Of Headcoverings and Hypocrisy

As I write this, the big news story (one of them, anyway) is that Lowe's is pulling advertising from a TV show called "All American Muslim" because some so-called Christian organization is threatening a boycott.  This is eliciting the typical red-meat response from the Gawd-lovin' Murican's, as evidenced by this collection of comments from the Lowe's Facebook page. 

Listening to a news story on the opinions surrounding this debacle, one interviewee was heard to say that headcoverings are un-american.  Something which your humble blogger can only interpret as a topic offensive to blonde-Caucasian-Jesus.  You know, that Jesus that people like to trot out on black velvet in their holier-than-thou worship services which do less to honor Christ than they do to honor peoples' interpretation of what they'd like Christ to be.

The Bible does have a lot to say about headcoverings.  Take, for example, 1 Corinthians 11:5.  It states that "every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head."  Then there's 1 Timothy 2:9, which states that women shouldn't have pretty hair and should dress modestly, i.e., wear a covering on their head.  So what is it about head coverings that offends followers of BCJ so?  If head coverings are an affront to God himself, should we go after those naughty Mennonites and Amish?  Should we also target those odd little cult-like evangelical congregations that wear doilies on their heads?  Check out this interesting page on the history of headcoverings in Christian faith.  The practice of headcoverings in Christianity predates the very existence of Islam itself.

Of course, this assumes that the real issue is the headcovering, and not the chosen faith of the person wearing that.

On the Lord's supper in 1 Cor: It's not wine and crackers, it's about eating together and remembering Jesus while doing so.

Newt Bemoans Obama’s “Secular Socialist” Agenda

John Nichols: Gingrich’s silly crusade against ‘secular socialism’

Gingrich’s Labor Day fundraising appeal pointed to the unemployment figures that spiked after George W. Bush’s economy crashed and asked his potential donors to imagine: “Stagnant economic growth is the inevitable result of President Obama’s commitment to class warfare and bureaucratic socialism.”

I say “imagine” because, of course, Obama is neither secular nor a socialist. Americans would be hard-pressed to identify any measure of religious commitment where Obama did not rival or, in many cases, trump Gingrich. And the notion that Obama, who abandoned social-democratic fixes such as single-payer health care, breaking up the big banks and progressive taxation of billionaires, is steering America toward socialism has been rejected not just by the president but by actual socialists.

Indeed, if you want to find a group that’s disappointed in Obama, visit a gathering of Democratic Socialists of America, the venerable left-wing group that has been revitalized in recent years by a boom in youth membership. In Washington recently I spoke at a DSA forum where Obama’s name was barely mentioned. Indeed, DSA’s slogan these days is a subtle rebuke to the president, whose 2008 campaign theme was “Change We Can Believe In.”

If Obama is a socialist, Newt is the political love-child of Ayn Rand and John Birch.  Obama is only a socialist in the eyes of those who hide behind their skewed theology, using it as an excuse to remain blind to the evil and injustice in this world.  Unwilling to admit their worldview is flawed, they sheepishly eat up such nonsensical tripe as this and rabidly vote for the one who promises to save them from the socialist boogeyman who waits in the dark to steal their paycheck and burn their Bibles.

If our God is a truly powerful God, which we know he is, and is omnipotent and in control of everything, as we are assured of by his word, why do we get so worked up about things like this?  Why do we allow ourselves to be led astray by woolen wolves such as Newt, a man who is hardly the epitome of a Christian? 

It’s a very sad commentary on today’s Christian society.  We’d sooner believe the lies of a thrice-married man who is a blatant liar and hypocrite, seeing him as the best leader of our supposed Christian society.  All the while, the man he criticizes is a once-married father of two who is a professed and practicing Christian.

Just testin'.

Half of all Americans think Republicans are purposefully sabotaging economy

Half of all Americans think Republicans are purposefully sabotaging economy

Latest dKos/SEIU poll by PPP: 50% think GOP intentionally stalling economy, incl 51% of Indies, & 15% of GOPers. Details Tuesday.

Dissent Magazine - Arguing The World - Elizabeth Warren and American History -

Dissent Magazine - Arguing The World - Elizabeth Warren and American History -

Long before the New Deal and Great Society, federal and state governments played essential roles in developing the economic and social potential of the United States. The Republican rhetoric that government “intervention” is inconsistent with traditional American values and practices clashes with American history. As Elizabeth Warren pointed out, no American entrepreneur or businessperson has ever succeeded without an enormous amount of local, state, and federal assistance. Rather than “class warfare,” her arguments are firmly within the American grain.

Blog-hopping

I've been watching a number of documentaries on Chavez and Castro lately. Odd how nobody ever points out those two are Christian.

A First Post at a New Experiment

Greetings.

This is the first of what will be many introspective and exploratory posts into how, if at all, Christianity and Socialism relate to one another. It's often a given that Christians fall to the right side of the political spectrum. One who proclaims to be both Liberal and Christian is often looked at as a heretic or an idiot, perhaps both. Why is this? Is Christianity the exclusive domain of the right side of the spectrum? Is there no room for Christianity elsewhere? Or, perhaps even more intriguingly, is Christianity better suited to the left?

In his book "Making Friends (& Making them Count)" (1987) Em Griffin had this to say:

Our natural tendency to read purpose into others' actions is especially strong in some situations. One such case is when the results are bad - as they were for Reuven. We look at the down-and-out bum and label him lazy. We see the successful business tycoon and call him lucky. Note that we attribute greater moral responsibility to the one who does poorly than to the one who does well.

The tendency in American Christianity is to see wealth as a blessing from God; as a gift he's bestowed upon us to use in His glory. Is this truly the case? If God can grant us "wealth" to spread the Gospel to poor nations, why can't he just give the money to them in the first place? (I realize such teleological questions are often unanswerable.)

Similarly, we're quick to throw out passages such as 2 Thessalonians 3:10, "The one who is not willing to work shall not eat." (NIV) Clearly, you say, God does not favor a welfare state. However, an exegetical reading of this passage clearly shows that it was not written about mankind in general. It is a mere excerpt from the letter written by Paul to the troubled Church in Corinth. What Paul was speaking to was not idleness of the populace, it was idleness of those leading the Church; pastors who did not wish to help their congregations, who did not seek to reach out to those in the flock. If Paul were alive today, he would not be writing of a "welfare queen" from Chicago. He'd be writing of the Pastor who sees his calling as a career and is more concerned with his hours than his service.

If one is poor, it is not always through their own faults. How quick we are to lavish praise upon one who makes a lucky stock pick, yet cast blame upon one who is unlucky enough to become ill with no health insurance. Are some poor by their own design? Yes; but far and away, many have no choice but to lead the impoverished lives they live.