This “new look.”

February 15, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Indwelling Spirit looks different again — I’m still looking for a satisfactory template from my blog provider which looks vaguely spiritual, and doesn’t screw up the layout of these columns.

My apologies if you thought you were in the wrong place.

 The last template, with the spreading tree, seemed to generate huge problems for no particular reason (kind of like many other things in our society, such as government regulations, prices going up, most of the doors on public buildings locked during business hours, and people texting/yakking/putting on lipstick while driving insanely.  Tonight, for example, we had to wait a full 10 minutes to get a table in a chain Mexican restaurant while I count easily count 11 empty tables from the entraway, and the officious-looking host did everything except seat people.  Problems for no reason.  Perhaps I expect too much from society…)

Very little of the American life style actually makes sense.  I am reminded of that frequently when I meet a visitor from elsewhere in the world, such as Nepal last week or Germany last fall.  Visitors are usually polite about enjoying their visit to America, but if the conversation lasts more than 3 minutes I find myself feeling apologetic for the inanities of 21st century America.  This country doesn’t make any sense to anyone I think, but since I was born here and live here, I am routinely oblivious to it.   But what can I do when I am vastly outnumbered by the totally insane disciples of pop culture, pop politics, pop religion, pop prejudice and pop economics?  And they call me a a nerd!

Anyway, I am testing this new layout and template and main graphic (”Key visual” — 1and1.com won’t let me upload my own) to see if I can live with it.

Please use this site, and comment when you can.  I’d like feedback on links, pages, and especially on the issues you struggle with.  They’re probably a lot more important than screen layout and color scheme.

— Pastor Dan

Posted in Go figure!, Environment, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Is he still totally nuts?

January 14, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

I first heard it at a clergy association meeting yesterday, and all I could do was shake my head, again, that Pat Robertson cannot resist publicly saying inane and inappropriate things, especially when natural disasters happen. It is one thing to blame Hurricane Katrina destroying New Orleans on legalized abortion (I am not making this up! You might also enjoy Wikipedia’s entry on the “fringe theories” behind Hurricane Katrina), but to allude that a slave rebellion in 1791 in a “pact with the devil” has anything to do with natural disasters takes an extra special dose of hubris and ignorance.

See: “Pat Robertson links Haiti quake to pact with devil” in the Los Angeles Times, January 13, 2010.Pat Robertson completely misses the heart of Christian faith in trying to explain why things happen in terms of the Devil! I was more saddened than shocked at his public comment and its follow-up effort to save face.The heart of our faith as Christians is to live out the compassion of Jesus in our own times, both in our own community and wherever people are in need. Our own congregation is just beginning to explore ways to respond to this disaster as we did three years ago when we sent $2,000 directly to people affected by the South Asian tsunami, which was enough to re-build an entire building.We are also connected with ELCA International Disaster Response, which is seeking immediate financial gifts to send on to long-standing relief and assistance partner agencies. One hundred percent of all donations go directly to the disaster response. (There is no overhead or administrative percentage held out. Anyone interested in helping can find information about giving at www.elca.org/disaster.)

Robertson’s latest foot-in-mouth or head-up-behind remark cannot be overlooked as the musings of a doddering old man His broadcasting empire still influences huge numbers. Officially founded 50 years ago this week, CBN’s own web site claims that the 700 Club has an average viewership of 1 million, and that the media empire Robertson built broadcasts to 200 countries.

But Pat Robertson’s own sense of “compassion” seems to be pathetically limited (Americans United’s Barry Lynn labels his remarks “grotesque insensitivity“), in my opinion based on a follow-up statement form the 700 Club quoted in the Times story:

