Today is the Day of the Martyrdom of the Holy Templars, as listed on the liturgical calendar of Gnostic organizations like the Ecclesia Gnostica. It is in recognition of the anniversary of the mass arrest and confiscation of Templars throughout France. This is the 701st anniversary of that event. I’m sure there are those who view this day with significance other than Gnostics, but of course, I’m not privy to their secrets. 

Anyway, there’s not much more that I can say that hasn’t been said already by Reverend Steven Marshall in his comprehensive homily for this special day of remembrance.

Tonight, a McCain-Obama forum is being conducted at the Saddleback megachurch in California.  I’ve not been turned on by the prospects of watching this event since I’ve long supported a separation of politics and religion, no matter who the candidates are.  I probably won’t watch it.  Well, maybe I will.  While I could be bitter about this event, since my dog, and a number of dogs to whom I’m more sympathetic, were not allowed to participate.  But since this is a forum billed as being about faith and “the social gospel”, that’s what my commentary will center around, not on the horserace of who will win the most Evangelical voters.

Christians must seek to understand Christianity, which is based off of what Jesus discussed and advocated.  He most assuredly talked about the poor, the homeless, the meek, those living and dying by the sword, etc.  But the biggest problem I have with a concept of a “social gospel” that requires forums to ask political candidates what they will do as government officials to enact these ideas is that this isn’t what government does or is supposed to do.

In Jesus’ day, he went to individuals and groups of individuals and asked them to do things about the sick, the poor, and every social problem that existed.  He could have easily gone to the government and used his awesome powers to change government and government bureaucrats.  Even if you know absolutely nothing about the Bible, if you’ve watched “The Ten Commandments“, you know how well this worked for Moses.  Thus government and politicians being what they are, Jesus and his followers would have had to deal with the Roman government — a government that believed in torturing prisoners and publicly executing them.  Now contrast that with the American government of today.

But Jesus didn’t try to change the rulers of his time.  If better government was the answer, I’m pretty sure Christ could have hooked that up.  But that’s not what Jesus did, he took his message directly to the people who could actually do something about the issues, the people who actually experienced the suffering and the hurt, he took his message to you.  He said, in a sense, “I want you to do something about poverty, sickness, and morals.”  He didn’t ask you to lobby for laws that may only help the suffering in an indirect way (if it truly helped at all) or vote for the lesser of two evils.  Jesus asked you to be more direct in your actions in order to know compassion and closeness to others, as opposed to the distance and robotic nature at which government claims to fix problems.

While I am theologically universalist and do not believe that some people go to heaven (or a desert oasis filled with virgins) and others do not, there are those who believes this is a mechanism for justice in the universe.  For those, who do believe this, believe in the importance of a social gospel, and still crawl to kings and presidents for the resolution of all perceived societal problems, what will Judgement Day be like?  Will you be held accountable for government’s failure to live up to a Christian vision of helping your fellow man?  I kind of think using “the Devil made me do it” excuse (or in this case “the government made me do it”) to describe why the homeless haven’t been given homes won’t fly.

So what we’ll see tonight is anyone’s guess.  Maybe they’ll spin, or triangulate, or have a genuine religio-politico epiphany right on stage.  I’m sure the media will continue with its nit-wit blather about “who won the Evangelicals” as if a group of people, especially Christians, could be owned by a politician or political party.  Anyway, I’m pretty certain that we’ll see the emergence of a huge Pander Bear of enormous proportions, which in this case would seem to be an eighth circle of hell situation.  We definitely won’t see much social change in this world until we all understand that what we do in this life is up to us — for good, for evil, for indifference, for apathy — and not up to the governments and politicians.

