We Bring Theology to Life.

Would You Renounce Your Faith in Order to Save Someone's Life?

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:43:00 +0000

posted by Eric Walters

Convert from Chad Loses Family Members for His Faith

A little over a year after becoming a Christian in Ngudungudu, Chad in December 1995, Jeje Nehamiah Baki left the town to meet up with his nomadic family in the wilderness. His wife had already returned to her parents and their nomadic lifestyle, and Baki, a former Muslim and nomadic Fulani of the Bororo dialect in Chad, was looking forward to reuniting with her and their two children. But he said his father-in-law, having learned of his conversion, seized his wife and would allow her to go back with him only if Baki renounced his Christian faith. He refused and left, returning a few years later to try again to persuade his father-in-law. The effort resulted in his father-in-law killing Baki’s first-born son, Compass Direct News reports. “Having lost my first child, and with threats to my life, I had to leave without my wife, but [returning later] only succeeded in taking away our second son.”

Source

Would you renounce your faith in order to save the life of a loved one?

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968)

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:56:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

I chose this video montage of King because of what he preached about the judgment of God, the justice of God, and the hope of a nation.
America needs more prophetic voices.
Enough said.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
--Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963

Obama Responds to the Farrakhan Issue: It Was Only a Matter of Time

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:46:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

A while ago I blogged about Senator Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, and his relationship with its Pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Trumpet Magazine, a publication of TUCC, recently honored Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam as one who "truly epitomizes greatness". This evoked the criticism of some groups who claim that Farrakhan has been the source of "anti-Semitic" remarks. These groups also called upon Obama to respond to the "Farrakhan issue" (read a related Washington Post article here), given his relationship with TUCC and Wright. The following article is from Religion Today/Crosswalk:

Obama Criticizes His Church's Honoring of 'Anti-Semitic' Farrakhan
Monisha Bansal
Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Jewish groups welcomed presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) statement condemning Rev. Louis Farrakhan - a move that he made in response to news that his spiritual adviser honored the Nation of Islam leader, despite "anti-Semitic" comments he made.

Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, whose minister - and Obama's spiritual adviser - is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Last year Wright, along with the church's magazine, Trumpet, honored Farrakhan as a man who "truly epitomized greatness" at their awards ceremony.

According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group that works to end anti-Semitism, "Farrakhan has repeatedly made hateful statements targeting Jews, whites and homosexuals. Farrakhan's bigoted and anti-Semitic rhetoric has included statements calling whites 'blue eyed devils' and Jews 'bloodsuckers' that controlled the slave trade, the government, the media and various Black individuals and organizations."

"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in a statement. "I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."

Obama has not said whether he will continue his affiliation with Wright. His campaign did not return multiple phone calls seeking comment for this article.

"This is of great concern in large part because he's not only a member of this church but maintains a close relationship to his minister," Herb London, president of the conservative Hudson Institute, told Cybercast News Service. "Since the minister has praised and even honored Farrakhan through the church, it raises questions about his affiliations as well as his true sentiments."

Ken Bandler, a spokesman for the American Jewish Committee, told Cybercast News Service that Obama's statement was "sufficient."

"We welcome Barack Obama's condemnation of the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Minister Louis Farrakhan, and his making clear that he did not agree with his church's decision to honor Farrakhan with the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award," added Abraham Foxman, ADL national director.

"Issues of racism and anti-Semitism must be beyond the bounds of politics," he said. "When someone close to a political figure shows sympathy and support for an individual who makes his name espousing bigotry, that political figure needs to distance himself from that decision.

"Senator Obama has done just that," Foxman said.

Source

Stay tuned: it's likely that this is only the beginning of a number of inquiries about Senator Obama's relationship with TUCC and its affiliated activites. I'm sure it will get quite interesting in the near future.

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

WWJD--What Would Job Do? (In a Modern Era of Prosperity Preaching)

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:17:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

Most of us are generally familiar with the biblical story of Job. After being declared “upright” by God, he nevertheless was subjected to enormous suffering and devastation. His children killed, his fortune lost, his health failing, and his hope challenged.

The friends of Job—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, try to understand and interpret the cause of his suffering. Believing that Job’s suffering is linked directly to some hidden sin, Eliphaz challenged Job to find out what sin had caused all of the trouble—because the prevailing wisdom was that righteous people do not suffer; Bildad reinforced the claim of Eliphaz and argued that Job should repent. Adding insult to injury, Zophar concurred and reasoned that Job should correct his impure thinking about God and justice. All of his friends (or the antagonists of Job) believed that his suffering was a consequence of his sin. They offered long diatribes and prescriptions to alleviate his suffering, and they sounded logical and true. But despite this, Job’s wife recommended that he just cut to the chase: curse God and die so that his suffering would end.

