The Hijacking of Religion

By Jonathan Gallagher, Ph.D.  

Visit http://www.jonathangallagher.com to read Dr. Gallagher’s other writings.

How religious beliefs are exploited for political and secular ends, and the consequences for religious liberty

When inter-religious violence erupted in Indonesia just a few years ago, the primary response was astonishment. Had not Christians and Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists—in fact believers of just about every faith under the sun—lived together in relative tranquility, with mutual toleration marred only rarely by religious difference?

So where did the sudden animosity come from?

Tracing the waves of massacre and death back, it seems that the trouble began with a minor dispute between two villagers. It just so happened that one was Christian, the other Muslim. But that was not the cause of the disagreement. However, as the situation became inflamed, the opposing families began to exploit the religious difference, until the whole pot boiled over into violence against the other side, ultimately defined purely on the basis of religious persuasion.

The end result? Thousands dead, hundreds of thousands displaced, refugees in their own country. Holy wars, forced conversions, rape and mutilation—all apparently because of “inter-religious conflict.”

Yet this vivid example clearly reveals that the motive forces behind the violence are not primarily based on religious concepts, but on the use of religion to label and define the enemy.

The end of an authoritarian regime, competition for land and resources, employment issues, inter-tribal disputes, economic disparities—all these have a far more significant causes for the communal violence in Indonesia. Religion is just a convenient “identifier” that sanctions war and murder because of the perceived threat to one’s own community.

In the words of Maksum Maksum, chief editor of the Indonesian daily newspaper Jawa Post, “Different communities have difficulty in detaching themselves from religious matters. There can be jealousy and suspicion between religious groups, and a very complex societal problem can develop that is very difficult to resolve.”¹

Why does it happen? Why the inter-religious violence?  According to Aidir Amir Daud, vice-director of the Indonesian daily newspaper Fajar, “The Indonesian constitution guarantees religious freedom but this is not always applied in practice. Religion is the right of the individual, but other factors such as affluence can cause problems. The key is communication between religious leaders and a working together for socio-economic equality.”²

In other words, the root causes are economic, social and political. Religion is simply the tool that is used to gain control.

For a country to move from general tolerance to extreme intolerance in just a few short years speaks of the power of religion, and its ready exploitation by those seeking political authority and control. The fuel is human competition. For where there is enough food, land, water and other resources, the need to fight other communities is much reduced. But as the world becomes increasingly overpopulated, then such scenarios can only increase. Religion is so close to the heart of how any society defines itself that those seeking political power and worldly goals will readily use such a potent weapon. The exploitation of religious belief is not new—witness the jihads and crusades from history—but its greatly increased impact and extent will be the dominant factors for the foreseeable future.

The extreme militant Taliban militia that controls most of Afghanistan also exemplifies the use of religious dictates as powerful, political tools. Claiming that their interpretation of the Islam mandated their actions, the Taliban have essentially barred women from participation in education and many aspects of society; have decreed death to anyone leaving the Islamic faith or encouraging another to do so; have banned access to the Internet; have destroyed the religious heritage of other faith (e.g. the Buddhist statues); and have required religious minorities to wear a distinguishing label, reminiscent of Hitler’s yellow star requirement for Jews.

Through the total integration of religion and politics in Afghanistan, there is no opportunity for political dissent, for that equates to religious apostasy. Religion is completely hijacked in the service of the state, an unquestionable tool of oppression and discrimination to which there can be no opposition.

So too in Sudan, which was named in the 2000 report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom as the world’s worst violator of religious liberty. The 2001 report indicates that the situation has not improved, but deteriorated:

“The situation in Sudan has grown worse in the year since the release of the Commission’s report. The government of Sudan continues to commit egregious human rights abuses – including widespread bombing of civilian and humanitarian targets, abduction and enslavement by government-sponsored militias, manipulation of humanitarian assistance as a weapon of war, and severe restrictions on religious freedom.”3

The Islamic government of the north is waging a genocidal war against the south, whose population is mainly Christian and animist. Through a policy of massacre and destruction of villages, the government uses “Islamicization” as a tool to forcibly convert and enslave those captured in the south. Girls are forced into slavery and worse, boys forced to join the army and sent to fight in the south.

The methodology is one designed to eradicate all opposition and to enforce conformity. The tool of choice is religion; religion exploited as a vicious mechanism of destruction and death for all who will not comply.

Many moderates protest that such use of religion is against the fundamental principles of the faith in question. It is undeniably true that all the major religions speak to greater or lesser degrees about tolerance and compassion. Yet when religion becomes aligned with the political extremists, such moderate views are lost in the rhetoric and violence. No one wants to be seen as being in opposition to what is deemed a matter of faith, of being opposed to those who have not only demanded what is Caesar’s, but what is God’s too.

India provides a troubling picture of religious trends. The development of “Hindu fundamentalism” correlates with the establishment of the BJP, the “Hindu nationalist” party that now forms the government of India. India has traditionally been a tolerant and pluralistic society as far as religion is concerned. It has welcomed religions from beyond its borders, and Hinduism itself has always promoted toleration and acceptance. That is not to say that there have been no conflicts in the past, but generally India has been free from major religious conflict.

Today that tolerant scenario is fading rapidly. The exclusivistic attitude of the “Hindu national” politicians has encouraged an atmosphere of suspicion and fear, with inter-religious conflict the obvious result. Instead of a being an inclusive expression of religion, Hinduism is now being marketed as the “national faith.” Calls are made from the government to resist the work of Christian missionaries.

Any attempts by other religious groups to share their faith and gain converts is strongly resisted, and legislation is already in place in some areas which requires government permission to convert from one faith to another. Antagonism to Christian missionary work is becoming increasingly intense, and viewed as a threat to national security and identity. Pressure to re-convert to Hinduism is strong.

A note left at the site of three bombings in the northern state of Bihar said, “Stop conversions under the pretext of social service. India is a Hindu nation. Christians leave India.”

Why? Again, this is no accidental process. The role of religion in society is exploited and corrupted to self-serving ends by those who wish to gain power. By equating faith and nationalism, politicians gain support—for who would dare contradict what is presented as an “article of faith”? Religion is once again hijacked, and the threat to religious minorities is ominous. For in situations of crisis, the majority seeks scapegoats. In a country of more than one billion people, with great competition for food and water, with most resources rapidly being depleted, it does not take much imagination to foresee inter-religious conflict of cataclysmic proportions.

When society reaches breaking point, religious toleration is a scarce commodity.

“Militancy” in religion takes many forms, yet is a very “portable” concept. To have suggested, even just a few years ago, that a militant form of Buddhism could be developed, would have seemed absurd. Such an idea is no longer laughable. Even Buddhism, which is so linked with concepts of peace, tranquility and acceptance, has been hijacked to support nationalistic and political concerns.

For example in the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, Buddhism is the state religion. Conversion to other religions is illegal. Attacks on minority religious groups are increasing. Christians have been arrested and beaten. Some have been forced to leave the country.

Again, why? Because the religion of the majority—in this case, Buddhism—is viewed as essential to social stability and order. Nothing is to disturb society, and so a hostile and antagonistic attitude is developed towards other religious faiths. The result: severe restrictions on religious freedoms, and the potential for violent conflict.

