The Lomperian Review

Happy Thanks-giving!!

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:41:00 +0000

I've not written much of anything in a while, so if you're reading this, please take a minute to thank God for all the good things you experience! :)

Quote of the Month

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:09:00 +0000

"There is not a religious mandate or God-ordained system of health care or insurance. No amount of biblical exegesis or study will lead you to a policy conclusion on health care savings accounts, personal versus employer provided insurance, single payer public systems, or private insurance plans. Luke might have been a physician, but he still never commented on whether or not computerizing medical records should be a national priority." -Jim Wallis of the lefty Sojourners organization

This pleasantly surprising expression of restraint and humble acknowledgment of the fundamentally open-to-question nature of Christian political engagements overlaps to a large extent with my personal contribution to the UMC's 2008 Book of Resolutions (aka the Book of Resolutions Nobody Reads).

Top Ten Myths about UMC Constitutional Amendments

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:49:00 +0000

(While most U.S. annual conferences have already met by now, I felt the need to address several key myths about the proposed Constitutional Amendments that I have seen promoted, whether unintentionally or otherwise. I offer this both in the hopes of its being helpful to someone out there and for the sake of relieving some personal frustration from seeing each of the following myths asserted by various leaders without the record being set straight.)

MYTH #1: In a "factsheet," Breaking the Silence, the sexually liberal group that originated Amendment One approvingly quotes retired Bishop S. Clifton Ives as describing the Constitutional Amendments as matters that "the General Conference approved after careful study and debate...." while accusing others of "hav[ing] resorted to distortions of the truth."
FACT: To the extent that Breaking the Silence can be trusted in their implication that Ives was including Amendment 1 in his frame of reference, Ives needlessly does tremendous damage to his own credibility, and by extension, that of MFSA, of which he is co-president. The same needless sacrifice of credibility applies to the Reconciling Ministries Network through their promotion of the "fact" sheet on their website. Anyone can go to the General Conference transcripts and read for themselves the extremely rushed debate--with just two minimal-length floor speeches allowed for each side and no clear acknowledgment of homosexuality as the driving issue for the amendment--by viewing pp. 2705-2706. If that qualifies as "careful study and debate" than "Row, row, row your boat" easily rivals any concerto by Mozart.
As for the many amendments dealing with the global restructuring plan, at one point during the GC debate on these, the simultaneous French translation completely cut out, thus abruptly dropping numerous African delegates (who would be most affected by the plan) out of the conversation.

Amendment #1 (Inclusive/Open Membership issue)

MYTH # 2: Amendment One proponents such as MFSA and the Reconciling Ministries Network have in various ways argued that this would not limit the ability of congregations/pastors to require membership classes for prospective members, exercise wise risk management with sexual offenders, and/or withhold membership from individuals seeking membership solely for cheaper wedding fees.
FACT: Discussion must be based on what Amendment One actually says, not what its proponents might like for it to say if they had a chance to re-word it. Elsewhere, an article/speech published online by the Reconciling Ministry Network asserted that Amendment One "would have the affect of repealing [Judicial Council] Decision 1032," which affirmed the historic right of Methodist pastors to discern the readiness of persons for membership. In other words, the argument of the "Reconciling" activists (at least among themselves) has been that this Amendment would prevent a UMC pastor from withholding immediate, on-demand membership from anyone who at least mouthed an affirmation of Christian faith, if the pastor's objection was based on the prospective member's failure to meet any other criterion (namely, abstinence from sex outside of a man-woman marriage). Yet the language of Amendment would equally strike down the imposition of any membership criteria (other than verbal affirmation of a Christian faith of some sort).
Everyone knows that Amendment One would not be promoted with the current zeal of its advocates, and never would have been written in the first place, if most people did not understand that it was designed to defrock any UMC pastor in any congregation who would dare to withhold or delay congregational membership (and hence leadership eligibility) for individuals not abstaining from extramarital sex. Yet Amendment One advocates have yet to produce a reason grounded in the actual logic and language of Amendment One for why the same mechanism throwing out membership barriers in these cases would not equally throw out the barriers for those failing to take membership classes (or failing to meet any other reasonable expectation beyond a one-time verbal affirmation of faith). As for "safe sanctuaries" policies, the fact is that that Amendment One would make it a chargeable offense for a UMC minister to prevent a known sex offender (who couldn't be barred from membership in any local UM congregation anyway) from joining any "organizational unit" of a congregation, including children's or youth ministry.

