Confederate Christian Nationalism...

When I considered that some of the home schooling that occurs in this country bears a peculiar Christian stamp to it that is reminiscent of the more fanatical madrassas that bear the name of Islam, I had no idea that it ran much deeper than I imagined...

"...the theological war thesis originated in texts by theologians who between them contended that the Confederacy comprised an orthodox Christian nation, at times intertwining this religious viewpoint with, amongst other things, defences of slavery, denunciations of public education and mass schooling, and proposals to maintain a hierarchical and unequal society."

Full text can be found here:

Confederate Christian Nationalism

Home schooling the equivalent of Islamic madrassas?

Rousas John Rushdoony, credited as the father of Christian Reconstructionism (a term that should scare the be-Jesus out of you) wrote that interracial marriage [is] "unequal yoking" [and] should be made illegal. He also opposed "enforced integration", referred to Southern slavery as "benevolent", and said that "some people are by nature slaves". (Source)

Ah, yes, the good ol' days of America. I would be in jail.

It gets better (don't miss the appropriately intoned sarcasm there...).

According to Right Wing Watch, John Eidsmoe, Michele Bachmann's mentor at Oral Roberts University, quotes Rushdoony in his book God and Caesar:

"The world moreover cannot be surrendered to Satan. It is God s world and must be brought under God's law politically economically and in every other way possible."

Turns out he shares the Reconstructionist ideology as well as does, in turn, Bachmann and similar ilk. Granted, just because someone holds similar views thrice removed from the founder does not mean they share all the same views. However, there is a family tree that is troubling.

And let's forget some other signs that the apocalypse will be upon us soon.

Bachmann recently signed a pledge on marriage that states that a

"black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA's first African American President."

Of course, the statement has since been removed. They have not denied that it was wrong; they removed it because it was controversial.

Here is the whole story.

Finally, let's not forget the story circulating that the Tea Party recently booted Eidsmoe from a recent rally because of his ties to White Supremacist groups.

According to Right Wing Watch:

Eidsmoe has spoken before the League of the South, tagged by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group because it believes slavery was ordained by God. He's also spoken at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, which opposes racial integration; has compared Michael Jackson to an ape, referred to blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity," and says America should "remain European in character," according to the SPLC.

"Eidsmoe doesn't just flirt with white supremacists, he regularly speaks to them," said SPLC research director Heidi Beirich.

(Source)

In his defense, as noted in a parenthetical in a recent New Yorker article, Eidsmoe states that he deeply despises racism and will speak to anyone.

However, I get the vibe that home schooling is indoctrination and is, in essence, akin to the madrassas in Afghanistan.

When I add up all the pieces I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between what's coming and Sharia law. Hopefully my math is wrong.

I may soften my tone a bit as I consult other sources to balance the "facts" quoted above; however, if my math is correct and the apocalypse does comes upon us, I believe I may just favor the latter.

The poor you will always have with you...

"Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper,
a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table.
But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste?
“For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.”
But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me.
“For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.
“For when she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial.
“Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.” (matthew 26:6-13)

"While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head.
But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted?
“For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her.
But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me.
“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.
“She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial.
“Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.” (Mark 14:3-9)

"Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him.
Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said,
“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?”
Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.
Therefore Jesus said, “Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial.
“For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:1-8)

John, as always, does the work of an apologist by adding certain details missing from the earlier texts ("the woman" is now Mary and Lazarus, notably absent from the Synoptics, is there) and some explanatory gloss (e.g. "not because he was concerned about the poor").  Some of the key differences are highlighted in blue. 

Luke's account of the story is completely different.

"Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table.
And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume,
and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume.
Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.” (Luke 7:36-39)

Jesus then goes on to explain to those at the table (in this case, a Pharisee is the prop used to make the point) that Peter did not give him water, give him a kiss or anoint his head but the woman (unnamed in this account) did all those things.  He then declared her sins forgiven.  No statement about the value of the perfume or its profits being given to the poor.

Luke does, however, have some of the harder sayings pertaining to the poor that are unique to his Gospel account.  Luke tells us to invite the poor to the banquet (14:13) and to sell everything we have and give it to the poor (12:33 and 18:22).

Anyhow, this started out with Jesus' statement - echoing that found in Deuteronomy 15 - about there always being the poor among us.  Once again, I find myself standing back amazed at how accounts of one (or similar) stories have different renderings in each Gospel account and it reinforces why I can not accept the literalness of the text verbatim.