On the international scene, such exploitation of religion for political and secular objectives does not augur well for the fundamental human rights. The pressures of overpopulation, resource depletion, famine, disease, pollution, crime and so on all impact society in negative ways that contribute to the desire to hijack religion for personal and national purposes.

Consequently the currently accepted norms of religious liberty and freedom of conscience will come under increasing attack. While nations nominally subscribe to such international instruments as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, such documents no longer seem to be well respected. One high-ranking diplomat in a recent conversation at the UN referred dismissively to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as “western philosophy,” and that her country did not believe it should be bound by such agreements.

Without becoming alarmist, such a situation should be cause for grave concern. When religion is hijacked, so is our fundamental humanity. Religion lies close to the heart of who we claim to be. So in exploiting religion, we exploit ourselves. As a result, multiplied millions are deceived by duplicitous leaders who claim to be speaking in the name of faith. What hope is there for separation of church and state when religion is employed in the service of politicians?

In his latest annual report, Professor Abdelfattah Amor, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance writes:

“The worldwide trend as regards religion and belief is towards increased intolerance and discrimination against minorities and a failure to take account of their specific requirements and needs…. Sadly, intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief are ever-present in the world…. An appraisal of the status of freedom of religion and belief in the world today reveals a somewhat negative and disturbing picture.”⁴

There is no question that the intermixing of religion and politics will become and even greater part of this “negative and disturbing picture.” Amor goes on to describe what he calls “the ever-worsening scourge of extremism. This phenomenon, which is complex, having religious, political and ethical roots, and has diverse objectives (purely political and/or religious), respects no religion. It has hijacked Islam (as in Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Philippines and Turkey), Judaism (in Israel), Christianity (in Georgia) and Hinduism (in India)… The casualties of this aberration are… religions themselves.”⁵

The casualties are religions themselves. And, it should be added, the freedom to believe, practice and worship that go along with religious tolerance and freedom of conscience.

The irony of the hijacking of religion is that the aim—to create a unified society based on the enforcement of one religion—is an illusion. The result is the complete opposite: the fracturing and destruction of society, and the degrading and debasing of humanity. For as any individual’s religious freedom is violated, we are all violated. For there can be no truth in force and imposition, in hatred and violence. In the words of Thomas Clarke, “All violence in religion is irreligious, and that whoever is wrong, the persecutor cannot be right.”⁶

That is the true tragedy—that in enforcing religion, hijacking the belief system—then truth is turned to error, right becomes wrong, and the whole set of moral and ethical values are debased and corrupted. The result for religious liberty is devastating.

For hijacked religion is no religion at all.

 

1. Personal interview, February 14, 2001.

2. Personal interview, February 14, 2001.

3. USCIRF report 2001, p.123.

4. E/CN.4/2001/63, pp.46-47, available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.2001.63.En.

5. Ibid, p. 46.

6. Thomas Clarke, History of Intolerance (1819 ed.), Vol. 1, p. 3, available at http://www.preparingforeternity.com/br/br101.htm

 

© Jonathan Gallagher.   Visit http://www.jonathangallagher.com

“The Abortion Controversy” by John V. Stevens, Sr.

by Gregory W. Hamilton, President

The Northwest Religious Liberty Association (http://www.nrla.com)

You can purchase the book [amazonify]0981587003::text::::The Abortion Controversy[/amazonify] from Amazon.

The official book website is located at http://www.theabortioncontroversy.com

John V. Stevens, Sr.

The Abortion Controversy addresses the many myths surrounding just that: the historic abortion controversy in America—theologically, ethically, scientifically, politically, constitutionally, and socially.

More important, John V. Stevens, Sr., focuses on its affect on the distinct roles of church and state. For example, how is the issue of abortion and the so-called immortality of the soul assigned to the fetus—also referred to as the “sacred gift of life”—being used as a tool by Rome and Evangelical leaders to shift the balance of power between church and state in America and Europe back to the medieval model of a church that once dominated and controlled the agenda of the state, and dictated its will to kings and emperors? This is a central theme throughout.

In many respects, John’s groundbreaking book combines, as does nothing ever published before or since, the art of understanding political science, or the making of public policy, with prophetic or biblical insight. Revealed through that insight is the inherent danger of wittingly or unwittingly using what many of America’s conservative Evangelical and Catholic faithful—including yours truly—consider to be a vitally important moral and social issue, as a means of securing political power.

Issues involving “life” go beyond abortion to include such questions as the use of discarded human embryos in stem-cell research, euthanasia, and birth control—all once primarily Catholic issues. Whether or not these issues can be assigned motives, they remind me of the art of espionage, in which purposeful misdirection and deception are used to further larger and more central hidden agendas. And as with modern medical science and drug usage, there is the unwitting aspect—the law of unintended consequences.

For example, Seventh-day Adventist church pioneer and national reformer Ellen G. White warned that many apparently noble issues—including the heated political matter of temperance and prohibition in her day—would attach themselves to sinister attempts (that is, premeditated movements that went far beyond the control and original intent of their founders) that would rob people of their basic civil and religious liberties.

One of these was a national Sunday closing law, which violated the Establishment Clause separating church and state in the First Amendment. Today, such “catalyst” issues to which John refers—specifically abortion—ultimately result, he argues, in what Ellen White foresaw as the rise and development and establishment of the prophetic “image of the beast.” As the oppression of a Roman church that for centuries dominated the will and purposes of kings and emperors, so too in America would it rear its ugly head again, in the land where religious freedom is presently guaranteed.

Highlighting Revelation 13, verse 14, White wrote, “[As did] the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the state and employed it to further her own ends,” so too, “in order for the United States to form an image of the beast [in the likeness of Rome], the religious power[s] must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends” (The Great Controversy, p. 443). This formula is making its way, whether one sees the movement as deliberate and intentional, or not.

Every Christian and non–Christian should read this provocative but insightful book. Doing so might just might make you rethink everything you believe about the issue of “life.”

You can purchase the book [amazonify]0981587003::text::::The Abortion Controversy[/amazonify] from Amazon.

Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Medical Care to Which They Object (WashingtonPost.com)

The Bush Administration has proposed new regulations which would deny federal money to medical facilities if they required employees to act against their religious conscience in providing certain health benefits.  This raises a number of pertinent questions:

Does this go too far, or is it just what religious employees need?  Is the proposed regulation too broad, or just right?  Should the regulation define what types of procedures should be included in religious objections, or should it be open-ended? Should it have been heard in Congress as a bill, or is the regulatory method of submitting it into law sufficient?

EXCERPT:

Workers’ Religious Freedom vs. Patients’ Rights
Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Care to Which They Object
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2008; A01

EXCERPT:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003238_pf.html

A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients’ rights.

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress are welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard doctors, nurses and other health workers who, they say, are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant.

But the draft proposal has sparked intense criticism by family planning advocates, women’s health activists, and members of Congress who say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control.

There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would — apparently for the first time — define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.

