Isaac Jones Blog
Welcome to the Future

At long last, Tom Delay has left congress. He is under indictment for money laundering related to his anti-democratic attacks on the people of Texas via redistricting.

He gave a really revealing speech on Friday that I just had to write about. Here's some interesting (and negative) analysis about his view toward compromise, and also some positive analysis by the Right's second most influential drug addict.

As is typical with the Right, DeLay invoked God in his speech, and I just couldn't let this one pass. He said, "I have scraped and clawed for every vote, every amendment, for every word of every bill that I believed in my heart would protect human freedom and defend human dignity. I have done so at all times honorably and honestly, Mr. Speaker, as God is my witness and history is my judge. And if given the chance to do it all again, there's only one thing I would change: I would fight even harder."

Of course, "As God is my witness" is a famous quote from "Gone with the Wind" (which I've never seen). According to the Interweb, Scarlett O'Hara says, "As God is my witness, as God is my witness they're not going to lick me. I'm going to live through this and when it's all over, I'll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill. As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again."

Leaving aside the lying, cheating, and stealing, I think it's interesting how these two ways of invoking God as witness are very different. Scarlett seems to be asking God to witness her oath about future events, whereas DeLay seems to be asking God to testify as a witness for his past deeds.

They're both wrong, actually. Let's deal with Scarlett first. In Matthew 5:33, Jesus says not to make vows or oaths in God's name, "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

As with lots of what Jesus says, this is good sense as well as an instruction about how to treat God's name. It almost sounds to me like he's saying to watch out to people who have to swear by something rather than just letting their own word stand for itself. You shouldn't bring God into the picture because you need to know the difference between your own words and God's. I think he's saying that you are bound by your word, whether you "swear" or "promise" them or just speak them.

Unlike Scarlett, DeLay isn't making a promise for the future, he's making an assertion about the past, and he asks God to testify for him as a witness. Unfortunately, God hasn't taken the stand in the DeLay case, and I don't think God will. Therefore, we're left with DeLay's hearsay about what God would say, and of course hearsay is inadmissible in court, unless you're Jesus himself (John 8), of course.

The Message Bible (an "every day" English translation) translates the above mentioned Matthew 5 in a manner that covers both cases, "don't say anything you don't mean. This counsel is embedded deep in our traditions. You only make things worse when you lay down a smoke screen of pious talk, saying 'I'll pray for you,' and never doing it, or saying, 'God be with you,' and not meaning it. You don't make your words true by embellishing them with religious lace. In making your speech sound more religious, it becomes less true. Just say 'yes' and 'no.' When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong."

This version points out the danger in writing or speaking in a way that uses religion to back up your point. Whenever you do so, you had better be careful about it, and I hope I have been careful here.

Tom DeLay said, "as God is my witness and history is my judge," but we all know that it's the other way around. God won't testify on his behalf. History will record and remember what he has said and done. God will judge in the end, not man.

I found the following open letter from Christian clergy to be very true. I was really pleased to see that my priest from Ohio signed it, as did my father and his wife. My father always taught me that God created evolution.

On another topic entirely is that my former representative, now jailed, makes paintings.

An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible, the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark, convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

A few weeks ago, at my church, an odd young man came in, and was wondering around a little during the service. I had chatted with him beforehand, and had already decided that he was a little mentally ill. During the communion, he started crying, and he was sitting right in the front so everyone could see him.

I toyed with the idea of sitting next to him after communion to try to calm him down, but this is far from an unusual experience at my church, being on the OSU campus, we tend to attract odd characters. They have yet to cause any problem (at least while I've been around), so we always just leave them to their own devices.

So I don't know if I had made a decision to talk to this guy and help him to feel better. I knew his name, so I thought that could help. But a young woman, who I had never seen before, sat with him in the front pew and put her arm around him. He brightened up and wiped the tears from his eyes and all.

I confirmed later that she didn't know him, and that she had been to the church before. I was really moved by her kindness, especially since it seems like women avoid odd or troubled men out of a sense of vulnerability.

What really moved me was that usually people do that kind of thing only if they've been at the church for a long time. I think that most people would assume that it's someone else's job to look after such a person.