MYTH #3: Amendment One would not affect ordination standards.
FACT: As others have pointed out (highlighting an oversight in my earlier post on Amendment #1), Amendment One would change the final sentence of Paragraph 4 to "In the United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body." This sloppily broad wording could quite easily lend itself to interpretations such as that no UMC lay member, including those not abiding by current sexual ethics standards for clergy, could be denied membership in the "organizational unit" of an annual conference's body of ordained clergy (not to mention the countless less-intended chaotic consequences of this final sentence). Remember, anything in the Constitution automatically trumps the rest of the Discipline. I have yet to see any Amendment One proponent demonstrate that there are any effective, commonsense limits within the text of the Amendment/Paragraph itself for the proposed openness in ALL organizational units of the UMC.

"Worldwide Nature of the UMC" aka "Global Restructuring" Amendments

MYTH #4: This plan would keep such matters as theology and Social Principles within the jurisdiction of the general church rather than that of each regional conference.
FACT: No such limit exists in the texts of the Amendments themselves. While the General Conference also passed a companion resolution with a list of guiding principles for the proposed new global structure, and these included keeping doctrine and Social Principles within the domain of the international General Conference, the General Conference record shows that the decision was made to strike the provision that such guidelines be "binding."

MYTH #5: This would make the UMC more global.
FACT: We are already a very global denomination. By segregating American UMs in their own domain away from their overseas brethren, this would make us less, not more, global.

MYTH #6: This plan empowers the non-U.S. United Methodists.
FACT: The primary practical effect would be to systematically exclude non-U.S. United Methodists from large realms of denominational decision-making within which they are currently involved. Meanwhile, I have not seen anyone articulate how the plan would give the non-U.S. members more "power" beyond what they already have.

MYTH #7: This plan is needed to correct inequities currently suffered by the non-U.S. portions of the denomination.
FACT: It does nothing to address such inequities as the severe under-representation of non-Americans (especially Africans) in the UMC Council of Bishops and on its general boards and agencies.

MYTH #8: This plan helps move us away from colonialism.
FACT: This plan is prominently driven by a handful of white, Western bishops and amounts to largely deciding "what's best for those Africans" by dramatically increasing the relative decision-making power of the U.S. portion of the church at the expense of the allegedly benefitted Africans.

MYTH #9: This would increase efficiency.
FACT: It would add yet another major layer of cumbersome denominational bureacracy, requiring uncertain long-term financial commitments.

MYTH #10: This would help "save" the U.S. Western Jurisdiction by uniting them with the rest of the U.S. so that they could eventually have an theologically traditional bishop.
FACT: This in no way alters the current jurisdictional model for the election of U.S. bishops.

Some Questions for Advocates of UMC Amendment #1

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:00 +0000

Perhaps the most controversial of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United Methodist Church on which the denomination’s regional annual conferences are currently voting is Amendment #1. This proposal would change Paragraph 4 of the UMC Book of Discipline as follows:

Inclusiveness of the Church — The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth and that we are in ministry to all. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status or economic condition shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, and upon baptism be admitted as baptized members,. and All persons, upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith and relationship in Jesus Christ, shall be eligible to become professing members in any local church in the connection. In the United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, status or economic condition.

(Key: Bold = added text; Italics = deleted text)

This amendment originated with a caucus group in Texas dedicated to liberalizing the denomination’s standards and teachings on sexual morality, particularly with regard to homosexual practice. It is being heavily promoted by the Reconciling Ministries Network and the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA).

On the other hand, the Rev. Walter Fenton, new leader of the denomination’s oldest evangelical caucus, analyzed this proposal from another perspective a few months ago and analysis from a similar perspective is offered by prominent evangelical UM leader and civil rights veteran Maxie Dunnam. Meanwhile UM pastor, blogger, and UMReporter contributor Andrew Thompson has a thoughtful essay on the amendment apart from the baggage of the emotionally charged homosexuality debates (this link should get you there eventually).

Much of the discussions seem to involve a significance confusion about the significance of church membership, with the idea of that if you don’t grant immediate church membership that must mean that you don’t love or will not minister to them. This often seems quite devoid of any recognition of church membership as a serious matter, involving a solemn commitment to a covenant community of sisters and brothers, and eligibility for leadership in this community, and that it is quite possible to love and minister to people within your church without granting immediate membership.

It seems that much of this confusion comes out of the unfortunately myopic experience of some Amendment #1 proponents having only seen congregations in which membership is not treated that seriously and membership numbers are many times higher than that of weekly church attendance—with little appreciation for how dramatically contrary this is to historic Methodist practice as well as to the present reality of many thriving congregations of various denominations throughout the United States and the world. (In my last job I wrote more on this theme in advance of the 2008 General Conference).

The burden of proof is always on those making a positive truth claim or proposal, such as Amendment #1. Yet I have yet to see advocates of this amendment address some very key questions. Given my conviction that no annual conference delegate should vote for this amendment without having these questions first answered, and for the sake of promoting civil and substantive discussion of the issues, I post the questions here and would especially appreciate responses from those who have supported Amendment #1:

-Early voting results have shown significant opposition to this amendment. While this should of course not be binding on the rest of the annual conferences, should this at least give annual conference delegates some pause, and justify scheduling plenty of time for thorough and substantive debate rather than rushing to vote (as so often happens)?