Read the full article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003238_pf.html

VIDEO CLIP: Compulsion in religion and the freedom to disbelieve

Dr. Ravi Zacharias speaks out in support of religious freedom and against attempts to create theocracy.  He also tells a couple of very interesting stories about religious freedom in other countries.  It was recorded at a recent event at the Atlanta Civic Center and you might also recognize the event MC.  Ravi Zacharias answers a tough question about religious freedom- specifically the freedom to disbelieve- in other countries. From the DVD titled “Is America Really Christian.”

Dr. Zacharias was born in India in 1946 and immigrated to Canada with his family twenty years later.  While pursuing a career in business management, his interest in theology grew; subsequently, he pursued this study during his undergraduate education.  He received his Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.  Well-versed in the disciplines of comparative religions, cults, and philosophy, he held the chair of Evangelism and Contemporary Thought at Alliance Theological Seminary for three and a half years.  Mr. Zacharias has been honored by the conferring of a Doctor of Divinity degree both from Houghton College, NY, and from Tyndale College and Seminary, Toronto, and a Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College in Kentucky.  He is presently Visiting Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University in Oxford, England.

See more at http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Watch.aspx

Announcing and Enacting Peace in an Age of Empire

By Ryan Bell

 

Introduction/Story

Who are the children of God?

Who will inherit the kingdom of God?

These are the questions that are heavy on the minds of the Jewish people at the time Jesus begins his public ministry. There was a great debate between the various parties of the Jewish people about how God’s kingdom would finally be restored to Israel.

For the Pharisees, outward, ritual purity was the way to please God and facilitate God’s reign. For the Essenes, separation and isolation from the world was the way to usher in God’s kingdom. For the Saducees, practical accommodations needed to be made and so strategic partnership with the Roman Empire would be necessary to accomplish God’s ultimate ends. Finally, for the Zealots, violent revolution was the only way. Through military might the pagan empire would be cut down and God would reign, at last, in Jerusalem.

So, when Jesus began his public ministry with the words, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near,” he had everyone’s attention. Whose side would he take? Each of these ‘special interest groups’ wanted to claim this powerful teacher for themselves, but one by one, Jesus revealed that the kingdom of God did not conform to any of their ideas.

As the Pharisees quickly found out, Jesus would not conform to their ritual practices. Contrary to the Saducees, Jesus would make no accommodation to Herod. Jesus habit of eating and drinking with sinners would not have pleased the Essenes. And Jesus practice of non-violence and teaching about peacemakers would not have set well with the Zealots.

 

Blessed are the peacemakers

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Like all the beatitudes, and indeed Jesus whole teaching about the kingdom of God, this saying, “blessed are the peacemakers,” is deeply counterintuitive. Mostly likely directed at the Zealots, this teaching flew directly in the face of their most cherished idea – that the way to be a child of God, the way to secure your place in the kingdom of God as a loyal and faithful son – was the take up the sword and smite the pagan dogs who dare to set their kingdom above God’s.

Jesus instead says, those who are called “the children of God” are the peacemakers. Like so many of Jesus’ other teachings, this is 180 degrees opposite from conventional wisdom. How is anything going to get done in this world without a sword? Peacemaking is weak, powerless – or so it seems.

However, Jesus’ teaching is not novel. Jesus is simply picking up one of the most significant strands of Hebrew teaching and bringing it into the present with a new twist. Isaiah paints this divine vision perhaps more clearly that any other Old Testament writer.

 

Proclaiming Peace

Throughout Isaiah we see that God envisions peace, or shalom, not just for Israel, but also for his entire creation.

Isaiah begins with a vision of the nations coming to Zion, the mountain of the Lord, where the Lord will settle their disputes so that they can “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.

“Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore” (Isa 2:4).

Isaiah then pictures a day when God’s people, who have been walking in darkness, will see a great light. A child will be born who will be known, among many other titles, as the “Prince of Peace.” “Of the increase of his government and peace,” Isaiah prophecies, “there will be no end” (Isa 9:2-7).

In chapter 54, Isaiah describes the “covenant of peace” which will never be removed, and in one of the most beautiful passages in all of Isaiah, God’s people are described as messengers of this covenant of peace.

How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!” (Isa 52:7)

It is this remarkable and compelling vision of the peaceful reign of God over all the nations that Isaiah holds up as the purpose for which Israel exists.

 

He Is Our Peace

When the “Prince of Peace” is born in Bethlehem of Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, Israel has languished for centuries waiting for the fulfillment of the prophecy. Many have lost hope. Others, as we have seen above, have developed strategies to bring in God’s kingdom by force or cunning.

In the story of Jesus’ birth, Luke has the angels singing, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests” (Luke 2:14, TNIV), reminding us of the messengers (the Greek word for angel is literally, messenger) of Isaiah 52, who bring good news, proclaim peace and announce God’s reign. The gospel writers want us to know that we are witnessing the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.

Later New Testament writers highlight these connections. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes, “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14).

Jesus, himself, is the peace of God, come to mediate between the nations and create a lasting peace, which will know no end.

When Jesus enters upon his public ministry by saying, “The kingdom of heaven has come near,” he creates quite a stir. His description of the kingdom is remarkably similar to that of Isaiah and the other prophets.

This is why Jesus is able to say that peacemakers – those carrying a message of good news, saying “Your God reigns!” – will be known as the children of God.

 

Practice of peacemaking today

As the church continually reevaluates and reconsiders its role in God’s plan, this Beatitude, or blessing, of Jesus must not be taken lightly. It would be incorrect to see peacemaking as a minor part God’s plan to restore creation. What I have tried to show in this very brief overview is that God’s shalom is perhaps the central theme of God’s creation restoring work; the central metaphor throughout scripture for the complete wholeness of creation, which God is restoring.

The messengers of God’s shalom – those described in Isaiah 52:7 – are God’s precious co-laborers. Look again at this prophetic text.

How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!” (Isa 52:7)

What is the English word for “those who bring good news?” Evangelist. An evangelist is one who proclaims the evangel, or good news.

And what is the content of the good news that these evangelists are proclaiming? Peace. Shalom. Salvation from all her enemies. The reign of God!

So, peacemaking – announcing and enacting peace in our world – is evangelism. It is bearing the good news to a world awash in violence, war, poverty, disease and every other injustice. The good news of God’s kingdom envisioned by the prophets (Isaiah most notably), incarnate in the person of Jesus and taught by him in passages like the Beatitudes, is a good news of God’s shalom gaining the upper hand in the world.

But how does God’s peace gain the upper hand in the world? And what is the role of peacemaking in all this?

 

Jesus’ way of achieving this peace is not the world’s way. In Jesus day, the Pax Romana – Peace of Rome – was widely heralded as the salvation of mankind. The Roman Empire proclaimed peace for the entire world. But it was a peace that came at the end of a sword. It was peace achieved by violence. The Pax Romana turned out to be an illusion, because peace cannot ultimately be achieved through violence.

Jesus taught a different way. The peace of God’s reign would come on a cross – from the greatest display of self-giving love. On the cross Jesus put into practice the teaching of his Sermon: love your enemies, do good to those who spitefully use you and persecute you, turn the other cheek, etc.

