Me and David Barton, "America's Historian" (Who knew!?)

“One of the nation’s most distinguished scholars” – Pastor Jeff Redlin in his opening introduction to David Barton at the “Founding Fathers, Faith, and Limited Government” event Friday the 25^th in Ft. Collins, CO.  Umm, according to whom????

So that’s how it began, in a packed gym, filled to the rafter with people sporting American flag ties and red, white, and blue apparel.   Any suspicions I had as to what the event would be were confirmed when I walked in the door and saw a book for sale with President Obama on a black cover and the book title in red letters with Glenn Beck as a contributor.  It was very unsettling, it had the feel of a cult gathering, with a huge flag hanging from the center, participants raising their hands in worship during The Battle Hymn of the Republic, and prayer interspersed throughout.  I had to wonder, who or what are we really worshipping here?

The main event was of course the presentation of David Barton, known as “America’s historian” (when did America give him that title??).  Barton began rattling off different quotes of early Americans and how many biblical idioms they referenced in such sayings, for example noting that Benjamin Franklin referenced 13 verses in just a few sentences; it reminded me of the “Bible Code” mumbo jumbo.

For being a “noted historian,” he seemed to be fast and loose with a lot of “facts.”  He strictly asserted that the Indiana “Hoosier” came from an African-American Evangelist with the last name of Hoosier; the Indiana Historical Bureau doesn’t agree.  Then he spoke of how Declaration signer Benjamin Rush helped start the African Methodist Episcopal Church.  The church’s website lists no such thing; neither does Fortress Introduction of Black Church History by Anne H. Pinn and Anthony B. Pinn.  He then declared that those at or below the poverty line in the U.S. were more likely to have a car, phone, TV, and AC then middle-class Europeans.  Even a perfunctory understanding of European culture notes how flawed such logic is; public transportation is widely accessible and there is not nearly as much urban sprawl, limiting greatly the need for a car.  Does free health care and post-secondary education not count for anything?  I found it comical when Barton disparaged scholars he didn’t agree with that “credentials don’t mean anything unless they line up with the truth.”  That’s very convenient for Barton to say, since he doesn’t have any credentials himself.

If that had been the whole presentation, I wouldn’t have cared so much; it was when he “applied” the principles of these Founding Fathers to the role of government, specifically limited government that his real agenda came out.  I think many make the mistake of writing off Barton and others like him as non-intellectuals; Barton may be narrow minded or perhaps blinded by his own ideology, but he ain’t stupid.  He made three brilliant points in his speech, and I mean brilliant as in evil mastermind brilliant. 

1.       He referenced an alleged quote from George Washington which basically said that one is not a patriot if they subvert the great pillars of Christianity.  What’s the big deal?  He’s not-so-subtly implying that one is not a “real” American or “true patriot” if one doesn’t hold to the tenets of Christianity (as he interprets them mind you).

2.       He stressed that if someone votes “wrong” on life issues, there are going to be wrong on every other issue; “If they won’t protect your life, they won’t protect your money” he said.  It’s a brilliant strategical move by Barton, for it would be easy to suggest that even if one is pro-life, Roe v. Wade is very unlikely to be overturned and one should not attempt to legislate morality; therefore one should base their political decisions on other issues. Yet by assuring people that basing voting decisions on a politician’s pro-life stance promises correct decisions in other policy issues, Barton ideologically mandates a pro-life vote and correspondingly a Republican vote.

3.       He asserted that a secular government can’t be limited because it doesn’t rely on God for rules and laws.  Translation, if you want a limited government, you have to vote Republican because Democrats are such a godless, secular bunch who must over-regulate by their very definition. 

It’s time to start paying attention to folks like David Barton and others like him.  Whether it be his proof-texing and ignoring of context, his poor biblical exegesis, or even his obvious blind loyalty to conservative ideology, the influence he holds over conservatives in this country is nothing to shake a stick at.  Anyone interested in the future of America, and not wanting to see this country be taken backwards into a revisionist historical view of America needs to be aware of what’s going on and be educated enough to point out the many flaws in such logic and “history.” 

