Monday Morning Email: 'Investigating Christian Privilege and Religious Oppression in the United States'

Ok, so my inbox is always full on Monday mornings. I always find spam and...

I got an email from a professor in the "Multicultural and International Curriculum Studies Department of Curriculum and Instruction" at Iowa State University trying to publicize a book he helped edit called Investigating Christian Privilege and Religious Oppression in the United States.

According to Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld, "Christian denominations and their cultural manifestations, however, often function to marginalize, exclude, and deny members and institutions of other religions and non-believers the privileges and access that accompany a Christian affiliation. Christianity is the privileged religious perspective in the United States since Christian groups, people, and organizations often have the power to define normalcy....Investigating Christian Privilege and Religious Oppression in the United States addresses Christian privilege as well as religious oppression since the two are in symbiotic relationship: oppression toward non-Christians gives rise to Christian privilege in the United States, and Christian privilege maintains oppression toward non-Christian individuals and faith communities. This anthology also provides historical and contemporary cases exposing Christian privilege and religious oppression on the societal, institutional, and personal/interpersonal levels. A number of chapters include sections suggesting change strategies, and in particular, ways to achieve the national goal of religious pluralism in the United States" (emphasis mine).

Does the religion with the most adherents have the ability to define every area culture within a country?

Would Jesus use "what about me" rhetoric?

I found this short article on LewRockwell.com called "My Personal National Healthcare Plan" by Todd Steinberg. It's good, but missing a helpful component: reaching out to those who find the "what about me" rhetoric used by conservatives and libertarians none compelling.

What many conservatives and libertarians, myself included, are not doing well is explaining why it's okay to think about "me" when were discussing coercion by the State. The phrase "coercion by the State" refers to the fact that that the State (government) is required to enforce all laws, and may use force (police, imprisonment, fines etc.) to carry out laws.

As Christians or compassionate people, I agree that we are not suppose to merely think about "me" and "my health care" and "my money," but consider the poor and less fortunate--like Jesus commands us to do. However, Jesus did not force--neither personally nor through the Roman Empire--anyone to be charitable. He did not advocate forcing people to love and care for other people.

The most devastating aspect of the gospel is you can't make yourself genuinely believe the gospel, authentically love God or thoroughly want to reflect his character. In like manner, people can't make others genuine believe or authentically love God or want to reflect his character.

Similarly, only genuine display of compassion for the poor by its nature is voluntary. If it's not voluntary, it's not compassion.

Jesus would not use rhetoric like Steinberg uses in his essay emphasizing "me first" but that doesn't mean he would support use of the State to coerce or force people not be selfish.

But this then begs the question: is doing something for a oneself wrong? Who says when an action is "selfish" and when it's not? By who's standard do we decide?

Piper: Why I Don't Have a Television and Rarely Go to Movies

The quotation below is from an article by John Piper blog on the relevance of TV and being relevant in our culture. While this is an area for each to examine for oneself, I've found that while I often can't talk to someone about the latest movie release or who's broken up with who on the Hills, I can relate as a human to other humans who live in a broken, lonely world.

Piper writes,

"I think relevance in preaching hangs very little on watching movies, and I think that much exposure to sensuality, banality, and God-absent entertainment does more to deaden our capacities for joy in Jesus than it does to make us spiritually powerful in the lives of the living dead. Sources of spiritual power—which are what we desperately need—are not in the cinema. You will not want your biographer to write: Prick him and he bleeds movies.

If you want to be relevant, say, for prostitutes, don’t watch a movie with a lot of tumbles in a brothel. Immerse yourself in the gospel, which is tailor-made for prostitutes; then watch Jesus deal with them in the Bible; then go find a prostitute and talk to her. Listen to her, not the movie. Being entertained by sin does not increase compassion for sinners.

There are, perhaps, a few extraordinary men who can watch action-packed, suspenseful, sexually explicit films and come away more godly. But there are not many. And I am certainly not one of them" (emphasis mine).

The quote is taken out of the context of another pastor suggesting that Christians should watch more movies to be relevant. I think this comes down to discernment of which movies are helpful, but the heart of the issue I think has less to do with watching more or less, but seeking those things to do that give life not death to our souls. Dead souls can't lead people to Christ.

And I am much like Piper. Maybe some can let trash in, and good comes out, but it doesn't seem to work so well for me.

Life's not Fair

The problem with life is that it's not fair. Or maybe it's not life's problem; it's a human perspective problem. We don't like the fact that the world does not center on us; thus we are sometimes wrong: both factually wrong or morally wrong.

The question isn't about whether something is fair; it's about who's rules you're using and if you're living in reality or your own little, or possible big, world. It depends on how many people you've convinced to join you or how many people you've joined with to follow someone or something else.

Consider the following:

"Liberty Counsel recently filed suit at the Florida Supreme Court against The Florida Bar and is requesting the Bar remain neutral on political and ideological issues unrelated to the regulation of attorneys. In January the Bar voted to file an amicus brief, arguing that the 1977 adoption law is unconstitutional. By taking sides on this issue, Liberty Counsel says that the Bar has violated the First Amendment rights of Florida lawyers. Outside of regulating the practice of law, the Bar has no authority to advocate on behalf of such issues."

Ok, so what is "neutral"? If the bar doesn't file an amicus brief, does that make it neutral? Why or why not?