-If the goal is really just to address questions related to homosexuality, why not come back in four years with another Constitutional amendment narrowly tailored to just address that, rather than this much more broadly-worded amendment?

-I recently spoke with a UM pastor who had an actual case of a man seeking to become a full member of his church for the sole purpose of seeking to organize a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan—in New Hampshire of all places! Other cases recently faced by pastors include someone seeking immediate church membership solely for the purpose of being able to participate in an upcoming congregational vote on a land sale in which this person had an interest and a man seeking to join a local congregation solely to harass and cause discomfort for his ex-wife that he had recently divorced in a mean-spirited and vindictive manner. Yet if this amendment passes the minister would be force to grant full membership (and hence leadership eligibility) to these persons upon demand. What positive good is served by depriving pastor’s of their historic role of compassionate pastoral oversight in these specific cases?

-The amendment seems to essentially change the Constitution from saying that no one who takes the vows can be denied membership because of race, etc. to saying that no one who takes the vows can be denied membership for any reason. Wouldn't the somewhat vague wording at least arguably conflict with the practice of many UMC congregations of having required new members' classes?

-Anyone who's seen motions get debated and amended at annual or General Conference can tell you this is often a very rushed process resulting in some embarassingly sloppy wording. This appears to be the case with Amendment #1. If "all persons," period, are eligible to receive the sacramentS," and this is placed in a separate sentence from the one mentioning "taking vows declaring the Christian faith," would this not mean that "all persons" demanding adult baptism shall be entitled to this sacrament, regardless of whether or not they profess Christian faith (as long as they don't seek membership)?

-Would removing the non-discrimination criteria from the final sentence of Paragraph 4 conflict with United Methodist Women and United Methodist Men excluding some UMC members on the basis of gender? What implications would this sentence change have for the myriad of sensible structural rules that, for instance, limit participation in certain "organizational units of the Church" to those affiliated with the annual conference related to this organizational unit?

-In my quiet time last night, I made it to Romans 15 and was struck by verse 7: "Accept one another then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." This seems to raise some very fundamental theological questions underlying the Amendment #1 debate, such as: How exactly does Christ accept people? Do all individuals have personal sin to repent of, or is Christ's message simply one of affirming us as we are and not daring to call us to any sort of life change? How, if at all, should the Church have a structurally built-in expectation of human fallenness? And in the course of these debates, is our ultimate goal "to bring praise to God," or is it something else?

-This amendment would initially seem to firmly establish for all UMC congregations a divide in which no "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" can ever be ordained as clergy OR denied membership as laity. What exactly is the justification for establishing a rigidly two-tiered system of moral expectations for different members of the body?

-Many proponents of Amendment #1 have seemed to very unlovingly demonize the Rev. Ed Johnson of Virginia, in the course of their 4-year crusade to have this evangelical pastor defrocked, of which Amendment #1 is a part. Some of the rhetoric about him has been so distorted as to qualify as bearing false witness. Has anyone in the MFSA/Reconciling Movement spoken out against such unloving and truth-stretching treatment of him?

"Theology of the Body" for United Methodists

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:44:00 +0000

I just wanted to plug a cool event for United Methodists and others coming up on May 21. UMC pastors can get Continuing Education Unit (CEU) credit for this.

Earlier his papal career, the last pope, John Paul II, gave a multi-year series of landmark lectures promoting what one promoter describes as an "integrated vision of the human person - body, soul, and spirit."

What can United Methodists and other Christians who do not accept key points of Roman Catholic doctrine learn from the late Pope's Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan? What helpful or at least provocative theological insights might have to offer us on such questions as:

What is the real dignity of the created human person?
Why were we created male and female, and what does that teach us about God?
What is the deepest meaning of human sexuality, and how does spousal love reflect divine love?
How does this "Theology of the Body" specifically address secular Western culture's popular notion "that our bodies are nothing more than material objects to be used (or abused) for personal pleasure of convenience"?

These and other intriguing questions will be addressed at this event on Thursday, May 21 from 9:30am - 5:00pm at the Sheridan Hotel in New Bern, North Carolina. The "official" information on the gathering can be found here. The key speaker will be Dr. Paul J. Griffiths, a professor at Duke Divinity School.

The event is sponsored by the New Bern District of the United Methodist Church, Lifewatch, and Transforming Congregations.

An Under-Explored Angle of the Anglican Sex Fights

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:19:00 +0000

I have written earlier about how it is extremely ignorant to portray the current ideological divisions within Episcopal Church, USA (ECUSA) and within the worldwide Anglican Communion as only or even primarily about homosexuality.