Hours after his comments ignited a firestorm in the news media and online, Robertson’s “The 700 Club” TV show issued a statement elaborating on his remarks. . . .”Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath,” the statement went on. It added that “Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them.”As part of Robertson’s bizarre legacy, last October the CBN network warned trick-or-treaters about demonic Halloween candy. Eight years ago Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell blamed the September 11, 2001 attacks on the ACLU, feminists, abortionists and homosexuals.It has been estimated that Robertson’s personal fortune may be approaching $1 billion. He personally owned an oil refinery here in Southern California and a diamond mine in South Africa. If he were disposed from a Christ-like heart, he could personally finance an enormous amount of relief efforts in Haiti.Robertson’s own life expectancy isn’t so hot (he turns 80 in March). At his point in life he ought to be giving more thought to his legacy than his ego. What true ministry has he put into place which is Christ-like? Instead he will leave a legacy of ignorant and arrogant comments about the supposed sins and demonic forces behind high-profile calamities.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

---

---

Posted in Environment, Fundamentalism, Public Affairs, PRAYERS, ELCA | Print | No Comments »

Missouri Synod weighs in on gay clergy.

August 24, 2009 by Dan Hooper.

First, this tidbit from KXMB CBS, in Bismarck, ND (with video?): “Update on the latest in religion news:”

“MINNEAPOLIS (AP) The president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has told members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that their votes on gay issues will have negative consequences.”The Reverend Gerald Kieschnick (KEESH’-nik) addressed the churchwide assembly of the ELCA a day after its delegates lifted a ban on partnered gays and lesbians serving as clergy.

“Kieschnick said that decision will hurt relations between the nation’s two largest Lutheran denominations and “cause additional stress and disharmony within the ELCA.” Conservative Evangelical Lutheran congregations won’t be forced to hire gay clergy, but opponents nevertheless warned that straying from Scripture could result in a loss of members and finances.

“Lutheran CORE, a conservative group within the ELCA that fought the gay clergy policy, will hold a convention in Indianapolis next month to review its next steps.”  Sound: CUT ..235 (08/23/09)

I’ve been waiting for this since early Saturday — news from the Minneapolis Assembly about what “greetings” the head of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod would bring in light of the ELCA’s assembly actions in the days before.Next I quote from the blog letter from Phil Soucy, Communications Director for Lutherans Concerned/North America:

“‘Greetings’ were brought to the assembly by Reverend Dr. Gerald Kieschnick, President of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. … The Reverend Dr. did not smile, but began his message by quoting Paul in 2 Corinthians 15: ‘…we implore you, on behalf of Christ: be reconciled to God. For our sake, He made Him to be sin who knew no sin so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. What a blessing it is to know that our sin is forgiven, removed from us as far as the east is from the west because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on Calvary’s cross…’ . . .”He later quoted from the Kolb-Wengert translation of the Formula of Concord on doctrinal controversy and discord, to wit: ‘…for these controversies are not merely misunderstandings or semantic arguments where someone might think that one group had not sufficiently grasped what the other group was trying to say or that the tensions were based upon only a few specific words of relatively little consequence. Rather, these controversies deal with important and significant matters, and they are of such a nature that the positions of the erring party neither could nor should be tolerated in the church of God, much less be excused or defended. Therefore necessity demands explanation of these disputed articles on the basis of God’s word and reliable writings so that those with a proper Christian understanding could recognize which position regarding the points under dispute is in accord with God’s word and the Christian Augsburg confession and which is not. And so the Christians of good will, who are concerned about the truth, might protect and guard themselves from the errors and corruptions that have appeared among us…’

“His was a serious message of rebuke, delivered somberly and, as he said, ‘…in deep humility with a heavy heart and no desire whatsoever to offend. The decisions by this assembly to grant non-celibate homosexual ministers the privilege of serving as rostered leaders in the ELCA and the affirmation of same-gender unions as pleasing to God will undoubtedly cause additional stress and disharmony within the ELCA. It will also negatively affect the relationships between our two church bodies. The current division between our churches threatens to become a chasm…’”

I am not at all surprised by Dr. K’s grim and humorless chastisement of the ELCA for taking the courageous step of opening the gates to lesbian/gay/partnered clergy. Actually, I chuckled at the line that he said ‘…in deep humility with a heavy heart and no desire whatsoever to offend.” Well, Rev. Dr., you certainly offended a lot of us, then, without desiring to! Neat trick, doubtless grounded in backward thinking if not in passion or desire.This is the very heart of the deep divide which has opened in the last four decades between different groups of Lutherans. The Missouri Synod has become more and more 19^th century in its obsession about perfect agreement in all matters, even if it means continuing to cut all relationships with other Lutherans who differ. Perfect agreement in theology means nothing short of perfect thought control, and LC–MS seems to have achieved it. Kieschnick’s heavy-hearted remarks to the ELCA were not only a rebuke of us, but clearly a warning shot fired at his own churchbody. Don’t even think about raising any new discussions of human sexuality in the LC–MS. It is a settled matter which will not be revisited.