Is America exceptional?

I was listening to a conservative talk radio host on my way home this evening and as usual, he was complaining about President Obama.  He wasn’t discussing recent policy decisions by the President or even offering reasons why Romney was a better choice in the upcoming election, he was criticizing Obama the man. It seems like a popular thing to do, discredit Obama as a person; he’s called a socialist, a liberal, a “metrosexual Abe Lincoln, even “un-American.”  (Personally, I think it’s telling that rather than trying to refute the substance of his policies, conservatives simply try to discredit the source…) Tonight, the radio host was upset with the President because Mr. Obama supposedly did not believe in “American exceptionalism.” So I began to wonder myself, is America exceptional?

Looking back in America’s history, there are frankly many parts that are anything but exceptional.  I think of the horrific treatment and brutalization of the original inhabitants of this land we call America, that horrors of slavery, the that women have only been able to vote for some 90 years, the terrible discriminatory policies towards African-Americans in the south, the 45million people today struggling with hunger… Do I need to continue?

Is America exceptional? Perhaps the better questions would be, “are we on our way to being exceptional?”  Looking back at our history America has done some very good things, but also some very bad.  And far too often, the leaders of our nation have been more than willing to screw over countries for our own gain.  For a country that often is purported to be a “Christian nation,” such selfish, greedy behavior doesn’t seem very godly to me.

If I had the opportunity to ask President Obama in person if American is on its way to being exceptional, I think he would say yes.  I think he would talk about all the good America has done and all the right political decisions that have been made—but I also think he would point out the enormous income inequality, the millions who still struggle with hunger, the vast amount of people who don’t have access to healthcare, and yes, the bigoted policies towards those of a differing sexual orientation.  So would the President say America is exceptional? I think not, but I do think he would point out that he is working with and on behalf of the American people to make sure we continue on that path towards such a vision.

“As seen on TV” voter ID laws.

If you spend a lot of time watching late night TV, you likely see a lot of info-mercials trying to sell anything from juicers to button makers.  To effectively market an unnecessary product to a potential buyer, a seller must effectively create a need for their product in the mind of the potentisl buyer.   Last night I saw one commercial trying to sell a device that would punch holes in belts—because we all know how often our waistline fluctuates! So, for example, I put on a pair up pants but because I’m so darn fat I can no longer tighten my belt—here comes the belt hole puncher to the rescue! No longer must I worry about having to buy bigger belts or get frustrated when I can’t tighten my current belts, I can just punch another hole.  Heck, as a “pleased customer” says on the commercial, “it’s something we all need.” Riiiiiggggghhhttt.

Late night TV commercials trying to sell their random and unnecessary goods and wares got me thinking about the many Voter ID laws being passed in various states around the country, Wisconsin being a notable example.  Wisconsin’s law was recently ruled unconstitutional and Governor Scott Walker thinks that’s a shame.  Funny thing though, when he was asked on Fox News about proof regarding voter fraud, Walker simply dodged the question and suggested that the law will be worthwhile if it prevented even just one case of voter fraud.  Walker and others like him are trying to sell unneeded crap to the American people, their trying to sell you a “punch and snap” or a “pocket chair” (because who doesn’t need a chair they can fit in their pocket?!).  Basically, Walker and other folks endorsing these laws are just inventing problems (like any good marketer trying to sell you their random piece of crap that you don’t really need and will be a waste of your money).

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and current Fox News  TV host suggests, like many others, that since we need an ID to cash a check or fly on a plane, requiring an ID to be shown before voting makes perfect sense but here’s  the problem—cashing a check or flying on a plane are not constitutionally protected rights!  It’s disingenuous to on one hand cry the that constitution is being ignored and disrespected by liberals yet then on the other hand compare constitutionally protected rights to checking out a library book. It’s NOT the same thing!

