Cause for the Moral Degradation of American Values?

           

Choosing to live a new lifestyle is often a conscious decision.  There are many areas in which a person shifts away from the established norm to partake of the fruit, forbidden or not, that is perceived as superior.  These paradigm shifts are not arbitrarily made.  At the least, a responsible adult capable of making rational decisions would be well-informed about the lifestyle they wish to adopt before they begin to think about whether that lifestyle would be beneficial to them.  This same principle can also apply to those that choose to follow a particular religion.  In order to have a full understanding, they should not only seek to understand the moral life that particular religion demands, but the context of the religion, the basic theological underpinnings of its texts and the way in which it evolved over a period of time.

Those who identify themselves as fervent disciples of Christianity often take for granted the logic and reasoning that have been worked through to rationalize their belief.  Knowing what your religious texts say means nothing if you do not understand the basic moral rationale for which it stands.  Knowing the parable is useless if you don’t know its purpose or the context in which it is written.  In order to determine its context, there must be an evaluation of the text.  This is the foundation of a subjective analysis which can ultimately lead you to develop an argument that holds up to the scrutiny of peer review.

It seems that Christian theology has lost this today though.  If there is a dispute, then it’s suggested that the disputers break off and start their own denomination.  American Christianity is often plagued with this denominationalism.  This lax of focus on publically debating the truth is what has led to the Christian’s over-acceptance of pluralism.  The over-acceptance of pluralism that spurred from denominationalism has made the Christians of today complacent in their desire to evaluate the logic behind their religious and political beliefs.  This negligence of striving toward truth in the church has now seeped into the political realm through the Christian church’s adoption of the political conservative movement.  The ideology of political conservatism has set its very strong roots in the Christian church, allowing a focus on practicing doctrinal truth to be muted by the screaming of the politically conservative news hosts.

This political activism that Christianity has become a part of states that the cause of the increasing immorality in this country is with a government that passes laws which support the granting of freedoms for lifestyles outside of Christian morals.   This, they say, is the cause of the degradation of the American moral values which were originally supported by the Christian principles of our founding fathers.  But is the issue really with a government that passes laws which allow the expression of a lifestyle a person chooses to live?  If not, can all civil views be given the right to practice and the country still be a country that lives by Christian principles?  Although the current conservative thought disagrees, it is hard to argue with the fact that it would be a better measure of how holy a country is if the country abides by Christian values even when rights are given to those whose lifestyles are contradictive to Christian belief.  That is, if the primary goal of the American Christian church is to truly honor God with their actions.

The God Given Freedom of Lifestyle

All the major theologians including Jean Calvin, Martin Luther and Augustine of Hippo, believed that we have freewill in our decisions, not considering salvation.  The freewill debate that started with Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo in the 4^th century was about the ability to choose one’s salvation and not the ability to choose the actions which please God.  As a matter of fact, the bible says that after salvation we are a new creature.  Therefore, since we are a new creature we begin to make different choices.  Consequently, new believers change the way in which they choose in order to reflect their understanding of God, seasoned believers consciously work to continually make choices that reflect their better understanding of God, and sanctified believers work to make choices that reflect a complete understanding of God.

Knowing that there is a change from the old to the new creature and that the choices we made after salvation are made from our own freewill, can we really say that mandating others, against their freewill, to obey theocratic-like laws will lead this country to honor God?  Moreover, are we so ignorant to think that the law directly reflects the holiness of a country?  Or is it a better measure when the holiness of a country is directly reflected in the actions of its citizens?

The conservative movement that America has experienced has demanded that laws be in place in order to honor God.  But was the law not formally written after the fall of Adam?  Did the law not always pertain to a nation of people as opposed to a people within a specific geographical space? And was the New Testament not written and canonized after the Jews and gentiles decided to adhere to the idea of Christianity?  The disease that’s leading us into immorality has not to do with the lack of laws which glorify God.  It is simply a symptom of the bigger problem.  The disease is with a faltering Christian force that is more concerned with political action which mandates others to live like a Christian instead of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a way that society can truly accept.

Congregational Complacency

A common belief of the conservative movement today is that society’s work ethic has diminished.  They believe that we are lazier today than those who were our age now, a decade ago.  And ultimately, this is seen as the poor, more so than those who aren’t, taking advantage of government benefits.  But why would those that claim to be Jesus’ followers be so concerned with assisting a population for which he so adamantly taught us to care?  It is simply because the conservative ideology has forced the Christian to become so complacent in their own political view that they refuse to question whether those views parallel Christian theology.  Moreover, their energy is spent more on nurturing the plants of the bad ground than sowing the seeds and fostering the crop of the good ground.

This same church is itself knee-deep in slothfulness.  A good example of this can be seen in 2^nd Thessalonians.  The Thessalonians became lazy.  Because of a misunderstanding of Paul’s first letter to the church, they believed that the second coming was in the very near future.  They ignored their jobs and actively looked for apocalyptic signs.  This, ultimately, led to the entire town being filled with what Paul considered “idle busybodies.”

So, is this any different than the current Christian church in America?  I don’t believe so.  The primary example being in the way the church is so overwhelmingly concerned with the second coming that any military action of the US government is justified only if the US supports Israel.  But even if this is the eve of the apocalypse and the US continues to support Israel, does that necessarily mean that all the actions of the government are justified?  No, because nothing, country or individual, is morally exempt.  The preoccupation with the second coming isn’t the only similarity to the church of Thessalonica.  The church has become dangerously complacent. 