Kieschnick’s remarks, and the severe quotation from the Formula of Concord – which he obviously chose to lift out of its 16^th century context and attempt to apply it in the 21^st century – has all the marks of Missouri’s obsession about sin and evil, lockstep doctrinal conformity, and dire consequences for difference of opinion. Not only is he and his officialdom—to which the LC-MS churchbody has remained captive since J.A.O. Preus’ take-over of the LC-MS in the 1970s—unwilling to have any honest dialogue about where Christians disagree in matters of faith, he has chosen not to respect the deeply-held convictions of other fellow-Lutherans/fellow Christians who hold to those convictions by reason of their own conscience.

In other words, Kieschnick’s and LC–MS’s official interpretation of tough contemporary issues and matters of faith are the only ones which may have validity anywhere in Christendom. Any other point of view, according to his rough application of the quote from a document written in A.D. 1580, “should not be tolerated in the church of God.”

Has Kieschnick forgotten that the dispute back then which the Reformers could not tolerate were disputes with the Roman Catholic Church, not with fellow evangelicals? And has he not noticed that Pope Benedict XVI himself has basically said that all of us — all Lutherans and all Protestants and everybody else who are not under his personal authority are not even a “church” in the proper sense? In effect Kieschnick’s rebuke of the ELCA, a churchbody nearly twice the size of the LC–MS parallels Benedict’s rebuke of all other Christians. In Kieschnick’s case it is utter arrogance masquerading as doctrinal purity. In Benedict’s case it is utter arrogance masquerading as divine authority.

But Kieschnick’s quote is wrong for a more fundamental reason. Read this again, carefully: “Therefore necessity demands explanation of these disputed articles on the basis of God’s word and reliable writings so that those with a proper Christian understanding could recognize which position regarding the points under dispute is in accord with God’s word and the Christian Augsburg confession and which is not.”

Why I find this to be a deeply flawed application of a 440 year old document is that it refers to “these disputed articles”, meaning articles of faith. Do we need to remind Rev. Dr. Kieschnick that the Augsburg Confession (published in 1530) does not even contain an “article of faith” on human sexuality, let alone homosexuality? Should it not be pointed out to him that articles of faith are about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, justification by grace through faith, etc., and not about anthropology, sociology, biology or psychology. Christians do not put our faith in these matters or in our current understandings of any of them, even if we are influenced by them because they change. And when matters of anthropology, sociology, biology or psychology change, our opinions and attitudes change with them.

Strictly speaking, our faith is never in ourselves (gay or straight, Catholic or Lutheran, woman or man, married or single, sinner or saint). But the LC-MS obsession, like other fundamentalist religious obsessions, is that they get to define with exactitude what is sinful and against the will of God and therefore cannot be tolerated in the church of God.

As. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:36, “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” Yes, it’s kind of funny that Paul said that as a rebuke of one congregation with whom he disagreed over allowing women to speak in church, a real issue of faith that also has divided the ELCA and the LC–MS since the 1970s. (Missouri Synod does not ordain women to the ministry, and tries to keep them out of all authoritative positions over men in the church from the local congregation on up.) Their reasoning is as fundamentalist as you can get: they can point to some verses in the Bible that they say with vehement certainty applies to the present times, and because of their own certainty they will not even grant the civility to talk with a sister or brother in Christ who differs in discernment of what applies or doesn’t apply. In doing so they completely bypass and ignore a lot of other Holy Writ that reminds us to listen to one another, to pray for one another, to bear one another’s burdens, and to draw near to Christ rather than searching the scriptures for a proof text. They ignore the divine permission which Christians are given to “bind and loose” even matters which are covered in the Scriptures.