Rome’s way was peace through violence, or peace through victory. Jesus way is peace through justice. The two are radically different. Rome’s way says that peace will finally come when all foes are vanquished and the way you accomplish this is through military might. Jesus eschewed this kind of violence and militarism. Jesus taught that peace would finally come when righteousness, or justice, was the order of the day.

******

What does all this means for the church today? When the church reads this beatitude today, what is it that we hear?

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

First, it means that the gospel is, fundamentally, a gospel of peace. The gospel is pacifist, by its very nature. The good news of God’s at-hand kingdom eschews all forms of violence to achieve its ends. This includes all forms of manipulation we might be tempted to use to achieve “gospel ends.” Taking our cues from Jesus example, we cannot proclaim peace, violently. We cannot ensnare people in freedom. We cannot deceive people into the truth. The methods we use must be congruent with our message.

Secondly, the message of peace that we proclaim is more than words. Peace is something we are called to enact, as well. This is why the language of “peacemaking” is more helpful than pacifism, which implies passivity. There is nothing passive about the peacemaking that Jesus calls us to in the gospel. This means that as the church is considering it’s role as witnesses to God’s kingdom, we must recognize that our role goes beyond talking about God and his plans for the world. We must act in harmony with God’s plans. We must do what we anticipate in God’s future. If we, along with Isaiah, picture a future where nations beat their swords into plowshares, then the church must put its conviction to work and start beating on swords now.

Thirdly, being peacemakers in God’s kingdom today means speaking and acting for justice for the poor, the outcast, and the war-torn. It means speaking out again an unjust war and actively working to bring that war to an end. It means speaking truth to power and holding power to account for the righteousness that God envisions. In short, being peacemakers in God’s kingdom means being radically committed to overcoming evil with good.

 

What has faith to do with politics?

I want to share two brief stories from our congregation’s ministry that illustrate the way we are coming to understand our role as peacemakers.

 

In March our church held a Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, in which we prayed, read scripture, sang, told stories and shared experience of working for peace in our world. We lamented the injustice of the current Iraq War. Then, we took candles and went out on the street, and we marched with our candles, prayed and sang some more, as a public witness for peace. It was a very small thing, but it was putting our faith into action. Did it change the world? No. Did anyone notice? Very few. But in God’s kingdom – God’s economy, all these actions matter. Remember the mustard seed?

In June our church participated in several events that culminated in a Town Hall meeting with our elected city officials in which we insisted that they pay attention to the housing crisis in Los Angeles that is squeezing the lower and middle income families. We stood with over 1,000 residents of our town and spoke our truth to power. They listened and made commitments. We did that for the thousands and thousands of families who are being mistreated by their landlords and unjustly evicted from their apartments. We did that for those who cannot afford to live in the community where they have grown up all their lives.

Many have asked why we do these things – why our ministry is like this. We do these and many other things in our church and our community because we believe we are called to be those messengers with beautiful feet, who proclaim peace – God’s peace – to our world. It is our evangelism – our witness – to the world that God way is a better way and God wants people to experience life and freedom now, as well as some day in the future, in the world made new.

Some have said that the church shouldn’t get involved in politics. While I agree that partisan politics have no place in the church, we cannot escape the call of Jesus to affect our world for his kingdom. This is what it means to be peacemakers – to announce to the world, “Our God reigns!” and to enact God’s peace in tangible ways in the neighborhoods where he has planted us.

 

 

_____________________

 

 

 

Ryan Bell is the Senior Pastor of the Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist Church in Hollywood, California. He and his wife and two daughters live two miles from the church are learning to be peacemakers in their local context.  He maintains an active blog at http://www.ryanjbell.net

 

 

Professor Steven Calabresi on Enforcing Morality (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy)

In this essay published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Steven Calabresi, the George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law, comments on Judge Robert Bork’s thought-provoking book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, specifically focusing on governmental efforts to enforce morality.  Calabresi argues that there is a place in the government for legislating morality.

“This Essay explores that topic by seeking to shed additional light on two fundamental questions raised by Judge Bork’s book. First, what is the proper relationship between law, religion, and morality? Second, is it appropriate for the government to punish adult consensual conduct that does not directly harm other individuals, such as drug dealing and possession, prostitution, suicide, and for that matter professional boxing or dueling? I will address these two topics in turn.”

A short excerpt and then a link:

Legalizing drugs, prostitution, and assisted suicide could and probably would produce an explosion of such self-destructive behavior. After legalization, the government could itself encourage immoral behavior: (1) by selling drugs in state-owned, for-profit stores (the way some states continue to sell alcohol), (2) by running state-owned brothels to raise tax revenue, or (3) by encouraging elderly Medicare patients to consider assisted suicide to keep welfare costs down. Like it or not, the law teaches moral lessons, and people, especially in America, are quite prone to believe that what is legal is also moral.

 

Read the full essay (in PDF format) at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol31_No2_Calabresionline.pdf

Thanks to Howard Friedman for posting a link to this piece on his blog at http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/06/recently-available-scholarly-article-of.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“A Call To Renewal” – Barack Obama on the Role of Religion in Public Life

BARACK OBAMA

TRANSCRIPT: ‘Call to Renewal’ Keynote Address
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Washington, DC

Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here at the Call to Renewal‘s Building a Covenant for a New America conference. I’ve had the opportunity to take a look at your Covenant for a New America. It is filled with outstanding policies and prescriptions for much of what ails this country. So I’d like to congratulate you all on the thoughtful presentations you’ve given so far about poverty and justice in America, and for putting fire under the feet of the political leadership here in Washington.

But today I’d flike to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we’ve been seeing over the last several years.

I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible; and we can raise up and pass out this Covenant for a New America. We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won’t have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.

I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.

Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced towards the end of the campaign that, “Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.”

Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.

Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. And since at the time, I was up 40 points in the polls, it probably wasn’t a bad piece of strategic advice.

But what they didn’t understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths.

Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?

Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates – namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.

But Mr. Keyes’s implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.

Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we’ve been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest “gap” in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word “Christian” describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives — in the lives of the American people — and I think it’s time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we’re going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that’s deeper than that – a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds – dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets – and they’re coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They’re looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them – that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I’ve ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.

It wasn’t until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.

I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst.

And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well — that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.

And if it weren’t for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.

And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship — the grounding of faith in struggle — that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.

Faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts.

You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

That’s a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans – evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values.

And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at – to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own – then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome – others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

In other words, if we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to “the judgments of the Lord.” Or King’s I Have a Dream speech without references to “all of God’s children.” Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting “preachy” may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness – in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers’ lobby – but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we’ve got a moral problem. There’s a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation’s CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.

I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology – that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap — off rhythm — to the choir. We don’t need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they’re something they’re not. They don’t need to do that. None of us need to do that.

But what I am suggesting is this – secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of “thou” and not just “I,” resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.

And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you’ve got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don’t need and weren’t even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.

Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It’s going to take more work, a lot more work than we’ve done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.

But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.

This goes for both sides.

Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation – context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase “under God.” I didn’t. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs – targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers – that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don’t want faith used to belittle or to divide. They’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that’s not how they think about faith in their own lives.

So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:

“Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you.”

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be “totalizing.” His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.

But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor went on to write:

“I sense that you have a strong sense of justice…and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason…Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded….You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others…I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

Fair-minded words.

So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

Re-reading the doctor’s letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own – a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It’s a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you.

Manifest Destiny and the Momentum of Empire: Making Sense of America’s Global War on Terrorism

By Gregory W. Hamilton

Today there are two significant global movements that enjoy a symbiotic relationship. The first involves America’s accelerated role as the world’s propagator of democratic values, and as a matter of national and international security the world’s enforcer of those values. The second is the not-so-obvious rapid global expansion of Christianity, a phenomenon that is aided by the expansion of democratic values while also facilitating the spread of those values.

Terrorism Revives America’s Sense of Destiny

Not a few American presidents have invoked “manifest destiny” to describe America’s political mission to establish freedom and democracy in every region and country of the world.[1] The war on terrorism has given this mission a renewed sense of urgency, as evidenced by President George W. Bush’s declaration after 9/11: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”[2]

During his Inaugural Address in January 2005, President Bush emphasized in no uncertain terms that America’s mission, its destiny,[3] is to market democracy to every nation, region, and corner of the world through diplomatic means, or by force if necessary.[4] To date, however, no American president has ever thematically employed the unilateral threat of force as a means of exporting democratic reform on a global scale, or made it the visionary cornerstone of their foreign policy. Indeed, despite persistent questions about the Administration’s stated rationale for invading Iraq—the enforcement of United Nations resolutions requiring Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction—few doubt the President’s commitment to prevail against terrorism, and to establish democracy throughout the Muslim world, beginning with Iraq.[5]

What doubts do remain would likely dissolve should America suffer another terrorist attack of serious magnitude. If the world was reordered after September 11, 2001, another catastrophic attack would only intensify America’s resolve to swiftly and decisively establish world order and security. Such an attack could also be expected to unite international sentiment and support for the American effort to secure peace and safety. The recent attacks in London have certainly heightened this sense of awareness among European community leaders.

Further terrorist attacks on American soil actually pose the greatest threat to Islamic countries and Islamic hegemony in the Arab Middle East. While Islamic terrorism may be motivated by a desire to establish authentic Islamic states, the opposite would likely result. The United States and the international community would only unite more fully to pressure the Islamic world to implement democratic reforms.[6]

Democratic reform has already become a linchpin of American foreign policy. As Fareed Zakaria observed in Newsweek, “The war on terror has given the United States a core security interest in the stability of societies.”[7] The United States appears committed to the task of enforcing international standards of conduct in the Islamic world, with or without United Nations support. The 9/11 Commission Report energetically adopts President Bush’s call for a global effort to win the war on terrorism by urging the U.S. to move more rapidly toward reforming the Middle East through the projection of American power.[8] As The Economist couch-phrases it, this is because “Terrorism against American interests ‘over there’ should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America ‘over here.’ America’s homeland is, in fact, ‘the planet.’”[9]

Colonel Qadhafi’s recent repudiation of terrorism by Libya is evidence that American policy is having some success. The Israeli-Palestinian situation has certainly calmed down during the last couple of years. And despite the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, the invasion of Iraq, following on the heels of a successful campaign in Afghanistan, appears to be slowly achieving its intended effect on other nations, including Egypt’s, Saudi Arabia’s, and Indonesia’s pledges and assurances to conduct genuine elections.[10]

Stung by the outrageous attack on American soil, the U.S. was compelled to dispel assumptions about its unwillingness to spill American blood in fighting terrorism.[11] These assumptions were grounded in decades of vacillating responses to terrorism. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman observed: “We invaded Iraq because we could.” The Iraq war was never really about weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the war put the Islamic world on notice that the United States was serious about dealing with terrorism.[12]

As Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, points out in his book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and the U.S. Defense Department sought to do more than route the Taliban and pound dust in Afghanistan. They sought a much more comprehensive strategy—a global strategy, if you will—in taking on and defeating the Al-Qaeda terrorist network worldwide and to effectively deal with its root causes. Like the use of an old-fashioned summer fly strip to catch and destroy flies on a hot summer night, Iraq was a central part of their twofold strategy: attract the global forces of Al-Qaeda to one strategic area and defeat them there, while democratically reforming the Middle East and instilling, with the help of Rome, the value of religious freedom.[13]

Like it or not, right or wrong, this prophetic trend regarding America’s induced boldness to renew its destiny by projecting power abroad is happening.[14] The American vision of its manifest destiny to export democracy and secure global peace has become the centerpiece of American foreign policy. Such a Messianic vision may well propel the United States toward its prophetic destiny of imposing a sort of global religious truce that is based on religious and political compromise. In this apparent clash of civilizations—indeed, during this time of increasing uncertainty—there is no rewind button, only painstaking national and personal sacrifices from this point forward.

The Clash of Civilizations

We should realize, however, that the projection of American power is not the only threat to the Islamic world. Although virtually unnoticed, Christianity has enjoyed explosive growth in recent decades.

The globalization of Christianity had its roots in the early Christian era, even before Constantine invested the prestige and power of the Empire in the church. After the fall of the Caesars, the church cloaked itself with the mantle of Roman glory, eventually fostering the Holy Roman Empire. The 1,260 years of Roman Catholic dominance in the West was punctuated by the Protestant Reformation, and then the Enlightenment. The first and second Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries unleashed a powerful missionary movement, continued by 20th-century American evangelicals and Pentecostals until the entire world has been quietly but steadily influenced.

Americans are often confused by the hostility and jealousy displayed by some in other nations. We fail to recognize that the United States is more than just the world’s superpower, but rather a vast multilateral empire (or leader of a worldwide coalition of nations). The United States is more powerful than ancient Rome, with which Europeans often compare us, because of its overwhelming political, military, economic, technological, and yes, spiritual influence around the globe.

America is the recognized leader of both the Christian and secular worlds—a colossal civil-religious power unlike any in history. America is a powerful combination of Caesar’s Rome, with its military might—currently present in 137 countries[15]—and the Holy Roman Empire, on account of its expansive Christian missionary might. Charles Krauthammer observes that “we live in a new world, a unipolar world of a sort that has not existed in at least 1,500 years. We have not seen this since the end of the Roman Empire, and I do not think we have adjusted our thinking to understand exactly what that means.”[16]

Although American missionary might operates mostly independently of its political structure, the close international cooperation escapes the notice of most Americans. American foreign aid is associated with the mostly religious charities that administer considerable disaster relief and development projects. Americans may conceive of a separation of church and state in functional and legal terms as our domestic reality, but foreigners, among them Islamic fundamentalists, are not wrong to associate American policy with its Christian missionary efforts.[17] The United States has emerged as a distinctly civil-religious superpower. The American commitment to propagating democratic values includes a respect for religious freedom, which in practical terms means expanded opportunity for Christian missionaries who are especially interested in the Muslim world. Radical Islamists perceive this civil-religious combination as a “crusade” and therefore a distinct threat to their own visionary quest to establish Islamic global dominance.

This new crisis between the Islamic East and the Christian West is the successor to the cold war, in the sense that it is truly global in scope. Indeed, it has been aptly described as “the clash of civilizations.”[18] From a prophetic standpoint, it would seem that Christianity is destined to prevail. The Gospel commission commanded by Christ Himself is clear enough: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,” and “This Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”[19] Indeed, many Christian leaders have affirmed America’s “evangelical destiny” to evangelize the world for Christ. Taken together with the political side of America’s “manifest destiny,” and in the context of the war on terrorism, one begins to perceive anew the profound prophetic implications of American civil and religious might.

In The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, Professor Philip Jenkins astutely observes: “Western evangelicals are talking seriously about spreading their faith within the ‘10-40 window,’ the heartlands of Islam.”[20]

The effective preaching of the Gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people is a major prophetic trend. Since the Islamic world has been largely resistant to the spread of Christianity for centuries, the global war on terror must be seen in more than geopolitical terms; it has prophetic implications as well.

Global Christianity

Jenkins observes that Christianity, especially Pentecostalism, is steadily capturing the hearts and minds of millions in Latin America, South America, Africa, India, Malaysia, China, and Eastern Europe, including Russia. Between 1900 and 2000, the number of Christians in Africa grew from 10 million to 360 million, and by 2025 is expected to reach 633 million.[21]

Jenkins contests Samuel Huntington’s thesis in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,[22] that “the relative Christian share of global population will fall steeply in the [21st] century, and that this religion will be supplanted by Islam.” Huntington predicts that “in the long run . . . Muhammad wins out,” mainly because Islam is advanced by “conversion and reproduction,” whereas “Christianity spreads primarily by conversion.” Based on statistical studies of current conversion rates, Jenkins concludes: “Far from Islam being the world’s largest religion by 2020 or so . . . Christianity will still have a massive lead, and will maintain its position into the foreseeable future.” Jenkins estimates that by the year 2050 Christians will continue to outnumber Muslims by a margin of three to two worldwide.[23]

The competing speculations of Jenkins and Huntington are mostly irrelevant to the significant prophetic trend. Regardless of which faith wins the numbers game, the opening of the Islamic world to the preaching of the Gospel would significantly fulfill the requirement that the Gospel must first be preached to all the world before the Second Coming of Christ.[24] Today, the most significant Christian communities within the Islamic world have come under increased pressure, including outright persecution.[25] American influence in the region has been to oppose persecution, and to advocate human rights and religious liberty. The success of American policy to spread democratic values can only mean increased opportunity for Christian worship and evangelism. Indeed, the Second Coming may be closer than many realize.

Crusade and Jihad: Is History Repeating Itself?

The church militant has a worthy adversary in a revived fundamentalist Islam. Muslims are militant and do not accept the notion of the separation of church and state.[26] The Islamic legal tradition, Sharia, combines religious and secular legal principles, and has always been considered the fundamental legal code for government. Islam has its own vision of world dominance and believes in the superiority of the Islamic revelation. Democracy is not an Islamic political value, although shrewd Muslim politicians believe they can utilize democracy to restore Islamic dominance.[27]

Jenkins draws from the history of the Holy Roman Empire to describe the Islamic perspective on Christianity and its evangelistic fervor—as “forces of Crusade from the Christian Third World.”[28] This represents “a future Christendom not too different from the old, defined less by any ideological harmony than by its unity against a common outside threat.” The threat, of course, is Islam, regarded as heresy. He warns that “we must hope that the new Res Publica Christiana [Christian World Order] does not confront an equally militant Muslim world, Dar al-Islam [Allah’s Islamic World Order] or else we really will have gone full circle back to the worst features [the Crusades] of the thirteenth century.”[29]

Correspondingly, Jenkins says that “we may be entering the great age of Vatican diplomacy.”[30] Written prior to September 11, 2001, Jenkins’s words are eerily prophetic. Indeed, Jenkins’s fears are borne out by popular Christian sentiment exemplified by Franklin Graham. In The Name, Graham writes: “Christianity and Islam are eternal enemies locked in a classical struggle that will end with the Second Coming of Christ.” He adds: “the war against terrorism is just another conflict between evil and The Name,” meaning Jesus.[31]

While many Americans are reluctant to engage in such a geopolitical religious conflict, many evangelicals are saying, in effect, “Bring it on!” President George Bush invoked the term “crusade” several times immediately after September 11, 2001, and that languageBe evoked powerful responses from within both the Islamic and Christian communities. Since then he has been careful not to use “crusade” language, and has rightly emphasized that the war is not against a peaceful religion of Islam, but against terrorism. But whatever one chooses to call it, rightly or wrongly, the global conflict between Islam and Christianity is real. The war on terrorism has a profound religious dimension.

The Clash of Kingdoms

Huntington’s thesis in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order is one in which the global conflict for political supremacy is not merely a conflict among nation-states, but civilizations. Culture and religion are the driving forces in this clash, rather than traditional sources of conflict such as territory or economics.[32]

Seen in this light, the global conflict between Islam and Christianity is more complex and intransigent than many realize. It is more a clash of kingdoms than of nations.[33] In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria wrote: “If envy were the cause of terrorism, Beverly Hills, Fifth Avenue, and Mayfair would have become morgues long ago. There is something stronger at work here than deprivation and jealousy. Something that can move men to kill but also to die. Osama bin Laden has an answer—religion. For him and his followers, this is a holy war between Islam and the Western world.”[34] Islam may covet Western economic development and technology, but resists the incursion of its political and cultural values.

The emphasis on the religious element in the conflict does not mean it is the only source of conflict. Of course, it is not. There is profound economic and political conflict along with the religious, but it is religion that has driven this from the diplomatic to the military field.

Franklin Graham may be rather blunt in his assessment, but he is at least partly right. There is a fundamental theological competition between Christianity and Islam, a spiritual struggle over the path to salvation of men’s souls. What Graham and many Christians do not realize is that Muslims and Christians alike are preparing to receive a counterfeit Jesus. Both expect this Jesus to establish a millennial reign of peace on Earth.

Bernard Lewis observes in The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, that although Western secularism is itself a threat to Islam, most do not understand that “Christendom and Islam are two religiously defined civilizations that were brought into conflict not by their differences but by their resemblances.” Moreover, Muslims recognize Christians “as having a religion of the same kind as their own, and therefore as their primary rivals in the struggle for world domination.”[35] Indeed, as Jenkins points out: “Muslims and Christians have so very much in common. Scarcely known to most Christians, the Muslim scriptures are almost entirely focused on the same characters who feature in the Christian Bible. The Quran has much more to say about the Virgin Mary than does the New Testament, and Jesus is, apart from Muhammad, the greatest prophet of Islam. It is Jesus, not Muhammad, Whose appearance will usher in the Day of Judgment.”[36]

Islam teaches that Jesus is a prophet whom Allah will send a second time to destroy the infidels and unite Islamic believers into a worldwide kingdom.[37] Few realize that of the five traditional pillars of Islam, the third (Zakat) requires Muslims to financially support jihad or holy war intended to annihilate infidels.[38] Christians are viewed as apostates, and therefore infidels. All religions are to be supplanted by the one pure and true religion, Islam.