I don’t comment on school, church, or workplace shootings. Unfortunately there’s so many that I wouldn’t be able to keep up. But today, I can’t help hanging my head now and thinking to myself, “Maybe I should have said something, maybe I could have done something…”

Yesterday’s shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, however, was poignant in a number of ways. First and foremost, I’ve attended more UU services than I can mention while living in Terre Haute, Indiana and Durham, North Carolina, as well as having been to political meetings at my current local congregation, the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh (NC). While I don’t describe myself as Unitarian-Universalist any more, UUism still holds a place close to my heart. Happening geographically close to home in the Unitarian Universalist Association’s southern “Thomas Jefferson District” and having a number of friends who’ve been personally affected by this action have made the feelings associated with this incident seem nearly crushing.

Anytime something like this happens, there’s a natural tendency to think, “What do I do?” While I mean no disrespect to my UU friends — some of the most colorful, joyful, peaceful, best coffee making people you could ever hope to meet — I’m afraid the collective answer about what to do may be misguided.

When considering next steps, UUs need to follow the suggestion of Thoreau and “strike the root”. Not all of the details have been released as to the suspect’s motives, but we do know the following — he was unemployed, he was alone and had little or no social support, his basic needs of food and shelter were being taken from him, he lacked self-esteem and a feeling of success in his life. While this man could have lashed out in violence at any number of groups or individuals, it’s sadly ironic that he chose to assault an institution with such a long standing committment and fervent dedication to helping the poor and the downtrodden. Unfortunately, making a stand on issues brings both wanted and unwanted attention to those things you advocate.

Being both a theologically and politically liberal denominational body, there might be more of an emphasis on beating swords into plowshares, but that’s not the answer. Violence has never been the fault of the tool. Mankind is creative enough (and depraved enough) that if every gun was destroyed today, by tomorrow morning humans would already have a new-and-improved favorite way to kill.

The solution for UUs and their family, friends, and neighbors is found in three things that are not very far away. First, as a community of similarly-worshipping people, individuals can find solace and provide comfort to one another. Second, as a spiritual body UUs can look to the wisdom of the past to emphasize the spark in each one of us, the same spark that is extinguished when we believe the world, and not spirit, is the ultimate reality and power over us. Third, as an institution for social change, UUs must accelerate those efforts to find those who feel they are without hope and bring them into a welcoming, accepting, and loving community.

While this won’t prevent every possible episode of violence in the near future, it’ll go a long way. Even though, UUs were targeted for their beliefs, I think that in the recovery process, UUs will reflect upon their successful advocacy in the areas of human rights, religious tolerance, and social justice and understand that the good they have unleashed upon the world is far greater than any evils one man can commit.

This is the completion of a series of articles that began June 1st with an article entitled “Separation of Religion and Politics“. The first part of this article appeared yesterday. This is the continuation of ministers and personalities causing problems for John McCain and the Republicans.

John McCain’s Problem Ministers (Pastor John Hagee and Pastor Rod Parsley):

While not being in the spiritual tradition of Pastor Hagee, I agree with his commentary on Hitler being sent by God to harm the Jews. According to my beliefs, this God that everyone talks so much about is actually the Devil sent to say he’s God, distract people, and cause us no end of harm. So, in my theological world view, it wasn’t God who did this, it was the Devil who has been influencing Hitler and many others of his ilk throughout history. Unfortunately, this isn’t what Hagee meant. Hagee believes in a God that is all-powerful, yet allows evil, in order to achieve his goals. That’s a tough one for me to get my head around, which is why I do not believe in the line of Christian thinking that people like Hagee and Parsley follow. It is comforting to know that Hagee acknowledges evil, but is disheartening that he condones it and advises others under his spiritual care to do so as well.

While I agree in a technical sense with Pastor Hagee’s acceptance of the existence of evil, I can’t agree with Pastor Parsley’s views that America’s purpose is to destroy Islam or that Islam is an inherently evil religion. I am of the mind that America, or as Pastor Parsley probably means, the American government should be on good terms with all nations. The American people have no inbred enmity with any nation. On Parsley’s second count, I have also found that the delineating of good and evil within Judaism, Christianity, or Islam (or within the shared traditions of “The People of the Book”) is silliness. There have always been those within each of those faiths who have advocated and endorsed the use of force and murder against others for the accomplishment of religious, social, and political ends. That is my definition of evil. So while there are those elements in Islam that endorse such actions and phrase it into a religious context, there are similar elements embracing evil who claim to be members of the Jewish and Christian faiths. Kind of like Pastor Parsley, right?