Maybe we will, sadly, look back on 2009 as the year when Christianity definitely began to crack into two irreconcilable camps. Each of us believes that we are reconciled to God, but not by our own achievements, conformity, certainty or doctrinal purity, but purely and solely by grace. Think about that, Rev. Dr.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Bible & Interpretation, Ecumenical Issues, Doctrine, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Catholic matters, Environment, LGBT Christian, Public Affairs, History, Faith, LGBT Rights, Ministry | Print | No Comments »

A dubious “Credo” for sure.

February 6, 2008 by Pastor Dan.

This caught my eye in the e-mail box recently. I was tempted to scoff at their efforts but at the same time wanted to understand more of why they are profoundly skeptical about matters of faith.

“Sometimes, if you’re trying to find an answer to a problem, finding the edges, and working in from there works quite well — it’s known as approximation. Military gunnery works in the same way, overshoot, undershoot and bingo! In some topics this can be done through opposing statements. Here’s what I and my youngest son came up with—a doubters creed.

“A dubious Credo

“I do not fear God;
I fear mankind.
I do not fear my death;
I fear for my posterity.

I do not believe in Heaven or Hell;
I believe that all sentient life has a spiritual element.
I do not believe in the concept of sin;
I believe that love, in all its forms, is the most vital part of human experience.

I do not know if any religion is “true” or “false”;
I do know that there is a greater presence outside ourselves.
I do not know if God still exists;
I do know that once I did not exist, now I do, and soon I won’t.

I must not harm anyone else;
I must live every minute as if it is my last.
I must not allow the past to cripple the future;
I must make the day of everyone I encounter better.

Amen”

For openers, these Doubters appear to think of a Credo (”I believe”) as a statement of what they observe, rather than what they put their trust in—what they believe about, not what they believe in. For them a “greater presence” is something they are “approximating”—working in from the edges of what they observe, supposing something must be there and letting that suffice.

This view of reality is an inch or two over from the man I met at a New Year’s Eve Party a few weeks ago who thinks that all spirituality is simply “brain chemicals.” He told me he is a practicing Quaker. But he is also a Doubter of one of the higher orders.

Spirituality is something that even doubters, skeptics and secular philosophers acknowledge; yet their rejection or suspicion of religious doctrines really eviscerates human spirituality: it cuts the guts out of it.

With very little effort, as on that proverbial “slippery slope,” spirituality devolves to mere sentiment, limited by consciousness—for example: your trying to live each day “as if it were your last.” (Maybe I should go see The Bucket List while it’s still around.) But I suspect that a lot of loud, young, male, speeding pickup-drivers would be even more self-absorbed and rude and violent if they really believed that today was their “last day.” If you don’t fear death or God, Heaven or Hell, then why not just do whatever brings me instant gratification because, after all, this might be my last day on earth!?

Spiritual uncertainty, or a lack of spiritual consciousness, is clearly expressed here over and over: “I do not know . . .” Perhaps that phrase is offered as a mark of spiritual humility. But it doesn’t nearly approximate human experience. It lets humanity off the hook quite easily. It misses the moral mark by a mile. I do not always know, for example, if my actions today are in fact hurting someone else, rather than making other people’s day “better.” And if I do not know, then I am not responsible, right? Think of the long-term effects of greed, waste, and environmental damage of which generations of moral people were completely unaware while they sentimentalized the act of making somebody’s day better.

The most troubling and naive part of this dubious Credo, in my opinion, is the line “I do not believe in the concept of sin.” Do you really think “sin” does not exist? Or that the “concept” as you understand it is something you can’t subscribe to? If there is no God, then sin defined as an offense against God would not exist. That’s clever! But sin has been understood for thousands of years as also an offense against my neighbor. Most of the Ten Commandments are guidelines to keep us from sinning against—harming or exploiting—other people. The Old Testament is a confusing and quirky collection of moral commands, of actions and consequences (karma), but the majority of its moral wisdom falls in the column of justice, not merely religion.