If Job were a modern Christian looking for answers to his predicament, I suspect that his modern day counselors—the Eliphazes, Bildads, and Zophars--would most likely be found on the NY Times Bestseller list, at Christian bookstores, on the Internet, and on cable networks. Who might play the role of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar and what would be their prescription for relieving the suffering?

For starters, Joel Osteen would tell him to think about getting Your Best Life Now, and by doing this he would be on his way to Becom[ing] a Better You ; Creflow Dollar would preach that the secret is to Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life [to] Unlock [his] Full Potential for Success and Achievement (Taffi would echo and add that Job invest in Your Spiritual Makeover). Joyce Meyer would be there to tell Job that his predicament is overcome on the Battlefield of the Mind, and victory will give him Conflict Free Living. And of course, there are multiple interlopers and opportunists who would kindly encourage Job to commit just 40 days to discover a Purpose Driven Life, and a myriad of other "essential resources" for his spiritual growth.

On a serious note, all of these counselors and “friends”—both ancient and modern--, tend to opt for the easy equation that links the circumstances of our life to what we think and do. Unfortunately, it’s a subtle reinforcement of an old problem that originates in the Garden: that man can interpret and determine his destiny. And in a modern consumer-driven culture, the quest for the Christian panacea has become a lucrative business opportunity whose payoff is much better than real estate!

To be sure, the success-oriented intentions of contemporary Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar “ministries” adopt biblical principles, but the irony is that their message has only elements of truth. Indeed, how and what we think can significantly affect our lives. But sounding biblical is not always synonymous with biblical soundness, and the propensity of the Christian success gurus to decontextualize entire passages of scripture to support their unbalanced agenda is shameful. It is an egregious abuse of preacher’s license and the trust of the people: although their teaching embraces tidbits of truth, the overall message is not truthful.

It is here where promulgating half-truths becomes more destructive than outright lies. More than ever, we must be careful that the virtues of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, patience and other fruits of a mature Christian experience are not conveniently sacrificed at the altar of personal success and happiness. Unfortunately, when this happens, our understanding and worship of God is distorted, authentic ministry vocation becomes confused, and our relationships with others are trivialized and jeopardized. (I keep searching for that scripture passage in the Gospels where Jesus declares to his disciples, “Hey boys! Aren’t we having our best life now?”)

But there is always hope. Another one of Job’s friends, Elihu, appeared later in the story (chapter 32). After all the counselors (antagonists) had offered their shallow diatribes, Elihu reminded Job that the breadth of God’s work throughout eternity is not easily understood by the simplicity of man’s thinking. Psalm 73 describes how Asaph too, found meaning in his suffering after he entered the temple, where he received counsel from God. Job and Asaph grew in character and wisdom because of suffering that was God-ordained. They realized that God cannot be reduced to obey our guttural temptations and desires for security and creature comforts. Both came to accept that the faithful endure trials and sufferings that defy easy explanation and simple calculation.

A final note for all who may have forgotten, and will be tempted to forget: the balance and totality of our life rests in the counsel, will, and hands of God—not in our own minds.

Now that’s blessed assurance of the highest order.

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

Thoughts on Religion and Science

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:31:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

As a scientist and minister, I’m often asked to comment on the whole creation/evolution debate. The following is a less scholarly response that I provided to a ministry colleague who teaches at a liberal arts college in New Jersey.

“Science gives a man knowledge, which is power; Religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.”
--Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The statement by King comments on how the world of science and the world of religion must have their fullest expression in their coexistence. Those who attempt to instigate and perpetuate rival relationships between the two lack wisdom, and fail to value what it means to be human. To be human is to ask questions—probing questions about how the world works. The disciplined “scientific eye” of the religious and non-religious afford the luxuries we enjoy through invention and advanced technology. To be sure, scientists who seek to understand the inner workings of the world through inquiry and exploration have helped to protect our children from danger, and provide healing and comfort for many.

Asking questions—whether scientific or theological, is important, and we should ask those questions with fervency, integrity, and humility. The strange irony is that we now live in an age when science and religious scholarship are more informed than ever, and unfortunately, what emerges is the competition for dominance, supremacy, and absolutism (which reflects a lack of wisdom). Thus, factions from each side (Creationists and Evolutionists) soldier up, and prepare for war in an effort to annihilate the other—hoping to strike the fatal intellectual blow to the opposition.