She was crying when she left the church. I talked to her for a few minutes (and him afterward) to try to calm her down before she left, hoping that we as a church could support her, as she had supported him, and that she wouldn't go with the vacant feeling that I know I would have in such a situation. I hope it helped.

For all that people knock organized religion, and there are many good reasons to do so, there are some wonderful things about it, and they mostly have to do with the community of people you come into contact with.

Papal Blessing for break-dancers [cnn.com]

Aging Pope 'Just Blessing Everything in Sight,' Say Concerned Handlers [theonion.com]

Once, upon being asked whether Episcopalians "believe in the pope", my father replied, "Believe in him?! I've seen him!"

Saint Stephen's in Columbus, Ohio is hosting John Shelby Spong in a couple of weeks. Details here. Spong is very influential in the church, especially the Episcopal church of which he is a retired bishop. Here's his web site (or is this his web site? I don't know). You should come hear him speak!

Right now, I'm reading his book "A New Christianity for a New World". I briefly met Spong once before, and heard Him preach. He's a friendly guy, and a good preacher. I've also read a part of one of his other books.

I find the experience of his books very frustrating, though, and I'm having trouble getting through this one, though I have promised myself that I will finish it before he comes to speak in Columbus.

I really don't find Spong's arguments to be structured in a very convincing way. I contrast him with the only other theologian that I've really read much of, C.S. Lewis, who I find to be very convincing. With Lewis, I find myself thinking, "I might not want to believe that, but I feel like he's right" whereas with Spong, I find myself thinking, "I want to believe that, but I'm not convinced, and I feel that he's not right."

I'm only about halfway through his book, but I'll try to give you some impressions. I think that the book rests on the premise that the belief in Jesus Christ as a part of the theistic God is incorrect and damaging to the message of Jesus.

Spong goes on to demonstrate that the theistic interpretation of Jesus was a later addition to the faith and is actually foreign to it. I believe the rest of the book is about how we can get along without that interpretation, and what is left once that's given up.

As for the first point, I find Spong to be far from convincing. He seems to rest a lot on the idea that modern people are just smarter or different from ancient people and that theism doesn't work for us. For one thing, I think a lot of people are embracing theism. For another thing, ancient people knew that raising dead people and virgin births were impossible, even if they didn't know a lot more about the subjects. We're not particularly smarter or different in that sense.

Here's a quote from the book: "But do these symbols, literalized or not, still translate in this generation? Can they still convey meaning in a postmodern world? The magic of breaking the power of death by placing blood on the doorposts or on the cross is strangely primitive. The cannibalistic ritual of eating the flesh of the deceased deity is filled with ancient psychological nuances that are disturbing to modern sensitivities."

Sections like this bug me a lot. He states this and moves on, but he hasn't convinced me, and I'm not moving on with him. It makes what comes later just a bit harder to swallow. Why does he think that people are disturbed by the practice of communion? I've never talked to anyone who remotely related communion with cannibalism. I don't know; maybe a lot of people do think it's weird. Anyway, I feel like the book is full of sections like this.

He also asserts that religion is a form of coping with the difficulties of the world. In one sense, I definitely agree. I think that my religion makes my life more tolerable. Partly because prayer and meditation are healthy practices, and partly because I have a faith that God will make sure that things work out for the best in the long run. I don't think that this discredits the religion in any way. Lots of things make life more tolerable, friendship, love, fire, paper-clips... If God gave us religion, this is surely one good use for it.

Spong seems to say that the trouble in the world can be attributed to the fact that theism is dying (and he believes that it should be) and that we humans haven't replaced it with something better. I, personally, attribute the trouble in the world (he sites caffeine, smoking, and alcohol as coping mechanisms and random shootings, and genocide as evidence of failure to cope) to technology and culture much more than the death of theism.

As for the point that theism was a later addition to Christianity, the argument seems to be well structured, but I would have to be a Biblical scholar to be able to understand or criticize it, and I am not.

Oh, and on page 52 he says "It was a circular argument, as all irrational arguments are..." when it should be obvious that not all irrational arguments are circular. That kinda thing just annoys a guy like me. On the other hand, it may be that all arguments, rational or not, are in some way circular, or that at some point, you just have to come to postulates that are the foundation for the rest of the argument's system. Why is logic good? Because logic tells us so!

So I'll update you on more when I read the rest of his book and after his talk. You should come hear him speak :)

PS Sorry I'm not giving citations. Just read the book, if you think I'm wrong, let me know.

The Episcopal Church has just ordained the first openly homosexual bishop in its history. I care because I'm an Episcopalian, my father is an Episcopal Priest, I go to Saint Stephen's Episcopal Church here in Columbus. Saint Stephen's is a very liberal church, even for an Episcopal church.

A Little Background: The Episcopal church is a lot like the Roman Catholic church in most ways. The liturgy is very similar, and we follow the "Apostolic Succession". However, it allows women to be priests and bishops (this wasn't always so), and allows their priests and bishops to get married. It also doesn't try to take an official stance on many issues.

And hey, this is a small denomination, but it has an important following. George Bush Senior was an Episcopalian, so am I, so were Presidents Ford, FDR, Madison, Monroe, and George Washington (along with some others; to see a list of people in the government who are involved with the Episcopal Church, you could use the GIA web site.)

The issue of ordaining homosexuals is tied in with the issue of blessing same-sex unions, and is considered by many to be a "gateway drug" to same-sex marriage. We know where George Bush and The Pope stand on the issue: they are against it, they both made announcements opposing it last week. Are these announcements meant to put pressure on the Episcopal Church?

Because of the similarities between the Roman Catholic and Episcopal churches, we are somewhat in competition for clergy and congregations. Perhaps the Pope hopes to attract some conservatives from the Anglican Convention to the Roman Catholic Church.

There are cries that this could divide the Episcopal church within itself and from the rest of the worldwide Anglican Convention. Would this be a bad thing? Perhaps the Episcopal church will become more and more aligned with liberal politics over time. I strongly believe that our church is a good home for liberal-minded folks, and I also strongly believe that religion and politics should mix (Saint Stephen's Church is a good example of this); Your beliefs should effect your politics after all. But at the same time, a Church shouldn't be defined merely by its politics any more than it should be defined merely by its style of worship.

So is it wrong to ordain a gay bishop? Not in my opinion. Even if homosexuality were a sin, we are all sinners, even bishops are sinners, and as my father says, the sins of sexuality are not the most evil of sins, quite the contrary, they are the most likely to be based on love in one way or another. I believe that you can endorse a gay bishop without endorsing homosexuality itself (though perhaps my father disagrees. I don't speak for him.)

The issue of homosexual marriage is more difficult from a theological point of view. If you bless same-sex marriages then you are in fact asserting that homosexuality isn't a sin. Thoughtfulness and prayer has lead me to believe that homosexuality is not a sin, however, and I think that the church should allow it, though I would not mind if it were debated for a while first. I believe religion is a form of tradition, and tradition exists to save us from temporary insanity. This issue has only been openly discussed for a relatively short period of time.

Should the Episcopal Church become the church of the liberal? If so, would it have to condone abortion, to which I am theologically opposed? Not necessarily. I think that the Church should remain the church of the open minded, not just the liberal. I think we should be the church of the Open Table. I think that we must love and accept everyone, because it is those we are near that we influence most: if you disagree with someone, the best way to teach them the truth, as you see it, is to become their friend and live the truth before their eyes.

Comments? Email me: here.

I wrote this "Stewardship Testimonial" for church. I'm also working on a poem based on these ideas:

We're asked to be stewards of the earth; what a crazy idea!  This
murderous ball of fire has tried to kill us for millennia.  We only
recently gained the upper hand.  We developed tools, and language, and
religion...

And right there, on the cusp of our great achievement, Christ suddenly
said to turn the other cheek.  Is our oldest enemy suddenly our
mother?  Are we to forgive and forget?  Shouldn't we blast her out of
existence while we have the chance?  Before she outsmarts us again?

It sounds crazy if you put it that way, but turning the other cheek is
widely regarded as a command to be fulfilled only under certain
conditions.  We have to protect our loved ones, our society, our
comfort.  The line has to be drawn somewhere, right?

But Christ seemed to think that the threat of our enemy is not so
great that we should risk destroying ourselves by fighting back.  He
seemed to think that we are called to brave, sacrificial giving.  We
are stewards of the earth and of all of God's children: "The earth is
the Lord's and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell
therein." (PS 24:1) We are not called first and foremost to
self-preservation.

So do not fear.  Be good stewards: protect the earth and eachother.