Or is the “concept of sin” one these writers just associate with a penalty phase? (”Hell”?) In other words, can I simply adopt a personal ethic not to harm my neighbor without having to admit my failure to live up to my own ethic a lot of the time? Or attempt to make amends for the things I inadvertently do which harm others? Or to accept the consequences of my failures?

Someone wise remarked that “Sin is the one Christian doctrine which is empirically verifiable.” You can see it and document it, even if some doubter simply says “I do not believe in the concept of sin.” Was the Nazi extermination of six million Jews and unnumbered homosexuals and gypsies not sin? Or does the Doubter have a different term for it if the word sin isn’t used? Is “I do not believe” the escape line for the men who gutted the assets of Enron, including the retirement savings of thousands of their own employees? For the sub-prime lenders who have manipulated millions into Option-ARM loans no one could possibly afford, and has now left them homeless, bankrupted and with terrible credit scores? For Iraq war independent contractors who are bleeding the American government and therefore the American people for billions of dollars? For mass-murderers in our malls and schools? For men who mercilessly kill their wives and children before turning the gun on themselves? For drive-by shooters? For those who write computer viruses, or devise Ponzi and pyramid schemes, who defraud gullible senior citizens through phoney “investments”? All of those obvious examples are not “sin”? Then what are they? If there is no “sin” then what is it these Doubters fear in mankind?

To borrow a phrase from a well-known bumper sticker, “If you don’t believe that sin is real, you haven’t been paying attention.” If you can’t “buy into” a lot of religious talk, well okay. But the “spiritual element” of human life includes a sense of personal responsibility, self-examination, self-discipline, consciousness, humility, and an openness to change oneself and one’s life when confronted with the error of one’s ways. See, for example, the accusation of the prophet Nathan against King David, “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7)

Ash Wednesday is the Christian acknowledgment not only of our sinful predicament—our sinful nature—but also our finite nature. As the liturgical phrase has it, “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Or as the Doubter puts it, “I do know that once I did not exist, now I do, and soon I won’t.”

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Environment, Faith, Public Affairs, Spirituality | Print | No Comments »

The Big Philosophical Picture.

February 4, 2008 by Pastor Dan.

I’m not sure I have the best term for this, since I just discovered the thoughts of Peter Russell, but perhaps “pop philosopher” will serve for now. Russell is a scientist/writer/futurist/mystic. His views and wisdom can be found on his web site, www.peterrussell.com, along with intriguing devices.

Sample his World Clock for example, that rolls through the number of counters, including the rate of abortions, deaths from cardiovascular disease, world population etc., how fast cars and bicycles are being produced, and forests denuded, all  on one screen. Or his Life Expectancy Calculator which, in a series of 34 questions, will tell you how long you will live. You may be amazed at what counts as a debit and what counts as a credit in this accounting.

Looking beyond the so-called “Information Age,” I am intrigued by his suggestion that evolution itself is speeding up like global warming, that the universe’s intelligence is expanding exponentially (intelligence being sharply distinguished from wisdom—both terms are adequately defined—which is still in its infancy), and that change itself may reach a maximum point or a leveling-off. Russell presents ideas such as “singularity”, the ingression of novelty, and how human beings see our real selves apart from our external circumstances. We are a “Half-Awake Species,” he suggests with good reason (from “A Singularity in Time“):

In addition, we are only half-awake to our deeper needs and how to attain them. Most of us would like to avoid pain and suffering, and find greater peace and happiness, but we believe that how we feel inside depends on external circumstances. This is true in some cases, for example. if we are suffering because we are cold or hungry. In the modern world, most of us can fulfill these demands very easily. The flick of a switch or a trip to the store usually suffices. But we apply the same thinking to everything else in life. We believe that if we could just get enough of the right things or experiences we would finally be happy. This is the root of human greed, our love of money, our need to control events (and other people); it is the cause of much of our fear and anxiety, we worry whether events are going to be the way we think they should be if we are to be happy. This thinking is also at the heart of the many ways we mistreat, and often abuse, our planetary home.