Republicans are quick to say this isn’t a discriminatory practice, but I’m sure those who enacted “poll taxes” in the early years of America and those who constantly created ridiculous obstacles for African-Americans in the south didn’t consider their practices discriminatory either.  Heck, Scott Walker gleefully relayed a story about a teenager who described anyone who was unable to get a state ID as “incompetent.”  Really?  That kid has no freakin’ idea, and Walker is showing his foolishness even restating those words.

Shortly after the interview with Scott Walker, Fox News, the bastion of fair and balanced reporting, brought on “historian” Mark Steyn to critique a recent Obama speech.  Steyn was able to find several “historical inaccuracies” Obama had said yet was somehow unable to add to the voter ID topic any relevant historical information—such as poll taxes or discriminatory practices in the south (and why Fox News can only find a Canadian to be an “expert” on American history should tell you something). 

Who is most likely to be effected by these laws? Minorities and lower-income Americans, people who coincidentally tend to vote Democratic.  So, here’s the skinny, conservatives are weeding out competition while at the same time denigrating the opposition. Yet again, it’s the majority speaking for the minorities—hardly a new occurrence, yet one we should have caught on to by now.  Just because I white person says it’s not discriminatory doesn’t mean it isn’t.  It’s time to get rid of these ridiculous “As seen on TV” voter ID laws.

Ressurection...for the rest of us

Positive thinking gets a lot of play these days—and for good reason—having a positive attitude in life can be very helpful. There is a lot to be said for finding the positives in life, but for all the benefits of positive thinking, in some ways I find it shallow and lacking.  Most, if not all humans will at some time, if not multiple times in their life find themselves blindsided, punched in the gut, and knocked off their feet by a one or many life events.  Sometimes it’s something big like the death of a loved one or a broken relationship. Sometimes it’s just the accumulation of many “small” things— the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

All of a sudden we can find ourselves down on the mat, face down in the mud, and down for the count. It’s in these moments when positive thinking just doesn’t cut it; we know we should get back up, brush ourselves off, and get back on the horse—we know groveling in the mud isn’t going to help our situation and that the longer we stay down the harder it is to get up. But we don’t get up, whether it be that we feel we don’t have the energy—physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually—or whether it be we just realize staying down is just easier; easier than expending the energy to get up when we might get knocked down again, easier than cleaning ourselves up when we might get dirtied again, and easier than putting ourselves out there when we might get burned again.  It’s at these times all the positive thinking in the world won’t do us any good—we are in a sense beyond our human ability. For all intents and purposes we are not so much living but dying—for this “life” more resembles that of “death.”

I bet Jesus’ disciples could relate to this feeling. After the exuberant experiences of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem—the person they had followed and worshipped and for whom they had given up their lives was now dead.  Though themselves physically alive, emotionally and spiritually they were anything but that;  lurking in the shadows  desperately trying to avoid recognition and holed up in a safe location—they, along with their leader, were dead and their movement no more. 

It was at this moment—when all seemed hopeless and when all seemed lost—that the miraculous occurred; Resurrection. 

Whether it was physical, spiritual, mystical—whatever—something happened, something unexplainable, something beyond mere positive thinking. The leader they thought dead of the movement they thought over came to them and said, “hey, it isn’t over yet, this is just the beginning.” Beyond rising himself, Jesus called the disciples also to rise above the doubt and discouragement, above defeat and self-pity, and above uncertainty and fear.  They did just that.  Numerous stories exist which tell of amazing acts by these men (and women).  Far beyond positive thinking—these folks were living resurrected lives.

Resurrection is ultimately a choice[i]—Jesus calls us, reaches out to us—in our deepest, darkest, and most deathly state and says “arise.” Beyond “what you can attain… lift your weary head… take my hand and we will rise above.”[ii]  This is true resurrection—this is the resurrected life—from our depths of despair, in our weakest moments and in our darkest hour Jesus calls to us and says “arise.” When I see someone who has been “to hell and back,” what I see is far more than any positive thinking. This resurrection is nothing short of miraculous.

“Rise—he’s calling you to come—just leave it all behind—and rise above.”[iii]

---

[i] Thanks to friend and classmate Melanie Van Weelden for the new perspectives on resurrection which inspired this blog.

