DK over at Talking Points Memo expresses my feelings about the Congressional debate over the legalization of torture far better than I could.
Here is an excerpt, but read the whole thing:
I am beyond being able to assess the political implications, one way or the other, of this spectacle. Regardless of which version of the bill finally passes, this debate is a black mark on the soul of the nation. Of course passage of a pro-torture bill will diminish U.S. standing internationally and jeopardize the safety and well-being of U.S. servicemen in future engagements. But merely having this debate has already accomplished that. Does anyone honestly believe that if Congress rebuffs the President in every respect that the rule of law and the inviolability of human rights will have been vindicated? Of course not.
We still live in America, right? Right?
Joel over at connexions has a great post about what truly comprises theological liberalism. Here is his list of 22 items which he considers to be a part of “theological liberalism.” My comments are in italics next to each:
1. View of the Bible as inspired and not inerrant. I’m somewhere between inspired and inerrant. 1/2 agreed.
2. An understanding that some passages in the Bible are metaphorical or “myth based.” Agreed.
3. An emphasis on the need to apply human reason, experience and tradition in interpreting the Bible. Agreed.
4. Application of insights from the social sciences (which are also not
inerrant) is crucial to interpreting the Bible. As the social sciences
are themselves God’s revelation of truth, they complement rather than
compete with Scripture. Not sure.5. An emphasis on Biblical criticism and literary analysis. Agreed, to a point. I think I hold the scriptures in a bit higher regard than those who would throw out whole sections of it through Biblical criticism, but I do believe that there is value in these tools.
6. Scripture must be viewed through the lens of time and culture. Agreed.
7. Doctrines, church authority and Scripture cannot be divorced from subjective personal experience. Not sure.
8. Community wholeness in relation to God is as important as a personal
relationship to God through Christ. (“Shalom” creation.) Agreed.9. An understanding that the Bible contains “all things necessary for
salvation” but not necessarily all things related to salvation. Not sure.10. A refusal to make creeds a test of faith. Agreed.
11. Openness to “finding Christ in the culture.” Not sure.
12. Doubt is not inherently the enemy of faith, but can be used by God to engage that very faith. Agreed.
13. A strong commitment to social justice. Agreed.
14. The idea that self-reflection is a necessary component of faith. Agreed.
15. Acceptance that the Bible incorporates an intentional tension
between “universal” and “exclusive” salvation. (To remind us that God
alone judges?) Agreed.16. The possibility that not only may we acquire new understandings of
God’s revelation but that it is possible that God is still revealing. Agreed.17. Humans, while tending toward depravity, are capable of responding to divine grace. Agreed.
18. As “imitators” of Christ, we must engage the essential unity of faith and works. Agreed.
19. That Christian existentialism is criticized but effectively
practiced by the “orthodox” and fundamentalists but honestly admitted
to by many liberals. Not sure.20. Rejection of an over-emphasis on a “personal relationship with
Christ” that fails to adequately place faith in the context of
community. Agreed.21. A strong emphasis on “corporate sin” as being as evil and destructive as personal sin. Agreed.
22. That while miracles happen, God does not ordinarily suspend the laws of nature. Agreed.
That puts me with 15 agrees, 2 half-agrees, and 5 not sures. Which, it seems to me, would put me rather firmly in the theologically liberal camp if his definition holds (and here I always thought I was a theological conservative since I hold to rather orthodox views of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and so forth). I’ll be interested in following the discussion which develops on their site.
In George W. Bush’s America, apparently religious freedom does not extend to those teachings which contradict the policies of his administration:
“Stepping up its probe of allegedly improper campaigning by churches, the Internal Revenue Service on Friday ordered a liberal Pasadena parish to turn over all the documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year with references to political candidates… The IRS investigation was triggered by an antiwar sermon delivered by its former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, at the church two days before the 2004 presidential election. The summons even requests utility bills to establish costs associated with hosting Regas’ speech. Bacon was ordered to testify before IRS officials Oct. 11.”
Christians may disagree over the specific implications of Christ’s teachings, but it is hard to argue that those same teachings at least require us to question the applicability of war in various situations. This is all that All Saints Episcopal Church was doing in this instance.
And it’s not as if their position was exactly outside of the mainstream of Christian thought. The Pope signed on to their position. A significant number of churches throughout the world agreed with it.
And yet, apparently, in America, if you don’t agree with the policies of the emperor, you get thrown to the lions.