The global crisis we are now facing is, at its root, a crisis of consciousness—a crisis born of the fact that we have prodigious technological powers, but still remain half-awake. We need to awaken to who we are and what we really want.

Needless to say, Russell’s consciousness steps into the spiritual. I am usually cautious and skeptical about such ideas, until I begin to realize that spirituality is found widely in the Judeo-Christian heritage, and not always cloaked in or tied to specific religious or dogmatic language. If sectarian Christians are unwilling to explore this, we should at least note that the pioneers of the “emergent church” are doing it with or without our blessing.  Much more on that later.

As I have noted, I’ve just discovered this pop philosopher. But I expect to spend some time reading what he has written and, at least, exploring his prodigious web site.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Environment, History, Public Affairs, Spirituality | Print | No Comments »

A fine-feathered, feel-good story.

January 5, 2008 by Pastor Dan.

This past week I’ve been having a little fun wearing my other hat as an amateur webmaster.

Yesterday I launched a new web site as a birthday gift to Carl, www.ijustlovemychickens.info. The phrase comes from his videography — he’s been featured on four television shows with his now-celebrity chickens. (How many chicken web sites have you seen with a videography list?) On a segment taped for “Beverly Hills Vet” for the Discovery Channel’s Animal Planet, Carl is captured saying very sincerely, “I just love my chickens!”

Doing the site was totally fun and frivolous because his hobby of raising free-range chickens brings him a lot of pleasure, and brings a smile to everyone else’s face. I hope this site will help Carl connect with a lot of people who are interested in raising chickens, and other birds, in an urban setting.

Carol, a Japanese Silkie hen, says hello to some admirers.

I’ve also included a link to our church for a good reason. Carl’s generous plan for the use of the extra eggs he receives from his hens (in good weather, he can get nearly a dozen per day) is to donate them as a fund-raiser. Eggs are “auctioned off” at Hollywood Lutheran Church in half-dozen cartons. The winners of the eggs make a cash donation to the church’s Food Pantry fund, so that the Pantry can afford to buy less-exotic necessities and fresh foods for distribution to the poor and hungry in Hollywood.

Of course, Carl is doing all the work, and paying for the food to keep the chickens producing all those extra eggs. But he would say the cost is negligible – it’s “chicken feed.”  (There’s a whole page of chicken clichés and trivia, including a Bible study on the question, “Which came first …?”)

Such “chicken feed” projects remind us that generosity is not expensive. Ordinary people can do a lot to help others without costing them as much as a latte per week.

The Food Pantry is one of the Community Services we try to maintain at our church. Another one that I hope will take off as spring draws near is our Community Garden. Neighbors who sign up to till some of the soil and grow vegetables or flowers promise to share a tithe of the land’s produce with the Food Pantry. Our merciful God, and the Department of Water and Power, provide the water. Generosity does the rest.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Hollywood, Environment, Ministry | Print | No Comments »

Are we living in two different countries?

September 15, 2007 by Pastor Dan.

In order to write for a blog, you also have to read blogs. I have found a number of theological blogs (more about which later). Some have very thoughtful people writing them. Others are scarey. It set me thinking about the geographic spectrum of thought in the U.S. of A.

I scoured my hard drive to find these maps again.

First, look carefully at the states that went Democratic or Republican in the last presidential election. Then look carefully at the states (or territories) that were free or slave before the Civil War.

(By the way, I did not verify this information, but who would attempt to falsify what could be verified from public records? I received it in an e-mail three years ago. The e-mail source at lower right of the slavery map is not really legible, so I’m passing it along with all the usual disclaimers.)

By and large the correlation of Red States = Slave States and Blue States = Free States is astonishing. The only significant variation from 1860 to 2004 are Indiana and Ohio.

I do not pass judgment on anybody. But I cannot help feeling as if there are two (or more) United States of Americas. These two entities seem to be vastly different from one another, not only in culture but in attitudes, not only experience but persuasions. The languages, the cuisine, the demographics are hugely different. I am sure a competent analyst of census data would find hundreds of interesting differences between the Mountain/Southern states and the Northern/Coastal states.  In terms of understanding and applying the Christian faith, I am repeatedly amazed how different we are, especially in that the Mountain/Southern states still seem to have, hold and reinforce an explicit Christian culture (however they see it).  But many of the blue states, especially the coastal ones, live in a much more heterodox world milieu that would not even dream of maintaining or enforcing a Christian culture.