That being said, Faith J. H. McDonnell of IRD has a striking article in a recent issue of World magazine on "How sexual politics in the Episcopal Church affects churches in Africa."

Some highlights:

"What [a Sudanese former "Lost Boy"] did not know was that in the U.S. Episcopal Church, affirming one's sexual orientation is as much a justice and human-rights issue as genocide."

"In fact, one church's human-rights issue is creating another church's human-rights crisis. "

"Islamists had slaughtered thousands of Christians in [Bishop Josiah] Idowu-Fearon's diocese, and Christians in Nigeria are willing to die for their faith, he said. But to be undermined by Western abandonment of biblical authority is a crushing blow. "

Sudanese Anglican Archbishop Daniel "Deng Bul said Christians in Sudan 'are called infidels by the Islamic world when they hear our brothers and sisters from the Christian world talking about same-sex [relationships] to be blessed.' When Muslims link the churches in Sudan with the churches that have left biblical teaching on homosexuality, this gives them a way to say that Christians are evil: 'It will give them the upper hand to kill our people,' the archbishop warned. "

Read the whole article here.

It is probably beyond the scope of this one post to once and for all decide the important fundamental issue of whether or not there is anything inherently wrong with homosexual practice.

And of course, the realities of violence and threats of violence do not, in and of themselves, mean that the theologically liberal faction is necessarily wrong on that question. However, advocates of liberalization of sexual-ethics standards in the Anglican Communion (and for that matter, in other church bodies) can ill afford to ignore the sorts of questions raised by McDonnell's article simply because they are difficult--at least so long as such advocates value credibility as crusaders of a righteous defense of persecuted minorities.

Such questions as: Is it fair to suggest that ECUSA's leadership regards GLBT causes as no less important than that of opposing genocide? Why should it? Can ECUSA liberals offer a better response in words to the points raised by Idowu-Fearon, Deng Bul, et al other than simply ignoring these points completely or offering dismissive one-liners--either of which makes ECUSA liberals appear callously unconcerned with the extreme suffering of so many of their fellow Anglicans? What about in actions? While ECUSA GLBT advocates may not have directly committed or promoted these acts of violence against African Anglicans, what have these relatively comfortable, wealthy Westerners done thus far to alleviate any such indirect effects that may come about as a result of their actions?

In light of the above, a number of traditionalist Anglicans (within and without ECUSA) see a striking disconnect between liberal ECUSA rhetoric of bravely enduring strong persecution for the sake of a righteous cause while liberal Episcopalians in fact are generally among the top end of the world's richest 10% and free of any sort of physical violence for their stand, and the suffering, including serious threats to life and limb, that their actions impose (albeit indirectly) on African Anglicans--who, BTW are generally not among the world's richest 10%. Does this narrative have enough merit to warrant a shift in rhetoric on the part of theologically liberal Anglicans?

Turn Off Your Lights for an Hour of No-Power

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:28:00 +0000

Recently came across this interesting idea: Earth Hour.

Basically, it's another one of those calls for a simple, massive grassroots action whose effects would be more symbolic than effectual, though the whole idea is at least thoughtful an interesting. For the sake of the environment, the idea is that people all around the world will be turning off their lights and other power for one hour.

The time for this synchronised action is... 8:30pm - 9:30pm.

Nuts, I'm typing this within that time window.

Well, I suppose that those of us in more northern locations where the sun sets early, can get a special dispensation to take our hour-of-no-power at some other time. ANNNNNND, the web site gives the above times, but does not say in which time zone, so I do it, it will probably be around 8:30pm somewhere.

I guess the bottom line is that it would be good for all of us to just try a powerless hour some time in or around this weekend, and pick it at a time when we might normally use power. And more generally support efforts to minimize wasteful practices.

NEED MONEY FOR WEED AND T-MOBIL

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:18:00 +0000

Actual text on the cardboard sign of a panhandler I recently passed in Harvard Square.

I guess there's something to be said for honesty...

"That's so gay!"

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:38:00 +0000

Recently came across this good message online:

Video link here.

I suppose that I should say by way of disclaimer that I still fully subscribe to the old-fashioned belief that sex is too great a gift for anything but the context of marriage, and that I still acknowledge the many people, including folk I know, whose own experience has empirically refuted the idea that a homosexual orientation, at least for them, is as immutable as race. (tangential aside: the "T" part indicates that key GLBT activist leaders themselves do not regard even genetic predetermination as sufficient cause for treating one's sexuality as immutable)

But that being said, I see no reason why all of us, regardless of our positions on other specific matters regarded to the emotionally charged issue of homosexuality, cannot work to make our national discourse more civil. I certainly understand that no "side" has any sort of monopoly on mean-spirited and hateful treatment of the Other.