We, as Christians, have become complacent and lazy in our ministry.  It’s not that we are lazy and resist working to support our families.  The American worker, on average, is not lazy and takes tremendous pride in earning the money to support his or her family.  The American Christian isn’t afraid to work for money and that’s the issue.  American Christians are not willing to give up their time to serve others unless they earn a wage.  This has led to the fact that they have become lazy in their ministry.  Instead of being consumed with ministering and serving our communities, which necessitates a personal accountability, we are consumed with passing legislation which makes it appear that our society exudes Christian values all the while basking in our ever-available leisure.  We have justified a trade of local community ministries and personal accountability for global ministries that offer little personal accountability.  The American Christian has traded a week’s worth of God’s work for a week’s worth of something else we would rather be doing.  We have traded the message of humility for a message of national religious pride.  We have shifted from an intimate person-to-person witness for a dull impersonal message from a televangelist.  We have switched progressivity for complacency.

It is hard to believe that with the passion the church has in serving God that the contradictory life we lead is intentional.  It is as if the church has been misled.  There has been such a break from the foundation of Christianity – love – that it has turned into hate.  This hate is justified by the church’s delusion that denying civil freedoms and mandating people to accept the Christian lifestyle is somehow a step toward holiness.  But passing laws that reflect Christian values is not the answer.  It does not correctly represent the way in which the nation is truly living.  In fact, it makes it easier for the Christian individual to live in society and it gives the Christian individual a social status.  Consequently, this oppresses non-believers, forcing them to consent to a lifestyle against their freewill.  This process is the literal converse of how God created the world to operate.  God gives believers the freewill to choose their lifestyle and does not force us to serve Him.  The establishing of a theocratic-morph only supports the claim that the church has become and is becoming dangerously complacent.

So, how could a country give its people the freedom to live the lifestyle they want and also honor God at the same time?  This can only be done with a complete paradigm shift of the Christian community.  First and foremost, the church needs to educate their congregations in logic, the interpretation of biblical languages, the interpretation of biblical context, theology, history and other subjects which demand critical reasoning.  This is the largest deficit the church has to overcome. Secondly, there needs to be an intense focus on the community which would require the joint effort of each and every church within that community.  Finally, there needs to be a new focus on the striving for doctrinal truth by means of inter-congregational, inter-church and inter-denominational debate that is civil.  This country’s focus on Christian values will only be truly shifted when the work of the Christian church and individual has impacted America with the gospel in such a way that it is truly accepted.  And if we are honestly concerned about being a country that honors God, the decisions that are made to follow Christ by those with lifestyles contradictory to Christian values must be made without any essence of forced conversion.  It is only when people have truly chosen to live by Christian values that society will begin to reflect the acceptance of Christianity and not by the establishment of any law.

On the Education of the Congregation

The dire need for Christianity to step up education especially applies to those who wish to be socially or politically active.  As Christians, we seek to proselytize the gospel.  Knowing what the bible and other religious texts say is important.  But if you want to argue with those who don’t believe in its authority, it’s just a waste of both of your times.  Using the logic behind the bible is the key for Christians, but it is impossible to do if you try to use the bible as a literal interpretation.  Literalism should immediately be discounted once the creation story, and the multitude of support against it, is considered.  The bible’s literal interpretation is not only disputed by science, but, interestingly, all the major Protestant theologians, including Arminius and Zwingli, of the Reformation.  Moreover, the majority of the early fathers, which provided the foundations for Christian theology, did not believe in take all scripture literally.  Further, even Ancient Judaism saw the first six chapters of Genesis to be strictly used for theological purposes and not as a historical reference.

Biblical literalism is what separates the evangelical Christian from witnessing and debating in a logical and rational manner.  And because there is more evidence that the bible should not be taken literally than there is that supports it, as well as ongoing findings in science which also supports it, this topic would be a good starting point to truthfully and subjectively address in a debate.  Generally speaking though, the debate is an important component that the Christian church of America has never used to the extent of its European counterparts.  Why have these debates stopped with the establishment of America?  Are we so proud to think that we have reached a true interpretation of the Word?  Why have we quit questioning our theology or setting it up to subjectivity?  The Reformation was a turning point in Christianity, but it wasn’t the ending point of theological truth.  Not questioning existing doctrine and positing new approaches is just another way to keep a church already complacent in ministry complacent in understanding its own theology.

Conclusion

It is often thought that the degradation of America over the years is because the government has become tolerant of lifestyles that contradict Christian values.  But the lack of focus on the part that the American Christian church plays in the moral degradation of the country should, itself, be seen as a red flag.  I can’t help but think of the message in Matthew 7: 5 – “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.”

We, church, are hypocritical, comfortable and lazy.  We are afraid to allow those of society to choose the lifestyle they wish to live because we are too complacent in our locality, not wanting to put in the effort that matches those efforts that came before us.  We have gotten too used to justifying our own ministry as the supporting of others who minister in our stead in faraway lands.  Aside from the controversial debate with salvation, the only way for anyone to truly choose the daily actions a Christian lifestyle demands is when they have the complete freewill to do so.  And ultimately, the only way to know that a nation has truly chosen to honor God is when they do so in an environment that allows them to do so willfully.  Therefore, legislation that gives others the freedom to choose lifestyles which contradict Christian values should be seen as progress for the Christian because it is a step in the direction to ensure those who decide to follow Christ do so freely.  And it is only when the nation, as a whole, freely chooses to adhere to Christian values, and is seen doing so, that it can be accurately said that this country truly honors God.