Not only does John McCain have his own problem ministers, but the Republican Presidential nomination also had a former minister seeking its nomination. Since Mike Huckabee has most recently been active as a politician, not a minister, he deserves a special honorable mention. And for this, I consider him somewhat of an apostate. No longer does he advocate “teach a man to fish” or “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”. His goal is to get votes and contributions for political campaigns. If he can use the language of religion to do so, then he feels fine. Of course, having become a politician, he probably now feels he has the freedom to lie and twist the truth. While trying to out-conservative his primary opponents, he tried to convince Republican voters that he was the most fiscally conservative of the bunch. But in last week’s article in the Huffington Post shows, he has abandoned that tactic now that he needs to only impress John McCain enough to get the VP nod. Interestingly, he claims he’s attacking libertarianism, but only attacks the fiscal conservatism aspect, NOT the socially liberal aspect. Shame on you, Politician Mike Huckabee!

In concluding this series, while I tend to agree more with Obama’s problem ministers, what does this say about my view of the candidate? I’m definitely disappointed, since I had spent a great deal of time talking up Obama as one of the better Democratic contenders this election cycle (after Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, and Biden were eliminated, of course). Unless there was some collusion between Rev. Wright and Barack Obama to distance each other, I cannot have faith in a man who would turn away from a mentor so easily in order to secure political power. Fortunately I’ve not impressed anyone enough to have become their person’s spiritual adviser. That sort of shit would be a chilipunk.

This is a continuation of yesterday’s article entitled “Separation of Religion and Politics” and Part I of a two part minister wrap-up.

I have had the honor of running for public office in my previous life. More than five hundred of my neighbors in my rural county trusted me enough to get things done in order to cast their vote for me. I have also had the joy of serving in a capacity, as I am now comfortable in introducing myself, as an ordained minister. With that, and my aforementioned status as an political and religious anarchist, it shouldn’t be a big surprise that I will err on the side of the minister in most of the cases of high-profile ministers in the recent political news. As part of my vain attempt at providing innovative, cutting-edge journalism and commentary (which so many others do so much better), I would like to offer a brief review of the take-aways from each of the major party’s candidates problem ministers:

Barack Obama’s Problem Ministers (Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Fr. Mike Pfleger):

The most important takeaway from Obama’s problem ministers was provided by Jeremiah Wright’s explanation of why what he was saying was different than what Obama was saying. It is completely true that ministers and politicians have different goals and different core audiences. Politicians are accountable to the people, both in terms of doing their business and in seeking to obtain their vote for political office. Ministers are accountable to whatever they conceive Divinity to be and to those whom they provide spiritual services. As a minister myself, I would like to be your friend, but even in the cold lonely evenings I know I will say things that might not get your vote, but what I understand to be the Gospel truth, so to speak. Ministers (as opposed to politicians) generally don’t get paid to lie, so it is in their best interest to speak truth and do things which are good for their souls and the souls of others. It is the minister’s duty and moral requirement to stand against someone, even a former friend or parishioner, if that person has been corrupted by evil and is in a position to spread this evil. If only George W. Bush’s spiritual advisers held to this belief during the last eight years.

In the case of Father Pfleger, he was also right in regard to the fact that there are are a number of angry black people in this country that want to do better. Don’t believe me? Find a black person to ask ten or one hundred other black people. You’ll get a more accurate picture than by asking as a white person. But more to the point, he was right in regard to the Clinton machine’s sense of entitlement to political power. Like the lower class entitlement to government-provided social services and the middle-classes complaints of minorities, immigrants, and foreigners, taking “our jobs”, such a sense can easily extend to those who have enjoyed political power, wealth, and fame for so long.

Tomorrow, we will address the plethora of preachers causing problems for John McCain and the Republicans.