One of the most powerful symbols of Islamic aspirations is the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the oldest mosque outside the Arabian Peninsula. According to Bernard Lewis: “The erection of this monument, on the site of the ancient Jewish Temple, and in the style and the vicinity of Christian monuments such as the Holy Sepulcher and the Church of the Ascension, sent a clear message to the Jews and, more important, the Christians.” The message from caliphate to Christian emperor: ‘Your faith is corrupted, your time has passed. I am now the ruler of God’s empire on Earth.’” As Lewis explains: “In the Muslim perception, the Jews and later Christians had gone astray and had followed false doctrines. Both religions were therefore superseded, and replaced by Islam, the final and perfect revelation in God’s sequence. . . . [More specifically,] just as the Jews had been overcome and superseded by the Christians, so the Christian world order was now to be replaced by the Muslim faith and the Islamic caliphate.”[39]

The term “caliphate” derives from the Arabic word chalifa, meaning “successor” or political and spiritual heir to Muhammad.[40] As The Economist magazine recently observed in an editorial: “Mr. bin Laden and his sort are impatient for the advent of the global caliphate.”[41]

More than a millennium after the completion of the Dome of the Rock in 691 or 692, the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia sent a profound symbolic message to Muslims, whose grasp of history is longer than many in the West. To Osama bin Laden and many others, American troops presented a profound challenge by the Christian West to Islam’s mandate of world domination: For bin Laden, “his declaration of war against the United States marks the resumption of the struggle for religious dominance of the world that began in the seventh century. . . . America exemplifies the civilization and embodies the leadership of the House of War, and like Rome and Byzantium, it has become degenerate and demoralized, ready to be overthrown.”[42]

To the Islamists, Christianity poses an even greater threat to their own imperial aspirations than do the secular materialist values of the West. To Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda forces, therefore, it is Christianity itself and America, the leader of the Christian world, which stand in their way. Islamists envision more than the caliphate restored in the Arab world, but as the ruler of a worldwide Islamic state, establishing Allah’s kingdom on Earth. In this sense, the notion of a clash of kingdoms—being synonymous with the civil-religious competitive clash of political and theological goals—is to be taken seriously. This is because American projection of power in the Middle East threatens to impose not merely democratic values, but a Christian kingdom of God on Earth. As Bernard Lewis observed: “You have this millennial rivalry between two world religions, and now, from their point of view, the wrong one seems to be winning.”[43]

Lewis explains further: “Islam has been on the defensive ever since 1683, when the Turkish Ottoman Empire failed to sack Christian Vienna in Austria.” Furthermore, for over “300 years Muslims have watched in horror and humiliation as the Christian civilizations of Europe and North America have overshadowed them militarily, economically, and culturally.”[44] Today, Muslims rightly perceive that Western democratic values include an emphasis on religious freedom. Exported to the Islamic world, what has been referred to as the “10-40 window,” democracy means having to tolerate Christian evangelism, which is unacceptable.

Manifest Destiny’s Inherent Problem

The war on terrorism has given the United States a renewed sense of commitment to the spread of democracy. The problem is that military force has become a primary means to that end. A democratic system imposed by overwhelming military force, through imperialistic means, is not only self-contradictory but holds little hope for ending the war on terrorism. The transition to a constitutional democracy in Iraq, even if successful, is not expected to dramatically reduce the risk of further terrorist attacks on Western soil.

The Bush Administration has recognized the danger of having the war on terrorism be perceived as a revival of the medieval Crusades. Yet, Muslims per-ceive this conflict in essentially those terms. As Thomas Friedman has frequently noted in The New York Times, the hands of terrorists will not be slowed as long as radical Muslims are allowed to continue to win the internal struggle between them and progressive Muslims in other Muslim countries in the “war of ideas.” Whatever geopolitical goals American projection of military power may achieve, it also fuels terrorist propaganda, and aids in their recruitment efforts.[45]

However, this may explain why Bernard Lewis, President Bush’s chief academic adviser on Middle East policy, has established what some Defense Department officials and foreign policy experts refer to as the Lewis Doctrine—the idea that “instilling respect or at least fear through force is essential for America’s security.”[46] In other words, in time it may become more and more apparent that if Mr. Bush’s experiment in democracy in Iraq, and thereby America’s destined war on terrorism, is to be successful, it may be compelled to take on a more draconian approach if democracy is truly going to have a widening influence in other parts of the Middle East. Certainly, diplomacy and democratic reform alone will not curb the terrorist attacks by Islamists.

Like the doctrine of preemption, this policy is capable of creating a wider region of conflict. The stalemate over Europe’s and America’s efforts to persuade Iran to end its nuclear program is one example. The recent economic sanctions placed on Syria for arming and allowing foreign terrorists to filter into Iraq, is another. Indeed, since the events of 9/11 the fog is slowly lifting from the eyes of many observers to the shocking realization that a clash of civilizations, an unintended holy war (at least on America’s part), has been revived and unleashed over the global war on terror.

No matter how one chooses to evaluate the global war on terror, it is evident that there are larger forces at play—two global phenomena that seem to be moving forward on their own momentum. The characteristic imagery of Revelation 13, verse 11 perhaps describes it best: “Then I [the apostle John] saw another beast coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but spoke like a dragon.”

If Seventh-day Adventists correctly assume that this verse is a description of the rise of the United States of America as the civil-religious leader of both the political and religious worlds—as “a lamb” possessing the spirit of benevolence in keeping with its Protestant and evangelical historical foundations, and as a dragon where its benevolent missionary and political zeal is carried out by force—then its prophetic destiny never needs to be in doubt in this apparent clash of civilizations.

For example, notice the following comparative lesson in diplomatic history involving the United States and its approach to foreign policy. In his book Diplomacy, which continues to be used as one of the standard textbooks in many university graduate programs in diplomatic history and political science, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger describes America’s traditional role in the world during the 20th century this way: “Almost as if according to some natural law, in every century there seems to emerge a country with the power, the will, and the intellectual and moral impetus to shape the entire international system in accordance with its own values . . . . In the twentieth century, no country has influenced international relations as decisively as the United States. No society has more firmly intervened in the domestic affairs of other states, or more passionately asserted that its own values were universally applicable. . . . No nation has been more pragmatic in the day-to-day conduct of its diplomacy, or more ideological in the pursuit of its historic moral convictions. No country has been more reluctant to engage itself abroad even while undertaking alliances and commitments of unprecedented reach and scope.”[47]

Did you take note of Mr. Kissinger’s use of the word “reluctant?” Seventh-day Adventists believe that America’s prophetic destiny is to repudiate its benevolent, generous, and yes, “reluctant” lamblike principles and become transformed into a dragon. But in what manner, and under what circumstances? As a dragon, it is interesting to note that since 9/11 and the ensuing global war on terrorism, America has shifted away from Mr. Kissinger’s definition of America’s manifestly benevolent and moral role in the world to the official, if not insecure, foreign policy of “preemptive strike”: the need to export democratic principles by force before another power rises up to threaten or compete with it.[48] In fact, it is interesting to note that The American Heritage Dictionary defines America’s historical experiment with manifest destiny as “a policy of imperialistic expansion defended as necessary or benevolent.”