But it is important for those of us opposed to the sorts of far-reaching changes proposed within church and society related to homosexuality to recognize that same-sex attraction is rarely, if ever a chosen "orientation" (though it's also important to morally distinguish this from voluntary actions) , and to recognize that there are many people, preciously loved by God and created within His own image, within the gay and lesbian communities who have suffered much unnecessary hurt from callous and uncaring treatment from others within and without the church, still carrying deep-seated pain around with them, and that nothing is helped by common slurs that dehumanize and insult people. It is not enough to simply refrain from using such language ourselves; we should also have the courage to (diplomatically) speak up when others do so. The fact that it is not always easy to balance our positions on sexual morality and the definition of marriage with opposing anti-gay slurs and homophobia (a term I prefer defining much more narrowly than most everybody who talks about it) is in itself not sufficient excuse for inaction.

Yet another blog post ends with me having rambled on longer than planned. The short version would be: "Just say 'That's so lame!' instead"

UPDATE: An anonymous commenter made a good point about how my last line essentially did the same thing to physically disabled people as the original expression in question does to gay people. I do not see myself as ordinarily a fan of ultra-"political correctness" but I am a fan of respect, and there are clear logical parallels here. So I stand corrected. Perhaps I should just have to stick with "That's so stupid!" or better, yet, "That's so Emma-and-Julia!" or, per an earlier post, "That's so Punxsutawney Phil!"

Signs of the Times: Zombies

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:46:00 +0000

Some innovative hackers recently went to some great lengths to warn fellow Texans about a "grave" danger:

For the record, I decry any and all forms of vandalism. However, it's also hard not to appreciate a creative sense of humor.

Hat tip: John (the once and future Methodist).

Methodist Blogroll Weekly Roundup...

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:01:00 +0000

... is now up!

Kudos to Allan Bevere for his tireless work in putting this together, week after week.

Calling all Bostoan-area Seminary Students and Alumni!

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:40:00 +0000

If anyone reading happens to know of any faculty, current students or "recent" alumni of any of the nine schools constituting the Boston Theological Institute (BTI) - Andover Newton Theological School, Boston College School of Theology and Ministry (former Weston Jesuit School of Theology), Boston College Department of Theology, Boston University School of Theology, Episcopal Divinity School, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, or St. John's Seminary - who may currently blog or may at least have maintained one within the last few months, please let me know by leaving a comment or else e-mailing jsal2010-at-gmail-dot-com.

As you can see at the left sidebar, I've already started to gather a few.

Anti-Kudos of the Month: Punxsutawney Phil

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:02:00 +0000

For February, it goes to Punxsutawney Phil.

The little &*$#^&@$%$&^@ saw his shadow on Monday, and with a vengeance! The weather was looking better and better until then, at which point the temps plummeted. The wind chill was NEGATIVE eight degrees Farenheit when I went to class this morning!

"Coincidence"? How naive can people get??

The sad details and picture can be found here.

The TRUE Nefarious Powers Controlling Both U.S. Political Parties

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:08:00 +0000

For years, I've heard various people complain about how American politics is so corrupt and dismal, with both of the major political parties - despite some nuanced, window-dressing differences - being ultimately, fundamentally aligned against justice, decency, and the American people.

After all, depending on the ideological leanings of the complainer, the lament is how the top leadership of both the Democrats and the GOP show that when push comes to shove, they really operate as primarily beholden to the warmongers, socialist-big-government machine, corporate shills, elite-limousine-liberals, oligarchs, plutocrats, theocrats, abortocrats, gun-o-crats, pollutocrats, and/or Harvardcrats whose corrupt access to disproportionate power enables them to trap our entire society in inescapable subservience to the evil agendas and policies of this or that tiny cabal of puppetmasters.

However, all such complaints dramatically fail to see the bigger picture.

In a shocking new expose, the International Business Times reveals how now-President Obama, like Presidents Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and Ford before him, is a card-carrying member of that elite 10% of Americans who are wrong-handed.

Think about it: only 10% of the population, but two-thirds of the Presidents in the last generation. What's that tell you?

The 2008 election was a sure sign that this increasingly powerful elite has grown to a scary extent in their power to impose their wrong control, policies, and hands on us good, decent, patriotic, hard-working, properly right-handed folk. Senator Obama's major opponent, Senator McCain, was also wrong-handed.

This is eerily reminiscent of that Simpsons episode when the two evil aliens take over the bodies of Clinton and Dole right before the 1996 election. Except that this is frighteningly real.

Even before that 2008 farce of an "election," it was clear that no matter who won, Obama or McCain, the Southpaw Syndicate would win.

And they won.

These may be very dark days for democracy...

Another Theological Profile Quiz

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:56:00 +0000

Well, looks like I may have been in the right church/denomination after all.