I get the spiritual truth(s) that lie underneath but to literally believe this word for word to be true would mean that there were four separate stories.  No, I believe that these are stories.  I don't believe this makes them any less "true" but it most certainly represents different spins on a core story.

So what about the poor?  No wonder they got lost in this.  We in the West tend to fall back on the argument about whether or not we can even trust the Bible as true since issues such as this one come up with little to no effort.  We then fall into arguing not about how to help the poor but fighting over the letter of the Book.

Currently reading John Sniegocki's Catholic Social Teaching and Economic Globalization and it's got me convicted, though at the moment it's more paralyzing than mobilizing as I'm angry at how unjust our government (in particular, its people) can be and how insane it is for so many "Christians" to be defending it in the name of freedom.

If the "poor" (still need to understand that loaded term a bit more) is a barometer of how we are doing as a people of faith, I'd say that we have a lot to be desired.  The idea of "charity" sometimes seems as if it means the same thing as "welfare" as it is understood today, though perhaps more like a good deed, a notch on the holiness belt.

However, in the KJV version of 1 Corinthians 13 which speak of faith, hope and charity the word 'charity' is from the Greek word agape which means (divine) love (see the different nuances in the Greek terms translated as 'love' in Jesus' questions to Peter at the end of John).

Charity is not a duty, i.e. a "good deed," it is something that should overflow from the heart of those who are His.  It is of love, compassion, the recognition that while one is poor (whether materially, in spirit, or both), so too is everyone.

Sorry, got off track a little...going to see if I can extract an essence from the above since it just kind of spilled out...

The Americanization of Sufism

There are two aspects to this post, the first (as usual) a bit on the cynical side, the other a different perspective.

I've written on the Americanization of Rumi in several other posts. This is when Rumi is ripped from his Islamic context and promoted as the poet of love which thus sanitizes him and leaves open his poetry to any version of love we bring to it.

One of my favorite movies is Baraka. However, as I've gotten a little older and a little wiser and realize that every movie (and song and book and news report, etc.) is selling a point of view, I have seen through much of the propaganda of this film as well. If you're interested you can read some earlier posts on the subject.

There is a scene in Baraka featuring the whirling dervishes (the Melevi Order of Sufism founded by the followers of Rumi) so familiar to many a student of religion. It's a beautiful scene:

However, in reality, here is what it looks like:

Notice the folks in the background.

I have an old VHS tape of mystical Iran and it shows another side of Sufism, this one of dervishes in Kurdistan.

It's a powerful scene but certainly isn't one that your average Western tourist gets to see.  Don't see this one in too many Sufi/Rumi books.  This too is mild compared to some of the deeper aspects of their tradition:

This is not a critique in any way, shape or form of those participants in the ritual. I cannot speak for them nor can I judge their frame of mind and depth of experience. That isn't the point of the post.

My wife was moved by the intensity of the participants in the second video shown above.  She appreciated the cultural difference.

Not that I don't (which is why I have the tape in the first place) but there is something destructive in the "prettification" of everything (video one) that is somehow 'other' to traditional American culture. Too often beauty is shallow.

However, rather than appreciating the differences, there is a tendency to ignore those things we don't like (video two and three) and mix it into a homogeneous soup that offends no one. Too often those things that offend are demonized.

Religion without offense is neutered (and I need to work on my cynicism...).

Bull Riding for Jesus?

And we wonder why people think Christians are just a bit nuts, not because they believe in Jesus but because, well, we appear a bit nuts.

Bull Riding for Jesus

Maybe it's just me but I don't think that God gives a hoot about bull riding just as God doesn't give a hoot about who wins the Super Bowl.

So, rather than do the smart thing and avoid death, why not ask God to cover the rider because he consciously chooses to do something in which he may be killed:

"It's the world's most dangerous sport for a reason. You get on that bull, you have a good shot at dying," Schock said.

Kind of reminds me of the story of the Israelites receiving a word from God about not going to war and going ahead with it anyhow and then praying to God to show up and bless their venture. End result? Slaughter.

Rather than be persecuted, why not go into the lion's den or jump into the fire on our own volition?

Rather than bless our insanity, maybe God's will is that we stop bull riding altogether?