According to Revelation 13, verses 11-15, American imperialism—if one could rightly call it that—is expected to lead to a religious compromise enforced by legislation and constitutionalized, both here and abroad. In the new Iraqi constitution, religion is expected to be blended with democratic reforms. Ironically, the Islamic approach to relations between the state and the religious establishment is an example of what Revelation 13 predicts, not only for the United States, but also for the world.

The advancing dual phenomena of steady democratic and Christian advancement throughout the world, particularly as embodied in America’s manifest destiny to lead the world, are having their effect. These dual phenomena represent more than just a threat to Islam. They clearly tell us that Christ’s coming is sooner, not later.

The Clash Between Heaven and Earth

While America’s global war on terror and the forced advancement of democratization in the Muslim world since 9/11 may open up the heartlands of Islam to Christianity, the most important question to ask is: “Which gospel will be preached, whose kingdom promoted?” Are we all striving for the same kingdom, or is it possible that much of the religious and political world—made up mostly of Muslims and Christians—are preparing to receive a counterfeit savior and a kingdom of their own making?

The Gospel is advancing on the heels of the American military, and whether or not military or other forms of force are effective in the spread of democracy, their use is foreign to the spirit of the Gospel. Only one Gospel is consistent with Christ’s declaration: “My Kingdom is not of this world. If My Kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My Kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). Christ’s Gospel, Christ’s millennial Kingdom, is Heaven-based (see Revelation 20). Yet another, more popular, gospel proclaims that the millennial kingdom of God will be established on Earth. (Its adherents are also the same ones most adamant about tearing down the constitutional principle of the separation between church and state.)

Those proclaiming this popular gospel are among the most ardent supporters of American unilateralism and the expanded use of military power throughout the world. As Andrew Bacevich, Director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University argues, American militarism emerged as a reaction by “various groups in American society—soldiers, politicians [Democrats as much as Republicans], intellectuals, strategists, Christian evangelicals, even purveyors of pop culture . . . as the antidote to all the ills besetting the country as a consequence of Vietnam and the 1960s.”

But, he contends—and rather convincingly—of this group the most significant contribution to the rise of the new American spirit of militarism has come from evangelicals and their passion-driven vision for establishing Christ’s Kingdom on Earth: “Conservative Christians have conferred a presumptive moral palatability on any occasion on which the United States resorts to force. They have fostered among the legions of believing Americans a predisposition to see U.S. military power as inherently good, perhaps even a necessary adjunct to the accomplishment of Christ’s saving mission. In doing so, they have nurtured the preconditions that have enabled the American infatuation with military power to flourish. Put another way, were it not for the support offered by several tens of millions of evangelicals, militarism in this deeply and genuinely religious country becomes inconceivable.”[49]

When appealing in April 2003 for Pope John Paul II to intervene and prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Mohammad T. Al-Rashid, an Islamic scholar writing from Saudi Arabia, also made the following interesting broadside: “Fundamentalism is not the exclusive domain of the Middle East. The Far Right in America has its agenda and now that they have control of the mighty American war machine, the problem is global.” He asked, “Will Iraq be the first drop of blood on the road to Armageddon?”[50]

No wonder Islamists view this as a religious war. Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, after beheading one of his captives, remarked in a recording that “we will carry on our jihad against the Western infidel and the Arab apostate until Islamic rule is back on Earth.”[51] The irony in all of this is that fundamentalist Muslims and Christians alike are susceptible of welcoming the same counterfeit savior, Satan appearing as Christ, and a counterfeit earthly kingdom.

This leads us to a more serious conclusion in this discussion. Far more important than the outcome of any earthly clash of civilizations is the clash of kingdoms between Heaven and Earth. Indeed, the real battle is to help people to understand the true nature and meaning of Christ’s Kingdom, and the eternal grace and character of the King. Only the righteousness of Christ can save mankind—not any militaristic, legislative, or utopian attempt to save the race. The three angels’ messages found in Revelation 14:6-12 can be summed up with these ten words: “The essence of all righteousness is loyalty to our Redeemer.”[52] Perhaps this is what Christ meant when He uttered that most sobering of truths: “He who stands firm [or endures] to the end will be saved.”[53]

That is why, during this time of seeming uncertainty, during this global war on terror, our prayers need to ascend to the merciful God of Heaven for global intervention and specifically for the personal courage to be used by the Holy Spirit to prepare the peoples of all the civilized world to receive the true Jesus, and His Kingdom prepared for them in Heaven, when He comes (see John 14:1-3). Indeed, understanding the present and future—however awkwardly or precisely—is not enough. During these difficult times, our faith experience must not shrink from the mission assigned to each of us by Jesus Christ Himself. His personal calling reaches all of us where we are.

NOTE

Gregory W. Hamilton is President of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association, the government relations division of the North Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. He also serves as Director of the Office of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the North Pacific Union Conference. Gregory and his wife Laura live in Vancouver, Washington.

California Supreme Court to Decide A Case Where Medical Rights v. Workplace Religious Freedom

Soon after issuing its opinion that gay marriage cannot be prohibited under the Constitution, the California Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling in a case where a physician declined to provide fertilization services on a lesbian (unmarried) couple, but referred them to another clinic that did provide the service on the basis that performing the service would violate her Christian faith.

The physician, Christine Brody, has said she denied service because the couple was not married. Under the law at the time, they could not be married.  Guadalupe Benitez claims that this is unlawful discrimination based on her sexual orientation.

Can a physician decide not to perform a procedure if it violates his or her faith?  Does it include all procedures or only non-emergency procedures? 

This is the decision that the court will have to make. 

Read more about this clash between rights at The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061802913.html

 

VIDEO: 16-year-old boy dies from lack of medical treatment; family plans religious freedom defense

A 16-year-old Clackamas, Oregon boy, Neal Beagley, died Tuesday, June 17, following complications from an infected urethra. As he was older than 14 years of age, he could determine which medical treatment he received or did not receive, and he chose the path of faith healing. Physicians felt that a catheter would have saved his life had he sought professional medical treatment.  He became ill about a week before he passed away.

He is the uncle of a 15-month-old girl who similarly passed away.  Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington, members of the Followers of Christ Church, have been indicted on criminal mistreatment and manslaughter charges.

They are defending themselves on the basis that it was their religious right to follow their faith. 

In the early 1990s, Oregon lawmakers passed new laws that removed protections for faith-healing parents after several children from the Followers of Christ church died.

This is the latest in a string of stories that involve conflicts between religious beliefs of parents and the interest of the state in protecting children.  The Followers of Christ Church, I should mention, is not affiliated with a mainstream denomination.

ABC News has posted the a video on the story at http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5197489&page=1

The Wall Street Journal has published a good overview of the issue of the rights of faith healers versus the state interest in safety on its blog at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322824482066211.html?mod=2_1566_leftbox

Next Page »