[ii] From the song “Rise” on Michael W. Smith’s album Wonder.

[iii] From the song “Rise” on Michael W. Smith’s album Wonder.

Lessons to be learned from The Hunger Games

I didn’t really understand what all the excitement was around The Hunger Games, but I decided to go with my wife and see it on the opening weekend of the movie, then I saw it again, then I read the trilogy—all within a week.  Needless to say, I caught The Hunger Games fever.

The first time I saw the movie, I walked out of the theater just blown away, amazed at what I had just seen—not because of the acting or the cinematography—no, it was a stirring within me, a feeling of uneasiness at the thought—or better, the realization that I was, along with all the other movie goers, a citizen of the Capital.   Yes, that Capital—as described in The Hunger Games, where the residents live in luxury, sheltered from the realities of the world, never to feel the pangs of hunger within their stomachs. 

The second time I saw the movie, as walked out of the theater, two in front of me were talking about their first impressions of the film; “I was hoping for more blood and gore” one said.   I was appalled—yet hardly surprised; we are a culture that celebrates violence—sort of like the citizens of the Capital.  Commiserating with the classmate I had seen the movie with, there was a common refrain—“we’re screwed,” one can’t help but wonder how long the rest of the world, a la the Districts, will continue to take the oppression we as residents of the Capital dish up.  There is so much to learn from The Hunger Games, yet I’m convinced few will ever give it a second thought; where shall I begin…

Poverty – The Seam vs. the Capital, polar opposites and worlds apart—if only it was just in the movies.  In reality there are millions (and likely billions) of people living in abject poverty, starving to death, while we in the Capital have food and goods in excess.  Worse, just like the Capital did to the Districts, we exploit the rest of the world so that we may maintain our high class of living and ignore the suffering that goes on.

Violence—Violence is part of our culture, it dominates our entertainment (from sports to movies), de-sensitizing us from the horrors it causes.  We are like the Capital, entertained by the murderous slaughter of other’s children.  Whether it be the self-medicating, drunken stupor of Haymitch by which he shielded himself from his violent memories or the constant nightmares of Katniss, The Hunger Games demonstrates that violence is hardly a (video) game—it has real life consequences.  Yet that is exactly what we, as the Capital, have turned it into; The Hunger Games shakes it’s head at violence, as Haymitch can only do when he sees a parent give his son a sword as a toy, and as the movie portrays the initial “bloodbath” as jarring, disorienting, and disturbing—because such violence is that and worse. 

Hope—I’m reminded of the conversation between President Snow and the Gamemaker Crane.  Snow, uncomfortable with the direction the Games were headed in with Katniss and Peeta’s love story, tells Crane that a little hope is a good thing, but a lot of hope can be dangerous.   A little hope—that’s all our society is willing to give, because too much is dangerous, and we know it.  The cultural myth of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” is a little hope, exemplifying the one who was able to ascend from the depths of poverty is a little hope—any more hope, like Snow said, would be dangerous.  So rather than address the severe socio-economic inequalities that exist in this nation and offer real hope to the less fortunate—we instead offer them something like The Games itself, one will survive yet most will not. Why? Because we know that allowing real hope is dangerous—to us, and leads to the kind of change that comes at the end of the trilogy. 

The Military—I couldn’t help but notice the vocabulary used in The Hunger Games to describe the tributes, words like courageous, brave, and daring.  In the story, citizens of the Capital praise the tributes before they enter the arena, celebrating the sacrifice they are making for their country—all the while ignoring the fact that these tributes are children who have been turned into trained killers and will likely not come back alive. 

I mean no disrespect whatsoever to those who serve within the Armed Forces. Rather I wish to point out to those who celebrate the valor and bravery of these young men and women yet are far too eager to send them into harm’s way, to remind them that we spend far more resources training these young men and women to be killers than to bring peace, and to acknowledge that we send them away knowing that many will not return.  Just like the citizens of the Capital, our young women and men must sacrifice their lives so we can continue our bloated, excessive lifestyle and maintain the status quo.  Shame on us for being so willing to disrespect young lives.

I could go on, for there are many more themes to explore—yet I hope that if you have seen or read The Hunger Games you will take a closer look at the story. Image if you truly were a resident of District 12, or your child was reaped for The Games—how would you feel about the the Capital, the powers that be, if such a thing happened to you?

The Great Young, White, Affluent, Single, Heterosexual Male Ministerial Myth

Our society is bloated with unrealistic, unattainable images and standards for us to live by—whether it’s the voluptuous swimsuit model, the ripped, athletic male, or the ever-stylish and trendy young adult (preferably a male 18-29).  Despite the fact that these people don’t really exist (the swimsuit babe is an airbrushed digital creation and the buff guy spends hours upon hours in the gym working out, taking endless supplements, and not eating for days before modeling) our culture still believes these people actually do exist—and further—are the standard we should shape our society around.   Movies, TV, style magazines and even clothing all center around these ideal people, these mythical human beings that only exist on the digital screens of a computer.

There are yet more mythical standards—even within the Christian community, consider for example the white, affluent, young, heterosexual, male, ministerial student. Ah, let us consider the ways…

Young: Being that the most sought after demographic in churches today are young adults, every church dreams of landing a fresh, energetic, young minister—youth is an ideal character trait.  A twenty-something doesn’t have all the entanglements such as family or houses or debt that can weigh down someone twice their age. And when one considers the marathon-like effort one must put out to complete seminary, only the younger generation seem to posses the stamina that this requires.

White:  I don’t exactly have to worry about overzealous neighborhood watchmen chasing me down, thinking I’m up to  no good, nor am I looked at with suspicion (like one from a middle eastern descent), or with condescension (like one from south of the border)—the opposite is true. My skin color is the majority and the norm—especially in mainline religious bodies! Mainline Christianity is predominantly a white middle-class religion.  Those of another ethnicity have their work cut out for them.

Affluent: Education is crazy, ridiculously expensive to begin with, then if we factor in that trying to go to school full-time is nearly impossible while maintaining a job, the task is even more arduous.  Yet, if that wasn’t enough Divinity schools are exactly popping up in everyone’s back yards.   Nope, the opposite is true, seminaries are long and far apart, so attending one requires a significant financial commitment—moving cross country isn’t cheap.  Basically, if you want to get a degree, you better have a truck-load of cash or be willing to be deeply  in debt for the rest of your life.

Single: Partners/Spouses and families are great—unless one is training for ministry.  Moving across country doesn't work is well when you have kids, studying all night doesn’t lend itself to maintaining  a good relationships with a loved one, and it’s really hard these days to sustain a family on only one income.  Single is the ideal.

Heterosexual:  Do I really even explain this? Somehow it should seem obvious that since a huge portion of America believes homosexuality is immoral and that many Christian denominations refuse to even ordain gays, those with a sexual orientation differing from the “ideal” have quite an uphill slog.

Male: Yes, good ole’ patriarchalism, ministry is a man’s job—always has been and always will be.  A man is independent, less vulnerable, more likely to be gain respect.  Society is still incredibly structured to favor men, especially when leading our institutions—a woman just won’t do. 

If you think these are completely ridiculous standards for ministerial, then you’re getting my drift—yet the educational system for ministry is set up exactly for this idea candidate, the candidate that doesn't exist, the candidate that is only a myth.  There was a time when this was the standard for divinity students, but that was 50 years ago! Now in divinity school women outnumber the men, and the young adults are a minority in comparison to the second career folks.  I’m actually doing pretty good myself, I’m still fairly young, I’m white, I’m heterosexual, and I’m a male but on the other hand I also have a family and I’m not exactly rolling in cash—far from it actually.  I think this whole process is challenging yet I can’t imagine the struggle it is for someone who has 3,4,5, or even 6 of these “ideal” traits working against them!

This is real life, the Young, White, Single, Heterosexual, Male ministerial student no longer exists, and probably never will again.  Yet our religious seminaries and institutions continue to operate on this old, outdated, dying (dead?) model.  It’s the 21^st century people! Get with it, seriously. Our churches are closing up shop, our congregations are drying up, and our pulpits are sitting empty—yet despite all these problems our institutions continue to make ministerial education seemingly impossible for the non-young, white, affluent, single, heterosexual males.

And we wonder why our religious institutions are dying off…  

Misogynistic, Chauvinistic, and sexist: welcome to Right-wing politics in America

The fact that these are harsh words isn’t lost upon me, but when I search for statements to describe the ideology of the political Right in America, these are unfortunately the only ones that seem appropriate. Over the last few months, Right-wing conservatives have demonstrated an utterly reprehensible behavior towards women in this country. Don’t believe me? Let me count the ways.

The Examples:

For starters there is the shockingly disturbing quotes from Rush Limbaugh in which he described a women who testified in support of birth control as a “slut” and a “prostitute.”  He made those remarks on Wednesday of last week. Yet he couldn’t leave well-enough alone, for Thursday he suggested that this woman, Sandra Fluke, make sex-tapes of herself since the taxpayers should get to see what they paid for. Then Friday, not to be outdone, he mocked President Obama for calling Ms. Fluke and expressing his concern. 

Backtracking in time, we can look next to the failed Blunt Amendment, which came from Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri.  This amendment would have allowed all employers, not just churches or religiously affiliated employers, to deny coverage if the employer had a moral objection to a medical option.  So, for example, if the owner doesn’t believe in pre-marital sex, he could deny contraception or even pre-natal coverage to all single women. 

Next we must look at that contraception controversy, the battle of the Bishops—the all-male Catholic bishops that is. Strangely enough, when discussing issues that are exclusively in regards to women, no women are allowed to voice their opinion.  There was the now-infamous all-male panel to discuss contraception to a congressional committee, there was the exclusively male Catholic Bishops deciding what women should and should not do, and of course as previously discussed there was the incident of a  woman (Fluke) speaking out only to then be publicly denigrated.  The Catholic Church has spearheaded the pushback to the ruling, yet despite that an estimated 98% of Catholic women use birth control—women have been silenced from the debate.

Then last, but certainly not least, are the laws attempting to be passed in Virginia and elsewhere that require a women to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.   Besides the physical discomfort and awkwardness (but I have seen this procedure done and it didn’t look extremely comfortable) is the principle of the matter; this is forced vaginal penetration of a women without her consent—isn’t that essentially rape? Though some think that terminology is inappropriate, I know of no other way to describe it.

The Underlying Causes:

“Religious Freedom” = The issues of contraception and pro-life laws have been huddled under the umbrella of “religious freedom” and the Right has cried that Obama’s law requiring free contraception coverage to women is a blatant disregard for that freedom. But again, who is crying foul here? It’s the men—the men who think they have a right to speak for women, whether it be the Catholic Bishops, the all-male congressional committee, or even Rush Limbaugh. We are witnessing the crumbling, decaying wreckage of traditional patriarchalism in America.  Men are losing their place of ultimate authority in society; no longer do women unconsciously submit to the leadership of men, no longer do women understand themselves to be the “lesser”—so men are fighting back, as hard as the can, to hang on to any remaining vestiges of power left; even if that means promoting sexism.

The “Traditional Family” = I wish this issue was as simple as rooting out a few women-haters, but it goes deeper than that.  The constant rallying cry amongst Right-wing conservatives is for the renewal of the “traditional family;” a married male and female and their children.   But we need to go further still, for where do they drawn their norms from what a “traditional family” is and how it should behave? They draw these standards from their narrow interpretations of the Bible—women are to submit to men, for husbands are the head of the household and the leader of the family.  Therefore, in the understanding of a religious conservative, this debate over contraception in America is going exactly as it should be going—since women are to be in subjection to men, males are completely within their authority making decisions for women. 

The Way Forward:

 I don’t know, but unlike the Right, I’m going to leave that up to the women of America to decide.