Over the past two decades, amid endless debates between creationists and evolutionists, children starve and die throughout the world (roughly 25,000 to 30,000 per day by most estimates), wars continue to be waged, and our earthly home weeps ever so loudly of how we—its inhabitants, have abused and “gluttoned” her limited resources, and also fashioned weapons of war with them. Those who encourage hostility between scientists and creationists might want to reflect ask what “victory” really looks like. When does anyone ever “win” the debate of creation vs. evolution? When does anyone ever say that the book (whether that be Bible or textbook) is closed on the matter of the origins of man? Will solving this debate eliminate man’s inhumanity to man? Instead of “either/or” could the answer rather be “both/and”?

Ironically, whether one believes that God created man, or man was placed on earth by creatures from other planets, or that man evolved millions of years after a random Big Bang of the “nethersphere”, we can all come to a consensus on one (scientific) fact: we are human, we must live together, and this must be the most important quest. Perhaps from this new perspective, the question of where we came from could be less important than where we will choose to go. This means that the hard work is to build the bridge that help us understand our common bonds,and that strength involves the disciplines of science, theology, and anthropology, to name a few. That’s the important "debate", and we don’t have to destroy each other along the way.

For there is a profound difference between being a human (this registers a scientific fact), and being human (this reflects an act of wisdom).

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

Getting Back to Blogging

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:34:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

Hi Folks!

Many of my friends and theo-colleagues have been wondering what happened to me: "Where are you? Why haven't you written anything on the blog?"

Fact is, I'm exhausted! [Check out the image on the right--The Causes of Fatigue]; if you find your "issue" or "issues" there like I did, then do something to heal yourself! We're no good if our bodies don't work, so if you're overworked and stressed, be sure to take care of yourself.

Besides, I need at least one of you around to post an occasional comment (Ha!).

I love the thought of blogging. Mind you, I said the THOUGHT of blogging. But blogging is work, and the day job (I am a full-time biochemistry professor, if some of you forgot or didn't know) is really hectic! This is a loaded semester for me, and teaching, doing research, writing grant proposals, and performing basic ministerial duties got the best of me this summer and fall.

So I took a much needed break! Thank God I don't have to blog for a living, but blogging does enhance my life!

So thanks to all for your comments, concerns, and encouraging words.

Now, back to the blog!

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:26:00 +0000

Is Obama's Church Membership an Obstacle, or Opportunity?

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:05:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

Newly announced presidential contender Barack Obama is no stranger to the spotlight. His bestselling book, Audacity of Hope, was titled after a sermon given by (his) Pastor Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, where Obama is a member. The Afrocentric nature of TUCC and the political outspokenness of Pastor Wright has recently become a source of controversy for the Obama campaign.

TUCC embraces black liberation theology—a brand of liberation theology that finds its roots in social justice/social gospel, contemporized by James Cone and other black theologians almost 40 years ago. Guided by the motto, “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian”, TUCC also promotes a 12-point Black Value System that guides its ministry programs and objectives. Below is an excerpt from the TUCC website:

"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

Commitment to God

Commitment to the Black Community

Commitment to the Black Family

Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence

Adherence to the Black Work Ethic

Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community

Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions

Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System. "

The contemporary black theology movement in America arose in response to white racism and discrimination. In short, Christ not only redeems, but also liberates the poor and oppressed. Black theology has helped shape black identity, self-respect, and empowerment in the post-Civil Rights Era through its continued emphasis on social justice, the social gospel, and political activism.

Only time will tell if Obama’s affiliation with TUCC represents a political asset, or liability. Some political pundits suggest that the ethnocentric/black emphasis of the 12 precepts/covenantal statements at TUCC, the ambiguous meaning of a “disavowal of the pursuit middleclassness” , detracts from a centrist appeal that Obama needs to win the White House. Others argue that Obama’s association with Pastor Wright (who favors the rights of Palestinians) and membership at TUCC could alienate some voters, particularly those who are white or Jewish. Obama called Wright the night before his February 10 presidential announcement and rescinded his invitation for Wright to give the opening invocation. Alternatively, some think that the TUCC agenda could endear Obama (a product of an interracial marriage) to more black voters.

One may question whether some of the Black Values of TUCC (established in 1981) have outlived their usefulness or should undergo revision. Moreover, the degree to which Obama is obliged to uphold any or all of them is a matter of personal preference and conviction.
Without question, we live in an era where race, color, ethnicity—and the theological perspectives that emerge from them, have now become the new subtexts of the political debate. To be sure, the Obama-TUCC connection should challenge all Americas to engage in a substantive examination of faith that is informed by race (and racism), and its articulation within the political arena.

How Barack Obama defines the meaning of “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian,” may ultimately determine the fate of his campaign.

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

Christian Liberty and the Lottery: Should You Play?

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 07:58:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

March 5-11 is National Problem Gambling Awareness Week, and by coincidence (or divine intervention?) individuals in multiple States are hurriedly competing for the grand prize Mega Millions lotto drawing, worth a record $370 million.

Last night I stopped by my local Seven-Eleven store to pick up a few items. At the checkout, while talking to my friend James on my mobile phone, I remarked about the large number of people waiting to purchase lottery tickets for the $370 million prize. At the time it was estimated that New Yorkers were buying more than 1 million tickets an hour, and Virginia retailers were selling about 8,550 tickets per minute as Tuesday night’s drawing approached. James asked me to buy a ticket, offering to split the cost, and the prize if we won. I didn’t think it was such a great idea, so I declined.

I’ve never played the lottery before, never been seriously “tempted” to go for all those millions. Admittedly, this is probably related to some rudimentary teaching I learned when I first became a Christian: gambling was wrong and sinful, like throwing money away. That was the black and white about gambling, but over the years, I’ve become more aware of the responsibility of my freedom to choose. To be sure, today the reasons for choices are not always so black and white, and more often than not, at best they are shades of gray. I’ll stop here.

I realize that there are many Christian people who don’t think twice about playing the lottery, and many of my friends and colleagues consistently play Lotto. I even know some who quietly pray that God will help them win (To be honest, I think that’s a bit crazy—but I digress.). I’m reminded about the story of a minister who preached regularly from his pulpit against gambling, only to be surprised one day when his wife held the lucky number. Suddenly the skeptic preacher was converted by the gospel of Lotto because he believed God had blessed his family!

I’m interested in your thoughts about Christians and gambling behavior, but before we are tempted to rehash old points and become “preachy”, let’s consider the following:

· State lotteries provide significant funding for public schools and other essential services for many citizens and local communities.

· Some share the opinion that playing the Lotto is very similar to investing in the stock market. Is this merely a case in semantics?

· What practices, other than playing the Lotto, constitute behavior that can be considered as gambling?

· Do spiritual communities or churches rely upon traditions and protocols that a) resemble gambling, or b) are promote addictive behavior?

My point is not to demonize or condemn those individuals who play the lottery, but instead to challenge us to think critically about choices we make in many areas of our lives. As Christians, what central (biblical and extra-biblical) factors inform the rationale for our choices, and do they account for a sense of individual, spiritual, and communal responsibility?

In this vein, National Problem Gambling Awareness Week can help believers understand that gambling isn’t fundamentally about money. Instead, this week can focus us toward greater resourcefulness, responsibility, and stewardship.

I welcome your thoughts.

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

Black Beauty, Obesity, and "Norbit"

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:10:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

Last year at a local theatre near Baltimore, I participated in a questionnaire about the trailer for Eddie Murphy’s newest movie, Norbit. In the movie, Eddie Murphy plays Norbit, who is engaged, or “chained” to Rasputia (also played by Eddie Murphy), a dark-skinned, authoritarian, obese woman who incessantly dwindles Norbit’s manhood. Thandy Newton (light-skinned and thin) plays Kate—Norbit’s dreamgirl. Murphy is a multitalented comic genius who capitalizes on Rasputia’s dominance, insecurity, and self-image to generate laughs.

Jasmyne Cannick recently wrote about her deep frustration with Norbit because of its negative, stereotypic characterization of obese black women ("Why Norbit Sent Me Into Orbit"). To me, the trailer for Norbit encouraged a strange ambivalence of laughing at something that in reality shouldn’t be funny, because the comedy relates to the social and historic tragedies about body image/obesity and skin color preference, respectively. Tim Cogshell, in a review of Norbit, comments about this:

“…there is a great deal of mockery of the obese in Norbit, but therein lies a bit of truth, too: We do mock the obese, don't we?”

“…The lithe Kate (who seems to transform into a white girl post her childhood persona) juxtaposed with the big, fat, mean Rasputia may simply look like more of the same fat-bashing humor we've come to expect in movies such as this, and it is, but that's not all it is. There is a mirror in this movie, reflecting a lot of things, not the least of which is that we are a mean, fat country, that ironically doesn't like mean fat people.”

I often wonder if there are significant numbers of African American women and girls who suffer silently about their body images in light of the widespread popularity of movies like Norbit, particularly in a society that worships being thin. According to the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute, more than 80 percent of midlife African American women are overweight or obese, 52 percent have high blood pressure, and 14 percent have been diagnosed with diabetes.

In Baltimore, some churches have designated Red Dress Sundays to encourage lifestyle changes aimed to address the problem of obesity, heart disease, and stroke in African American women. But what can African American churches do within their own communities to further address the negative perceptions of obesity and skin color preference that saturate our entertainment and media outlets?

Perhaps a more holistic approach might employ strategies within our faith communities that:
· Demonstrate the practice of healthy diet and exercise programs within the life of the church. Food preferences in the church can be heart-healthy, and nutrient-dense.
· Confront negative stereotypes about dark-skinned, obese women and explore roots in historic racism. Education and discussion forums can quell suspicions and purge long-held assumptions about the obese. Open forums can also address the taboo subjects of skin color and hair texture preferences.
· Investigate how these factors contribute to the emotional and spiritual stress of obese women. Body image/body perception, and the image of beauty in American society should be explored. What is a healthy self-image?
· Challenge Christians to better define what makes for quality entertainment in our churches, homes and communities. What are the latitudes and limitations when it comes to movies, music, and other venues of entertainment? And how do parental/adult choices influence our children?

To be sure, Norbit is just a movie and many will watch, laugh, and go on with their lives. However, as a caution, I quote Jasmyne Cannick: “So while today it's Norbit, in a few weeks it will be Reno 911!: Miami, with Niecy Nash as Deputy Raineesha Williams and the big Black booty jokes.”

Sometimes cheap comedy costs more than the price of a ticket.

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

Gangsta Rap and Pulpit Wealth: A Tale of Two Greeds

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:13:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

"The church ought to say, 'If you can't do more positive rap, shut up and get the hell out,' ”

Those were the words of Reverend Michael Battle, commenting on how gangsta rap has negatively influenced black youth and black women. Battle is a Baptist preacher and President of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta.

Speaking to an audience of pastors and church leaders at the West Angeles Church of God in Christ (Los Angeles, CA), Battle charged that gangsta rap has stolen "the soul of positive rap," meant to articulate the "sociological circumstances" of African Americans, especially men. Some raps capture the obstacles facing a teen as he tries to "become a man … somebody with character in their turbulent circumstances."

Battle also alleged that the "wealth, health and prosperity part" of the [black] church as "what gangsta rap is to the hip-hop."

I think the comparison between gangsta rap and pulpit greed that Battle speaks of is quite fitting. It’s always encouraging to hear black clergy speak against self-inflicted abuse in the black community. Both gangsta rap and prosperity preachers prey upon their listeners with the empty promise of riches, respect, and prestige.

However, in ministry talk is cheap, and I’m concerned about what happens next. In the early 1990s C. Delores Tucker was one of the first African American leaders to galvanize a campaign against the emerging gangsta rap culture. Despite the Pastors and Laity Conference having deliberated the problems of gangsta rap/pulpit greed at its previous two conferences, I do not sense that there is a plan to mobilize their outrage into a foreseeable movement for transformation.

How do ministers and theologians move beyond "preaching and analysis" about the industry of gangsta rap and pulpit greed, to organized protest in the hope for transformation of our communities?

I have my own ideas and strategies, but I’d like to hear your suggestions.

What do you think?

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:25:00 +0000

"Charity is so loosely defined in our society that it is possible to be fully engaged in it with our time, talents, and money without becoming charitable ourselves."
--Professor Kortright Davis, Howard University School of Divinity

Pro-Life Pharmacists and the Morning After Pill

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:46:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

In August 2006, the FDA approved the sale of Plan B, the “morning after” pill at pharmacies across the country. Plan B hormone pills can be sold to women over the age of 18 without prescription as an emergency contraceptive to prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

This week the Cincinnati Post reported that 23 year-old Tashina Byrd complained to the Ohio governor’s office because Wal-Mart workers refused to sell her the contraceptive. According to the article, Brent Beams, the pharmacist, assumed the status of “conscientious objector” and denied Byrd's request for the contraceptive pills because he believes "in preserving life, and I do not believe in ending life, and life begins at conception.” Wal-Mart is currently investigating the incident.

Major pharmacy chains such as CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreens carry Plan B in all their stores and have pledged to ensure that customers can buy it at each store even if a certain employee declines to sell the pill because of moral objections. CVS officials say that a pharmacist who refuses to sell Plan B must arrange for another employee to sell it, and the pharmacist must ensure that the customer "is served promptly and treated with respect." (kaisernetwork.org)

Some state legislatures are considering laws that would grant pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense drugs related to contraception or abortion. Still others consider laws that require pharmacies to fill any legal prescription for birth control, … which requires pharmacies that stock the morning-after pill to dispense it without delay. (New York Times, April 2005)

What can be an appropriate Christian response or action when religious liberties and civil liberties seem to conflict?

Should pro-life pharmacists impose their ethics or morality upon customers?

Does “conscientious objection” also apply to the sale of condoms, other forms of contraception, or any other product that may conflict with an employee’s moral convictions?

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

The Execution of Saddam Hussein: Evangelical Eyes Wide Shut

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:12:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

Ever since the execution of Saddam Hussein, a hush—a strange, eerie, silence—has overtaken many evangelical Christian online publications, commentaries, and weblogs. Very few, if any, have mentioned the episode. I previously wrote about how America’s failure to capture Osama Bin Laden gave President George W. Bush and neoconservative evangelicals license to fashion Saddam Hussein as the scapegoat for American angst after September 11, 2001. Won’t bother with that again.

This loud silence intrigues me. Perhaps many of the evangelicals who supported and promoted the unjust Iraqi war now sit silently in the dark, in dim shadows because, if they bear any conscience, they might be ashamed of their “Christian” arrogance that helped to fuel the destruction of an entire country that used to be called Iraq.

Perhaps the silence is because watching or imagining a dead body dangle from a noose is gruesome. Let’s face it, hanging just isn’t a “kindler, gentler” form of killing people. And besides, hanging for execution and entertainment purposes has been out of style in America for quite a few decades. We prefer techno-stuff like smart bombs, precision targeted missiles, and lethal injection; it’s so much more nouveau chic, with limited collateral damage to our psyche. Or at least we think so.

For many, Saddam’s hanging was just a bit too close to home. Neoconservative evangelical ideologs who promoted this war in the spirit of nationalism and patriotism must now wrestle with the emptiness and shame that comes from scapegoating Hussein. For their part, President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Tony Blair are predictably silent because the death of Hussein was not the political watershed or catharsis that they expected. If there is verifiable concept of a just war, the Iraqi war does not qualify. Invasion didn’t marshal the virtues of democracy, but instead, revealed man’s inhumanity to man.

[American military casualties, 25,000; almost 3,000 U.S. soldiers are dead; over 650,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Do the math; calculate the cost.]

Ironically, Hussein got the last word on bloodthirsty neoconservative evangelicals, and on many of us who remain complacent about the criminal nature of this unjust war. The death of Hussein demonstrates to all of us that scapegoating only leads to more death and destruction.

Was Saddam an evil tyrant and dictator? You bet. Was he guilty of crimes against humanity? You bet. Do I believe that God will judge him for that inhumanity? You bet.

But new, and more probing questions must now be asked. Are there tyrants and dictators in America? You bet. Do those tyrants and dictators masquerade as Christians? You bet. Are they guilty of crimes against humanity? You bet. Will God judge the guilty for their inhumanity? You bet.

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

Miracles and the Sovereignty of God: Who’s In Charge?

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:12:00 +0000

by Carolus Taylor

Recently a Christian lady shared with me about a personal struggle that she was going through. Then, she asked me an interesting question: “When do I stop believing God for a miracle?” I told her that I thought a more appropriate and accurate question might be, “When do I start believing God for a miracle?”

The cultural propensity to “name it, claim it” and “just tell God to bless us with whatever we want”, is to claim a miracle from God when God has not spoken. The advocates of this shortsightedness tend to employ Mark 11: 22-24 (“...whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”v. 24b, NIV) as a scriptural carte blanche for what we interpret as our personal miracle. Thus, I can speak my miracle into existence! I said it with my mouth, I believe it in my heart then I must receive it!

But instead of us trying to make God do something for us in response to our every whim and whimper, perhaps the more accurate way that we should think about miracles is to start believing God for a miracle when God says God is going to perform a miracle. Is there any place in the Bible where the God of the universe relinquishes ultimate sovereignty to us? Does faith give us the right to give directives to the omnipotent, omniscient God?

It seems to me that faith—however feeble or strong, should lead us to completely trust in God. We trust whatever God wants to do, whenever God wants to do it, and however God chooses to do it. This means that in sickness and in health, we trust God; in good times and in bad times, we trust God. When the storm is raging or when the sea of life is calm, we put our trust in God. But the patience of our suffering teaches us that we are ill-prepared to determine our own destiny, and that God is sovereign.

In this light, God’s sovereignty means that there are no experiences in life of which God is not aware. Nothing happens to us that surprises God. God is in control, and must have a plan and purpose for God’s will in our lives. The wisdom of faith does not always focus on what God delivers us from, but on how God’s sovereignty keeps and sustains us in the midst of hard times (and good times). Thus, it is foolish to claim a miracle when God has not spoken. We can only with surety, claim what God says God is going to do.

Rather than teaching people to claim miracles or proclaim miracles, clergy must first and foremost encourage parishioners to accept and live under the sovereignty of God. This is not to suggest we should not believe God to do miracles; indeed, God is a miracle worker. What I am suggesting is that we learn to believe God, and to understand scripture within its context. The miracle is in the hand of God.

Several years ago, I visited a ten year old girl who was hospitalized with hepatitis. I spent a Friday evening at the hospital with her family, and throughout the weekend we fervently prayed, and anointed the child with oil. Some family members even spoke in tongues as they prayed for the child’s healing. I went to the church, laid before the altar, cried, and called out every Bible verse I knew about healing. On Sunday night, the child died. I was crushed, angry, and disappointed with God. I asked, “God—how is it when we really believe you are going to do something, you don’t do it?”

Then I remembered that it was not a matter of faith or believing; it was the sovereign will of God that ultimately reigned supreme.

Carolus Taylor is the Senior Pastor of the Friendship Baptist Church in Columbia, Missouri.

Should Christians Aspire to be Rich?

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:18:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

An article this week in the Baltimore Sun entitled, “Minister rich in spirit,” profiled the ministry of Reverend Jamaal Harrison-Bryant, pastor of Empowerment Temple AME Church in Baltimore, MD. The article describes how Harrison-Bryant's message of financial and personal empowerment has catapulted him to celebrity status amongst a new generation of Christians. It has also afforded Bryant access to political, economic, and social/cultural clout, in addition to a lifestyle of unashamed opulence.

I received an email today from a colleague who read the article. Here’s some of what he wrote:

“…[The] ministry of Jesus, as described twice in the gospel of Matthew, was to serve the people through teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and disease among the people. This was done because he had compassion for the people—or more strongly and accurately stated; he was suffering with, the people. Tell me in this article where there is [any] “suffering with” the people…..Until we [as ministers] “suffer with” the people, we will never get to true ministries that matter.”

The phenomenon of megachurch ministry, particularly in Black churches, raises numerous questions about the authenticity of contemporary ministry and its adherence to biblical accuracy.

Do megachurches today reflect a shift in values that have traditionally acculturated and sustained Black Americans? Is this a good thing?

How effective are ministries that pride themselves on a gospel of prosperity and personal empowerment that is oftentimes nourished by freewill individualism in preaching and teaching?

What are the consequences of “personal empowerment” ministry in the long run?

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:32:00 +0000

"An eye for an eye, and the whole world would be blind."

--Khalil Gibran

Ted Haggard’s Fall from Grace: A Lesson in Preventive Ministry

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:32:00 +0000

by Carolus Taylor

By now most of us are familiar with the plight of Ted Haggard, then Pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and head of the National Association of Evangelicals, who was exposed last month in a sex/drug scandal. An article in The Los Angeles Times entitled, “Haggard bares his soul in note to congregation” reported certain details of Haggard’s confession, and reaction to it by members of the New Life Church.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

…Haggard had been struggling for three years to balance his duties as pastor with his high-profile role as head of the evangelical association — a job that raised his political profile and got him invited to the Oval Office and in on conference calls with the White House…

…Haggard had tried to carve out time to reflect and to write his books by secluding himself now and then in a Denver hotel. That is apparently when he first contacted the prostitute, Mike Jones, who advertised as a masseur in gay magazines…

…Haggard alluded to this period in his letter, saying that his pride had prevented him from seeking counseling; he hadn't wanted to disappoint those who loved him. "When I stopped communicating about my problems," he wrote, "the darkness increased and finally dominated me."

I want to be clear I am not going to address how awful and scandalous the behavior. Instead, I want to address and have us think about from a ministerial perspective some of the comments identified in his letter to the church.

There are three factors that are of concern, and they are all interrelated: (1) his personal struggle with issues, (2) his time alone, and (3) his pride. As ministers, all of us have our areas of struggle. There are temptations before us that seek to destroy the call of God on our lives. We do not have an automatic exempt from temptation just because we have been called to the ministry. What better way to cast doubts on the gospel than to have the God-called preacher/pastor fall, and be exposed publicly. The issue is not that we have temptations, but how we are battling our temptations. Are we fighting alone, or are we asking other believers to assist us in the battle?

Haggard’s time alone and his pride, gave the enemy the opportunity and opening to turn up the heat. Apparently, Haggard struggled alone with his issues. Time alone made Haggard void of the company of his family, void of the company of other believers, void of prayer partners, void of individuals who would disciple him. We cannot defeat the enemy of our own accord, but need help from God who provides others in our lives. We need to surround ourselves with people who will hold us accountable.

I have thought much about the issue of pride. His pride prevented him from asking for help because he did not want to disappoint those he loved. The enemy clouds our judgment and prevents us from getting the help (the counsel, the accountability) we need because we are thinking of how others will think about us. It is our personal perception of what others will think about us. Thus we reject much needed help, and we do battle alone; a battle we are sure to lose.

There is also the fear of the reaction (and perhaps rejection) we will get if we open ourselves up to others. I am not suggesting we tell our struggles to everyone. We need to be careful and selective. But we do have a sense that if we reveal our deepest struggles and temptations, then people are going to say, “You should not be feeling like that.”

Does mature faith mean that we should come to the place where a minister should be able to reveal a struggle no matter how vile and vulgar?

As ministers, can we truly handle a pastor/minister who comes to us with the information they are struggling with about homosexuality, struggling with adultery, pornography, embezzlement, spousal abuse or some other immoral act?

Can someone reveal their deepest struggle with us, having confidence it will stay with us, and that we will hold each other accountable for doing the right thing?

Our members come to us with their most intimate struggles, but who do we go to with our struggles?

I pray that shame and pride will never prevent us from sharing our struggle with someone, and that we may find others who hold us accountable and help us through our most difficult times.
Just some thoughts, I would appreciate any reaction.

Carolus Taylor is Senior Pastor of the Friendship Baptist Church in Columbia, Missouri.

What are the Real Threats to Christian Marriage?

noreply@blogger.com (TheoSyst Group Editor) — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:07:00 +0000

by Eric Walters

Over the past year, much political and evangelical energy was expended over the push for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. The ban would in effect, “protect traditional marriage” in the words of some high profile evangelical leaders and pastors.

Much of the debate surrounds statistics on rates of marriage, divorce, and children born out-of-wedlock in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from 1990 to 2000 (following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark, 1990-1996). Evangelical proponents of the Amendment primarily cite the opinions of Stanley Kurtz who in many instances, misinterprets and confusingly argues cause and effect relationships among data sets. Contrary to Kurtz’s claims, the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the (same) partner laws were passed, and in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia were relatively unchanged.

However one may feel on a civil or theological level about the Amendment Banning Gay Marriage, the misuse of Scandinavian data sets should be discouraged. One can bet that the debate has only just begun.

I would like to turn attention to what seems a more interesting and insightful set of statistics that describe recent divorce rates among Christians in America. According to a 2004 survey conducted by the Barna Research Group, an evangelical organization that studies Christian trends, born-again Christians were just as likely to divorce as those who are not born-again. Here are some major findings:

· Among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.

· “Among born again adults, 80% have been married, compared to just 69% among the non-born again segment. If the non-born again population were to marry at the same rate as the born again group, it is likely that their divorce statistic would be roughly 38% - marginally higher than that among the born again group, but still surprisingly similar in magnitude.”

· “If we eliminate those who became Christians after their divorce, the divorce figure among born again adults drops to 34% - statistically identical to the figure among non-Christians.” The researcher also indicated that a surprising number of Christians experienced divorces both before and after their conversion.

· Multiple divorces are also unexpectedly common among born again Christians. Barna’s figures show that nearly one-quarter of the married born agains (23%) get divorced two or more times.

The 2004 Barna Report reinforces data from a previous study conducted in 1999; the data seem to emphasize that Christian marriage may succumb to similar pressures of divorce as those of non-religious marriages. Last month, the New York Times reported that recent Census Bureau figures show that married couples, as a proportion of American households, are now considered a minority.This sheds new light on social and theological dynamics of hot-button political topics that emphasize "family values" and the traditional two-parent household.

In light of these statistics, should Christian leaders claim moral authority on the subject of marriage?
Is the fact that two Christians are married, make their union more sacred than a marriage between two people who are not Christians?

Does the couple that prays together always stay together?

What does this say about the state of our Christian churches?

Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.