So I took this quiz - which is online, and therefore scientific and therefore infallible - and it told me:

"You Scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly [sic] by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

82%

Classical Liberal

61%

Roman Catholic

57%

Reformed Evangelical

57%

Neo orthodox

54%

Emergent/Postmodern

46%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

39%

Fundamentalist

36%

Modern Liberal

Not quite sure why I scored as high as I did for "Classical Liberal" or how exactly that's defined as different from "Modern Liberal."

Some of my score is probably skewed by my really not liking the way some of the questions were worded.

All the same, such quizzes are always fun.

Which raises the $60,000 question: What's in your theological wallet??

(point of clarification: the scope of this quiz is limited to Christian traditions)

Coming Soon to a Xmas Stocking Near You

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:58:00 +0000

This fake commercial so reminds me of some of the gifts my relatives actually give each other.

[Video Link]

Of course, what counts is the thought--and Jesus!

On the Bodaciousness of the Bible

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:36:00 +0000

From a card I just sent to my Godson:

"I've personally, ultimately found the Bible ... to be the most intriguing and engaging Story I've ever read of

murder and the meaning of life, creation and crime, Truth and treason, wars and worship, honor and brutal honesty, deception and destruction, action and adultery, envy and evil, violation and vengeance, suspense and seduction, the silly and the supernatural, sin and sacrifice, romance and redemption, edification and escapes, fighting and forgiveness--and most of that's just by the time you get through Genesis!"*

*a couple years ago, I recall hearing Bishop N. T. Wright say something similar, but failing to track down the exact quote from him, I had to try to come up with something else.

Update on Life and this Whole "Blogging" Thing

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:50:00 +0000

Well, as I look back on what I've blogged so far, I see it's been MUCH more infrequent than I had originally envisioned.

This blog largely originated out of my having left four-and-a-half years of employment with the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) to begin a masters program at Harvard Divinity School (HDS) and missing the opportunity for the outlet I had had for public writing and commentary.

However, I've found grad school to be WAY too time-consuming to allow for as much blogging as I might like. I honestly don't know how others, like Methoblogosphere titan John the (other) Methodist manage to do it. While I expect future posts to continue to not be all that frequent, I am not completely giving up on the Lomperian Review.

If you would like be notified by e-mail when new posts are added to this blog, please e-mail me with "BLOG SUBSCRIBE" in the Subject line.

I also added an RSS-feed thingy on the side, though I'm still not sure how that is supposed to work.

With all of that being said, I suppose it's time for some more substantial post content.

Life in New England's been going pretty well. But here are a few things that have surprised me.

1. A lot of local people really DO talk with the stereotypical, replace-your-Rs-with-Hs accents. At first I thought they were just joking around, when folk were in fact quite earnest about pahking theih cah in Hahvuhd Yahd.

2. A rather disproportionately high number of women up here have tattoos.

3. Apparently, people in New England (at least the Boston area) have not yet gotten the memo that cars now have this awesome new invention called "blinkers" or "turn signals." This state-of-the-art technology turns on a flashy light that lets other cars know when you're about to change lanes, so that you can give fair warning before SWERVING RIGHT THE FREAK IN FRONT OF THEM!! If any readers know anyone who is now, has ever been, or ever may be a resident of New England, please tell them about this invention to make sure no one gets left out.

4. It's freaking cold up here! As the weeks go on this Southern boy's getting increasingly annoyed at those dang pilgrims for being too lazy to have pointed their ship just a few more degrees to the South.

5. Having lived in Chicago and DC and visited New York several times, the public trains in Boston are hands-down the loudest internally.

6. According to a recent tour, the community surrounding Harvard looks down on the University as a bastion of conservatism, since "only" 70+ % of the students voted Democratic in a recent Presidential election. (the number would be nowhere near that low if you singled out the Div school)

7. It's interesting to see theological liberals as well as theological conservatives around here say that there's not great differences between the numerous Unitarian Universalist congregations around here and so many of the mainline Protestant congregations in the area.

8. Regional reputations notwithstanding, even people here can be quite friendly. Though it's still not okay to say "hi" to people on the street you don't know like it is in other parts of the country.

9. While this region served as a key incubator for such heterodox movements as Unitarianism, Universalism, and Christian science, central seeds of the Holiness movement can also be traced to here.

10. If you're blessed to live in a city with a street-grid system, don't take it for granted. Boston/Cambridge's confusingly non-straight windedness has greatly heightened my appreciation for DC's well-ordered, oh-so-logical grid layout.

As for the theological environment of HDS, before I left I assured fellow evangelicals that I doubted I would encounter anything here more radical than the various crazy things I was sent around reporting on for IRD. So far, this prediction has held true.

Also, despite having been here over a hundred days since the start of this semester, the Bible still remains my final authority on matters of doctrine and morals, and I can still recite the Nicene Creed without crossing my fingers behind my back.! :)

UMC (today) on Beginning- and End-of-Life Ethics

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:07:00 +0000

Here's a somewhat belated review of the last General Conference of the United Methodist Church in terms of pro-life concerns, put in historical context.

I must have written this out of IRD Withdrawal Syndrome (IWS).

I wrote about the same topic in a couple other places right before I left that job for grad school. But this latest article isn't quite AS narrowly focused on abortion, and also says more about the Southern Baptist Convention's dramatic position change on abortion.

There seems to be growing recognition that despite its public claims to represent ALL American United Methodists, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) represents no more than a small minority in the positions it advocates in our name. (for more details on that, see here)

Predictions Part II: US Senate

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:20:00 +0000

I expect the Dems to win:
AR - the state GOP really seems to have problems recruiting strong candidates to send to Washington
CO
DE
IA
IL - the state GOP still hasn't seemed to recovered from the self-destruction wrought by its corrupt Governor six years ago
LA - a huge missed opportunity for the GOP
MA
MI
MT
NC - GOP incumbent Libby Dole's 11th-hour ad entirely focusing on one guy associated with the "Godless Americans PAC" holding a fundraiser for her opponent smacks of desperation, especially the way in which the ad's close seems to (falsely) present her Sunday school-teacher opponent as saying "There is no God!" While the merits of the ad could be debated further, the fact that it's been widely condemned in the state press indicates that a risky attempt by a trailing incumbent to shake up the race has only backfired.
NH
NJ
NM
RI
OR - Republican Gordon Smith's incumbency, centrist positions, and support from newspapers and Democrats across the state probably won't be enough for him this time to overcome the Democratic wave in this blue state
SD (another one that could have been a lot closer with a strong Republican candidate)
WV

and the GOP to win:
AL
GA
ID
KY
ME
MN - the largely left-leaning Independence Party candidate may attract enough anti-GOP voters wary of foul-mouthed-comedian-and-pundit-turned-Democratic-politician Al Franken to save incumbent Norm Coleman's political career
MS (x2)
NE - arguably a missed open-seat opportunity for Democrats
KS
OK
SC
TN
TX
WY

So the next Congress should have a Senate breakdown of 58D - 42R (assuming that Lieberman doesn't get expelled from the Democratic caucus).

Presidential Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:42:00 +0000

While I'm putting this up later than I had planned, here are the Lomperian Review's first quadrennial electoral vote predictions.

First of all, while there's been lots of speculation about many states potentially breaking with long-established partisan alignments, there have remained many that each camp has been able to easily count on without spending a dime, with interesting regional concentrations:

Obama's base = California, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont (200 electoral votes),

McCain's base = Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Wyoming (104 electoral votes, about half of Obama's starting point)

Now comes the prediction for the states that have ever been considered swing-able in the Obama-McCain contest.

Obama gets:
CO - the polling consistent showing Democratic wins here for President and the open Senate seat are remarkable for a state that in 2004 had two GOP Senators and supported Bush over Kerry
FL - though I would have initially thought McCain would have a natural advantage in a state whose primary he won while the Democrats didn't campaign there. By now he may be kicking himself for not asking the GOP Governor there to be his running mate.
IA - McCain's strong opposition to ethanol subsidies led him to sit out the famous caucuses of this purplest of states
ME - (including Maine's contested rural Congressional district)
MI - the McCain campaign's early pullout spelled end of story there, Palin's protests notwithstanding
MN - the GOP could probably get this bipartisan state with a strong national wind, but no such wind is in sight this year
MO - "As goes Missouri, so goes the nation" has held true for over a century with only one exception
NH - this last bastion of New England Republicanism shows no signs of stopping its decisive blue-state conversion since 2004
NE's 5th congressional district, which basically gets its own electoral vote - I read Obama had 15 paid staff on the ground to seek this single electoral college vote, and there've been signs it may be paying off
NM - despite the GOP's nominating its most pro-immigration candidate possible, the overall Tancredo-driven tone of its primary seems to have had a terrible effect on the entire GOP brand name, driving away this Hispanic-heavy border state
NV
OH
OR/WA - I've never been able to tell these Pacific Northwest states apart, but in either place McCain's hopes of reversing the GOP's decade of decline seems to have been dashed fairly early
PA - dumb comments by Obama and Murtha about "bitter" and "redneck" voters notwithstanding, for the forseeable future this seems destined to be one of those states that the GOP keeps trying really hard to get, only to come up short
VA - the state infamously divided between its "real" and "unreal" zones has a Democratic trend going back at least to 2001, which exploding growth in its most liberal areas outside of DC
WI
TOTAL = 295 electoral votes

McCain gets:
AZ - It's not common to lose your own state unless the candidate and the state are on far opposite ends of America's political spectrum (think Romney-Massachusetts, Gore-Tennessee)
GA - Former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr's Libertarian Party challenge seems to have faded; see also SC comments about galvanized African-American voters
ID - remember that talk about how as the provoker of the largest political rally in the potato state's history, Obama may be the one who could convert this one party state? Me neither.
IN - I predict this GOP-leaning state will be close but no cigar for Obama
MT - I initially had this in the Obama column, given decisive Democratic statewide victories in the last three election cycles, and Obama's radio dominance in this driver-heavy state, but then concluded that this election is not dramatic enough to completely erase the roughly 20-point GOP advantage from 2004 in a state where the Democratic Governor has to run on things like bipartisanship and NRA support
NC - surprisingly close in the polls, but I doubt that as liberal a Democrat as Obama can win a state where even Democrats like John Edwards feel the need in their statewide campaigns to promise to not be too different from Jesse Helms. See also comments about that other Carolina.
ND - Obama may get so close, yet so far away
SD - ditto
NE (minus one - see above)
SC - I've seen punditry saying that this could be tipped simply by Obama galvinizing the state's significant black population. But the simple fact of the matter is, African-Americans constitute nowhere near to a majority of the population of this deep-red state, whose statewide Democrats of recent years have been notably to the right of the national Party mainstream.
WV - very Democratic state, but if Gore and Kerry were far too socially liberal for its voters then Obama should be as well
TOTAL = 243 electoral votes

Only time and Tuesday will tell how good of a political-crystal-ball-reader I am.

Prayers for Andrew Weaver

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:09:00 +0000

I have just learned that Andrew Weaver passed away last weekend after an extended sickness.

Weaver was an ordained member of the California-Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church, and for a while was Associate Publisher of Zion's Herald magazine (now called The Progressive Christian). Within the denomination, he was best known in recent years for his campaigning against the Bush library/institute coming to Southern Methodist University and his numerous articles, speeches, and mass e-mails strongly critiquing the United Methodist renewal movement broadly, and those of us associated with IRD/UMAction (with whom I was employed until recently) particularly.

One can go elsewhere to read the details of these controversies.

But what is more important now is prayers for his wife and other loved ones during this sad time of loss.

Bigfoot Must Die for Man to Live!

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:31:00 +0000

A friend just sent me an interesting Wall Street Journal article entitled "Look Who's Irrational Now."

Basically, it notes the recent books and screeds by the militant "New Atheists" about how crazy and untrustworthy all religious believers are, but reports on a recent survey showing how those involved in more than weekly religious worship, especially members of conservative Protestant denominations, are much less likely than the non-religious to believe in such "paranormal" things as Bigfoot, Nessie, Atlantis, and haunted houses. Apparently, this demographic discrepancy has been noted at various times in previous years.

It also reports that Bill Maher, whose new movie coming out next week promotes his message that "The plain fact is religion must die for man to live," has himself recently boasted of not believing in Western medicine.

Wishing Ye a Happy Talk Like a Pirate Day!

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:41:00 +0000

Avast, ye scurvy scallywags! This today be the International Talk Like a Pirate Day. This varrrry 'portant hol'daybe a-spreading the seven seas so that even ye landlubbers arrrrrrrr now obliged to be marrrrrrking today by such means as only a-googling with Google Pirate and answering the phone properly, if ye don't want an earrrrrrly date wit Davy Jones' locker!

Which Candidates REALLY Care?

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:11:00 +0000

With this election cycle yet again featuring opposing candidates challenging each other to publicly release their income-tax returns, the public is now privy to very interesting info about the various candidates' widely differing levels of personal generosity.

Here's how they rank in terms of percentage of gross adjusted income given to charity in 2006 and 2007:

-Sen. John McCain gave 27.3% - 28.6%

-Sen. Hillary Clinton gave 10.0% - 14.7%

-the Obamas gave 5.8% - 6.1%

-of the 89% of American households giving to charity, the average contribution is 3.1%

-since 1998, the Bidens have given 0.06% - 0.31%

-there appears to be no such public records (yet) from Gov. Sarah Palin

But how much could they each afford to give to others? The plot thickens:

-Sen. Clinton earned $20,400,000 in 2007 and $15,858,422 in 2006 (adjusted gross income)

-Sen. Obama earned $4,139,965 in 2007 and $983,826 in 2006

-Sen. McCain earned $386,527 in 2007 and $338,809 in 2006

-Sen. Biden earned $319,853 in 2007 and $248,859 in 2006

-According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median annual household income for 2006-2007 was $49,901

It's easy for politicians to be generous with other people's money. Self-sacrifice is another matter.

Hat Tip: Tax Prof Blog