Several years ago I was chatting with a church friend, an actress (well, wouldn’t you know). She said she and her husband had lived in Florida before coming to California.  I commented respectfully that Florida has many beautiful places. “Yes,” she said, “but I’ve met more interesting people in an elevator in California than any of my friends in Florida.”

One of these days, I will devise a rating system for the blogs I encounter, from radical left to looney right. Then as far as possible I will try to locate them geographically on either of the above maps. It should be revealing.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Environment, Faith, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

What were we thinking?

August 31, 2007 by Pastor Dan.

The heat these August days has been oppressive in Los Angeles.  I suppose they would seem normal in St. Louis or New Orleans, but not here.  It is someone else’s weather delivered here by accident.

Or, it is the “new normal”, or global warming, present indicative?  The only ones who are still in denial about global warming seem to be the president’s men–the ones who ignore the signs of the times and change the subject:  the Kyoto accord would cost American jobs; there are terrorists out there; the scientific evidence is not all in; etc.

The evidence, however, keeps coming in, day after week after month after year.  At what point does one deem it to be a preponderance of evidence sufficient to convict us.  We are destroying our planet without pause.  We are harvesting it, killing it, exterminating it, clearing it, burning it, strip-mining it, paving over it as if we have a spare planet in the trunk.

And we are destructive seemingly without a thought.  Increasingly, the United States stands alone on every environmental issue you could name.  We are the last to teach ourselves efficiency, restraint, or innovation on things that would preserve life, spare the planet, and have our generation leave a much small footprint on the sacred wilderness.

I still think it was President Reagan’s first Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who set the theological tone for interior policy.  I could be wrong, of course. A couple of years ago, conservative blog Power Line took commentator Bill Moyers to task for reminding us of what James Watt  thought.  Moyers summarized:

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, “after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.”  Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn’t know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious.

Power Line goes on to document that Moyers and Grist misinterpreted or distorted Watt’s views.  Yet I remember these views being talked about 20 years ago in connection with Watt.  If he indeed was a closet environmentalist, that slipped by many of us in Reagan’s first term.  I don’t keep a news clipping file on every fool we have suffered in high places, so I could be wrong.  But I clearly remember feeling a sense of outrage about Watt over and over and over from reading the daily news.

Even if Watt was never so irresponsible, the view is emblematic of a Christian faith which cherry-picks the issues it thinks are vitally important for public policy.  Conservative in my bedroom, prodigal in my national parks.

Let’s suppose that no Christian actually holds the view, that we are free to “use up” the earth in this generation and not be stewardship of creation for the future because Jesus will be returning soon anyway.  Even if that were true, where do legislators–who are clearly and verifiably backed by conservative religious money– get their values?

Could it be the same place the rest of us get our shoddy values?  The values that value my own life at the expense of others, and my generation at the expense of future generations?  The values that put my pleasures, my prosperities, my comforts, my titillations ahead of the survival and security and safety of others on this planet? What were we thinking when we allowed our country to become so polarized about issues with obvious moral content?  Is it completely impossible to suppose that Christians of all slants, and people of all faith traditions could agree that this planet needs tender loving care?

And that even if the evidence isn’t final on whether humans are causing global warming and destroying life forms left and right, we already know without a doubt that there is too much filth in our air, our water, our land fills  and toxic waste dumps; that we Americans use up 100 times as many natural resources per person than our neighbors on this planet; that there is no god out there who is pleased by our wasteful and destructive ways.

Whether global warming is ready for the concluding arguments leading to conviction, many people are ready to believe that it is a fitting karma that this generation of Americans is beginning to suffer for its destructive ways.  For those of you who are still in your 20s, it is entirely possible that the American way of life will have completely crashed and burned before you attempt to draw your first retirement check.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in "The Closet", Environment, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »