“Why They’re Not Emergent”

Rod Dreher links to Kristen Scharold article in First Things: “The Emerging Church and Its Critics.” It references a book, Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck.

Let’s start with Scharold. She paints with a very broad brush.

The emergent church isn’t much different. Its devotees like to tell stories and engage in discussion, but often the dialogue is not helpful and the stories are not very exciting. This is because the emergent “conversation”—“movements” are passé and narrow-minded—lacks the commentary and the narrative of traditional Christian doctrine.

It lacks commentary because emergent “teachers”—“leaders” are too authoritative—refuse to annotate the gospel with anything other than personal speculations. Its stories lack tension because they gloss over the climactic cross and other crucial gospel elements. As a result, the story that they are teaching—a story where Jesus is the protagonist, God is little more than one of Shakespeare’s fools, and culture is the director—is superficially pleasing but deeply disappointing.

Hmmm … It sounds like she has never been to Ecclesia in Houston or to Mars Hill Church in Seattle. She flips back and forth between “Emergent” and “emerging,” assuming the two are the same.

She continues:

Despite my hipster leanings and stale Christian pedigree, I am not emergent, if emergence is defined by its theology instead of just its ethos. And after reading this book, I am even more grateful that I never jumped onto the emergent bandwagon. I am not the only young Christian who appreciates many aspects of postmodern culture but who also yearns for the absolute conviction that DeYoung and Kluck present.

“Some of us long for teaching that has authority, ethics rooted in dogma, and something unique in this world of banal diversity,” DeYoung writes. “We long for Jesus—not a shapeless, formless good-hearted ethical teacher Jesus, but the Jesus of the New Testament, the Jesus of the church, the Jesus of faith, the Jesus of two millennia of Christian witness with all of its unchanging and edgy doctrinal propositions.”

And there are some people who consider themselves part of the “emerging church” who would agree with that.

Because they are reacting against the suburban, middle-class churches of their parents, the emergent ideal is an urban breed of Christianity. Yet the largest church in the cosmopolitan center of the United States, New York City, is Redeemer Presbyterian Church. Redeemer—which, coincidently, is primarily attracting twenty- and thirty-year-olds, many of whom are artists—is a church of rigorous expository preaching that is anchored in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Lots of things to question there … that those attracted to emergent/emerging churches are “reacting against the suburban, middle-class churches of their parents,” that New York is “the cosmopolitan center of the United States,” that this Presbyterian church is attracting young adults specifically because of hardcore Calvinism, and the assumption that there are no “emerging churches” that preach Calvinism.

Some folks who do consider themselves emerging/emergent have commented on the criticisms. See the links here.

The Surest Way to Peace …

Is to get to know those people who are said to be “the enemy.”

Rick Steves is going to Iran.

Braaten on ELCA Sexuality Proposal

Lutheran theologian Carl Braaten has released a critique of the latest ELCA proposal on human sexuality. Pastor Zip has it here. He regards it as a muddled confusion of law and gospel. Here’s a sampling–be sure to read the whole thing.

1) This draft social statement identifies two doctrines as foundational for a Lutheran understanding of sexuality: the incarnation of God and justification by faith. There is no doubt that these two doctrines are basic to a Lutheran understanding of salvation. However, in Lutheran theology soteriology is not the primal basis for the ethics of sex, marriage, and family. That would be to confuse law and gospel. Creation and law come before gospel and church, both in the Scriptures and in the Creeds (Apostles’ and Nicene). To put the matter quite simply, the Old Testament comes before the New Testament and the First Article of the Creed comes before the Second and the Third Articles. Lutheran systematic theology has traditionally observed this biblical and creedal structure, both in the order of knowledge (ordo cognoscendi) and in the order of reality (ordo essendi). The doctrine of creation comes before the doctrine of redemption; law comes before gospel. The ethics of sex is not primarily a gospel issue; it is a matter of law in the first instance.¹

2) The common human structures of life such as marriage and the family, labor and the economic order, the nation and the state are universal dimensions of human existence. They are created by God and experienced by all human beings and societies apart from the Scriptures and outside the covenant communities of Israel and the Church. The knowledge of what is right and wrong, good and bad, is revealed by God through these structures, by means of the way God has ordered them. No Lutheran theology has ever proceeded to deal with the matters addressed by the Ten Commandments (especially the Second Table of the Law) as though only Christians are endowed with moral discernment. In spite of the universal condition of sin, reason and conscience are not so depraved as to be incapable of grasping the universal morality expressed in the Decalogue (the Ten Words of God).²

3) The early church found itself in a life-and-death struggle against gnosticism (e.g., Marcion). Gnosticism negated the doctrine of creation and God’s covenant with Israel. Gnosticism based its understanding of theology and ethics exclusively on the New Testament, on the gospel and the church, denying the priority and relevance of creation and law. Like Marcionitic gnosticism this social statement virtually ignores the Old Testament, the Genesis story of creation, God’s covenant with Israel, and the giving of the Mosaic law. It starts straightaway with the incarnation of God and justification by faith, that is, with the gospel of salvation in Christ rather than with the law of creation mediated through nature and history. I can think of no example of such an approach in the history of Lutheran theology and ethics. Lutherans have typically followed the Catholic tradition in the way it orders the concepts of “Creation,” “Law,” “Gospel,” and “Church” in the process of constructing theological ethics — political, social, economic, ecological, and sexual. The living God is the Creator of all things; God is doing this now in an ongoing way (creatio continua).³

… 5) This document claims that the doctrines of the incarnation and justification form the theological foundations of human sexuality. However, it is not possible to argue from these particular soteriological premises to establish relevant norms, standards, rules, or principles regarding sexual behavior. According to Luther and the Lutheran tradition God governs and rules the world through the law in the struggle against sin all over the world. This activity of God does not bring about human salvation. Only the gospel of Christ accomplishes that through the power of the Holy Spirit. The law has a different function than the gospel; the law is first and then the gospel. It is not the function of the gospel to instruct human beings about sex, marriage, and family. That is the function of the law. For this reason many human beings who are not Christians are often better examples of God-pleasing behavior in matters of sex, marriage, and family. Even many pagans with no knowledge of Christ put Christians to shame — they live chaste lives, their marriages are exemplary, and their families are strong — because God is working through the law of creation (lex creationis) to address them, and they are able to respond to the divine commands through their reason and conscience.

6) As a “teaching document” this Draft claims that it takes into account the contributions from the ecumenical partners of the ELCA and other Lutheran churches throughout the world. That would be wonderful if it were so. However, it is conspicuously silent on what the mainstream of the classical Christian tradition has had to teach on the subject of human sexuality and homosexuality. This Draft confines its treatment of the controversial issues to what concerns “this church.” No other voice is taken into consideration. There is no acknowledgment that the intention of Lutheranism is to be part of the great tradition of churchly theology reaching back to Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas. … This document is worried about legalism. Some Lutherans are so afraid of legalism that they have thrown the baby out with the bath water. The root of the problem is confusion about the relation between law and gospel. Lutherans have said that we are justified by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. Fine! Does that mean that the works of the law are bad and that the only good works are those motivated by the gospel? That has led to antinomianism in Lutheranism. Luther was the first to blow the whistle on antinomianism. Antinomianism means that the law is silenced with regard to ordering the Christian life. Antinomianism is a famous word in the Lutheran lexicon. The authors choose not to mention it or define it. Why? Legalism is not much of a problem in the ELCA today; antinomianism is. The other side of the coin of antinomianism is “gospel reductionism.”

9) This 50-page essay on sexuality scarcely makes any reference to the Ten Commandments (once on page 14) or the sixth commandment. Here is an example of a statement that begs for an explanation: “A Lutheran sexual ethic looks to the death and resurrection of Christ as the source for the values that guide it.” (p. 11) This assertion sits there without commentary. I have no idea what the Task Force is trying to say. Taken at face value, it is not a true statement. A Lutheran sexual ethic is not derived from soteriology or the Christology on which it is based. The social statement asserts: “We ground our ethics . . . in the living voice of the gospel.” (p.5) Again, no mention of the law! At one point this Draft states: “Both the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther emphasized the important role of the law to reveal to us God’s intentions and promises for our lives, and to constrain, support, and guide us in daily living.” (p. 6) That is a true statement, but this Draft does not follow the lead of Paul and Luther. It replaces the law with the gospel, with talk about the incarnation and justification as the foundation of ethics, including the ethics of sex.

10) This Draft affirms that “the primary source for distinctively Christian insight is Scripture.” (p. 14) It goes on to state: “Scripture cannot be used in isolation as the norm for Christian life and the source of knowledge for the exercise of moral judgment. Scripture sheds light on human experience and culture.” (p. 15) Over against Scripture the Draft refers to “society’s changing circumstances and growing knowledge” as well as to “insights of culture and human knowledge.” In the balance the latter clearly outweighs the former. If Scripture is really the “primary source” of Christian teaching, one would expect that its most relevant passages on human sexuality would be exegeted with extreme care. The most important verses are not even quoted.

Texas Polygamy Update

Latest legal scandal: lawyers deprived of access to clients, who have been interrogated by CPS and law enforcement.

”My client told the CPS worker that she did not want to talk to her without an attorney,” Shockley said. ”She was told that she wasn’t entitled to an attorney because it was a civil matter.”

The Minority Report

Carl Olson links to the report of a dissenting justice in California:

Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today.  So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it.  Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.  California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.  If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.  The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling.  The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute.  I cannot subscribe to the majority’s reasoning, or to its result. …

The question presented by this case is simple and stark.  It comes down to this:  Even though California’s progressive laws, recently adopted through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal unions with all the substantive benefits of opposite-sex legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and universal tradition, by a convincing popular vote, and in accord with express national policy (see fns. 1, 2, ante), they reserve the label “marriage” for opposite-sex legal unions?   I must conclude that the answer is no.
The People, directly or through their elected representatives, have every right to adopt laws abrogating the historic understanding that civil marriage is between a man and a woman.  The rapid growth in California of statutory protections for the rights of gays and lesbians, as individuals, as parents, and as committed partners, suggests a quickening evolution of community attitudes on these issues.  Recent years have seen the development of an intense debate about same-sex marriage.  Advocates of this cause have had real success in the marketplace of ideas, gaining attention and considerable public support.  Left to its own devices, the ordinary democratic process might well produce, ere long, a consensus among most Californians that the term “marriage” should, in civil parlance, include the legal unions of same-sex partners.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority,  the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration.  The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

AU and Gay Marriage in CA

Americans United comes down on the wrong side of the decision favoring gay marriage in California. Says Barry Lynn:

“The court also made it clear that no congregation can be forced to marry people in violation of their theological standards,” Lynn continued. “That’s a strong reaffirmation of religious liberty.”

Will churches be able to fire employees who get “married” under this definition? This is something that Americans United doesn’t address–perhaps because it is an area where they have failed to protect religious rights. They opposed Catholic Charities when it wanted an exemption from California law requiring contraceptive coverage. They haven’t defended Catholic Charities on the issues of gay adoptions or gay employees. They denied the right of freedom of conscience to pharmacists.

Americans United is no longer a religious liberty organization–it is an organization with a liberal agenda. So we can expect them to argue against religious organizations who refuse to recognize the “gay marriages” of their employees.

Noise.

Or, as the Grinch moaned, “O the noise, noise, noise, noise, noise!”

My AC is being worked on today–evaporator coil being replaced, along with the lineset–what connects the outside unit with the unit in the attic. What that means is that there’s a lot of noise in the wall right by my desk this morning, and a lot of thumping in the attic above.

Obama’s Faith

Do you remember back in December when all hell broke loose because Mike Huckabee put out a television ad wishing Iowans “Merry Christmas” while seated in front of a bookcase that looked like a white cross? There were dozens of broadcast reports and newspaper stories analyzing whether it was proper to evoke a cross in a political ad. Well, apparently crosses are fine in political ads now. And you don’t even have to use the subliminal ones. Barack Obama has been using fliers in southern states that really pound home his Christian bonafides, touting himself as a “committed Christian” who has been “called to Christ.” Kentucky has a primary on Tuesday and the fliers have been sent out far and wide to evangelical voters.

So Mollie reports at GetReligion. One of Obama’s fliers has the headline, “Faith, Hope, Change.” Her headline reads, “The greatest of these is change.”

Prince Caspian–Missing the Boat?

I noted some trepidation a while back about Prince Caspian. Now, Tompaul links to Steve Greydanus’ review, which suggests the problems are worse than I feared.

Making Peace

I wonder … how does one make peace if one is not talking with one’s enemies …?

Dividing Lines

Hugo says,

There is a fundamental difference in the way Protestants and Catholics approach their respective churches.

A Protestant joins a church that aligns with what he believes.

A Catholic, on the other hand, embraces a Church that tells him what to believe.

Well, many people, Catholic, Protestant, and others do as Paul warned, looking for teachers who tell them what they want to hear (2 Tim 4:3).

But Paul also expressed admiration for the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what he said was so (Acts 17:11).

The test isn’t whether a church teaches what we think is right–it’s whether what it teaches is in accord with Scripture. No, we can’t just swallow something because some church tells us–even if Peter himself were speaking, if he were wrong, we should do as Paul did, and oppose him to his face (Galatians 2:11).

Osteen Takes a Stand

Joel Osteen has a backbone after all.

Polygamist Update

The case of Texas against the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints continues to spiral out of control. State officials now concede a mother they were sure was underage is an adult.

More Outrageous Police Conduct

In Stark County, OH, a woman was assaulted by a cousin, and another cousin called 911 on her behalf. When sheriff’s deputies arrived, they arrested the victim–and then brutally stripped her naked, with as many as seven cops, male and female, involved in ripping all the clothes from her body while they held her, handcuffed, on the floor. Article and video. HT Carlos Miller.

Sheriff’s Intimidation in Houston

Erik and Sean Ibarra have learned that you don’t mess with the bullies in the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. Again.

Their problems started in January 2002, when Harris County Sheriff’s Deputies conducted a drug raid on a neighbor’s home. The Ibarras’ mom noticed the neighbor’s children were made to stand outside in the cold without coats and shoes. So they started taking pictures from their own property to document the actions of the deputies next door. The deputies attacked them, pulled their guns, hit them, destroyed their video and photos, invaded their house. After six years of delaying tactics, the county settled for $1.7 million.

Now it has been revealed that prior to that case going to court, the sheriff’s office harassed them yet again by assigning detectives to tail them over a three day period.

More Police Bullying

In Dallas, some cops will give you a ticket … and then write additional violations on the part they turn in.

Not a single cop has been punished or fired for this practice. Supervisors give excuses.

John Hagee Surrenders to Catholic League

John Hagee has surrendered to Bill Donohue’s Catholic League. Donohue comments, and posts Hagee’s letter. One of the things to which Donohue objected was Hagee’s repetition of the historical Protestant identification of the Catholic Church with the whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation. You can find this identification, and the reasons for it, in all the major confessions of the Reformation period. It is rooted in a particular view of Biblical prophecy, the historicist school that sees Biblical apocalyptic as unfolding through history. Hagee lets Donohue know that though he used that “rhetorical device,” he rejects the hermeneutic on which it is based. Instead, Hagee reminds us, he is a futurist. He thinks the prophecy points to something completely in the future. The “whore of Babylon” in Revelation can only refer, he says, to the chuch that exists after the “rapture.” This is a reference to a 19th century novel theory, accepted by many fundamentalists and popularized by folks like Hagee and Tim Lahaye, that the second coming of Christ will be an invisible snatching of true Christians from the earth.

Richard Dawkins “So 19th Century”

Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP, dismisses Dawkins’ atheism as passé. “People have seen in in many parts of the world, particularly China and the Soviet Union, what the effects are of trying to live in a world without God.”

Clergy Promote “Evolution Sunday”

Some liberal churches are promoting “Evolution Sunday” as an effort to show the compatibility between Darwinism and Christian faith. The participating churches are Unitarian, UCC, Methodist, ELCA, Episcopalian, Unity, MCC.

They’re also promoting a Clergy Letter, and asking for signatures. It appears the entire faculty of my alma mater, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, signed.

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

One of the timeless truths of Scripture is “God created the heavens and the earth.” That he intervenes in our lives. That he has a plan for our future. This is incompatible with an evolutionary worldview that allows only a remote Deistic God who watches as things go their own way.

Christians who confess this timeless truth do not reject reason. Rather, we see that reason impels us to investigate even the claims of dogmatic Darwinism. It allows us to look at the world and see evidence of God’s creative hand. It opens our minds to the possibility that maybe our reason is, in fact, limited.

This letter is a calumnious attack on Christians who simply believe that basic affirmations of Scripture and the Christian creeds are true in the simple understanding of that term. There are not two levels of truth, one of which corresponds to the real world and one of which is symbolic and mythic.

Rather than respecting science and religion, the signers of this letter are elevating evolutionary dogma over both reason and faith and saying it is the most important hermeneutical criterion.

These folks need a basic course in Christian apologetics; perhaps also a course in readings in church history (including Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, etc.). Or maybe just lunch with Bill Craig or any of the other speakers of the Veritas Forum.

More Indulgences

In commemoration of a year devoted to St. Paul, the Vatican is offering special indulgences.

“All Christian faithful - truly repentant, duly purified by the Sacrament of Penance and restored with Holy Communion - who undertake a pious visit in the form of a pilgrimage to the papal basilica of St. Paul on Rome’s Via Ostiense and pray in accordance with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff, are granted and imparted Plenary Indulgence for the temporal punishment of their sins, once they have obtained sacramental remission and forgiveness for their shortcomings.

“Plenary Indulgence may be gained by the Christian faithful, either for themselves or for the deceased, as many times as the aforementioned acts are undertaken; it remains the case, however, that Plenary Indulgence may be obtained only once a day.

“In order that the prayers pronounced on these holy visits may lead and draw the souls of the faithful to a more intense veneration of the memory of St. Paul, the following conditions are laid down: the faithful, apart from pronouncing their own prayers before the altar of the Blessed Sacrament, … must go to the altar of the Confession and pray the ‘Our Father’ and the ‘Creed’, adding pious invocations in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Paul; and such acts of devotion must remain closely linked to the memory of the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter”.

“Christian faithful from the various local Churches, under the usual conditions (sacramental Confession, Eucharistic communion, prayer in keeping with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff) and completely unattached to any form of sin, may still obtain the Plenary Indulgence if they participate devotedly in a religious function or in a pious exercise held publicly in honour of the Apostle of the Gentiles: on the days of the solemn opening and closing of the Pauline Year in any place of worship; on other days determined by the local ordinary, in holy places named for St. Paul and, for the good of the faithful, in other places designated by the ordinary”.

A Graduation Prayer

I was at a graduation at Rice University yesterday; I had the privilege of giving the invocation and benediction. It was the typically grand occasion, with pomp and circumstance, the dean and faculty in academic regalia, speeches and tributes, students cheering a friend, family members taking photos. But there was only one graduate. My friend Mithun, a Seventh-day Adventist, asked for accomodation, because the main graduation ceremony was held on the Sabbath. Rice graciously responded.

Here’s the prayer I offered for him:

Almighty and ever-living God, Creator and Father of all,

We come before you this day to thank, praise, and glorify you together with our friend, Mithun. We come to celebrate his graduation, and to bless him as he steps out upon a new leg of his journey.

You have been his rock and his fortress, his hope and his defense. You have been his guide, as he has walked the halls and pathways of this institution dedicated to fostering knowledge of letters, science, and art. Under your care he has increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man

He has been a faithful witness to your everlasting love and mercy, leading others from days of discouragement to nights of praise.

Bless him, now, as he goes forth. Uphold him in faith, hope, and love. Make him to be as salt and light. Use him to bless others there, as we have been blessed by his friendship here.

Pour out upon him your Spirit, as you did on the apostles on that first Pentecost—the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.

And may the motto sealed on his heart and mind be that which in former times was claimed by the school to which he now goes: Veritas in Christi Gloriam.

In whose name we make our prayer. Amen.

The Emerging Church

Terry Mattingly is having a hard time defining “emerging church.” I wonder, is Brian McLaren really “the key figure”? He links to a Washington Post interview. It seems to me McLaren is just another liberal–and I find it interesting that in responding to the question of whether he is one, he speaks only in political terms, not theological.

Dottie Rambo, RIP

Singer and songwriter Dottie Rambo, 74, died when her tour bus was involved in an accident. Her songs included, “If That Isn’t Love,” and “We Shall Behold Him.”

Indulgences

Hugo tells how you can get a Pentecost Indulgence.

Police as Terrorists

Milk Wars:

Gary and Dawn Oaks of Double O Farms in Verona, Kentucky, started a cow-share program in 2004 and have seen it grow to over 100 families. On March 6, 2006, just after noon, Gary pulled into St. Bernard’s Church parking lot in Cincinnati, Ohio to deliver milk to waiting shareholders. He proceeded to unlock the back door of his trailer of his vehicle when suddenly several policemen and agriculture officials from Kentucky and Ohio stormed up, blocking access to the shareholders. The police officers told the shareholders not to touch the milk—the “white liquid substance” as they called it—and refused to give identification when shareholders asked for it.

“Shut up, this doesn’t concern you,” was their response. When some of the shareholders tried to explain that this did concern them, that they were being denied access to the milk from their own cows, the response was the same—rude and intimidating.

The officials took Gary to the other side of the parking lot and would not let shareholders get close to him. When some shareholders tried to go to their cars, parked near Gary’s truck, the officers shouted “Get away from the trailer!” So the shareholders—mothers and children—continued to observe. Inside the car, the police browbeat Gary, attempting to make him confess that he was selling raw milk.

Gary then came out from one of the police cars and the shareholders started to walk toward him to offer support. His face was bright red and he looked ill. “Gary, you don’t have to tell them anything,” said one witness. “You don’t have to say a word until you talk to your lawyer.”

For her pains, one officer got close to her face and said, “Look lady, shut up.”
Gary was taken into another car while officials transferred the items from Gary’s trailer to official state vehicles. Witnesses could see that Gary looked very ill and on the point of collapse. But their requests to the police to call 911 were met with derision. “I am 911, so shut the hell up,” shouted one officer.

However, one shareholder did call 911 on her cell phone. By this time, Gary was lying down on the cold, wet cement next to a police car. The ambulance arrived a few minutes later and took Gary away.

All this over milk? Harpers reports that raids such as this are not unusual. The issue is the pasteurization of milk. Some say it, and feeding cattle on grain instead of grass, are at the root of many health problems. The pasteurization of milk, they say, means we are no longer exposed to some organisms that we would normally develop a natural immunity to. And the grain diet of cattle has health consequences for them. Some farmers have given away raw milk; others have established co-ops, where you own the cow and you thus get your own milk from the dairy–that was what was happening in the Kentucky raid.

Dom links to this story and notes,

I don’t feel strongly about the “right” to have and consume raw milk, but does law enforcement have to deploy the same tactics they use with drug smugglers and terrorists? It’s an effect of the militarization of police, I think.

More about the Kentucky case at Business Week. The author of that piece, David Gumpert, has more background here. He notes that the agencies involved have no apologies. They had in fact been engaging in illegal surveillance and searching of the premises prior to their attack in the church parking lot. He got this from an Ohio Department of Agricultural internal memo, which they happily provided him.

The memo performs an important public service: It lets us know what these public officials spend their time doing—following hardworking citizens around, monitoring their property, and then abusing them. It’s nice to know we’re being so well protected.

Gone to Canossa

Catholic Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas has made public what he calls a “pastoral action,” telling Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that she is not to present herself for communion. This action is taken as a quid pro quo for her recent veto of a piece of legislation the Bishop favored. News report. Bishop’s statement.

The Kennedy compromise is ancient history. The Catholic church’s reluctance to engage in such retaliation for political votes is also over, at least in Kansas City.

The message from Archbishop Naumann is clear: “If you are a Catholic in public office, you will do what I tell you to do. You will obey. You will take directions from the hierarchy.”

This is what Protestant Americans have always feared, and yet Catholics have always said such fears were unfounded–mere “anti-Catholicism.”

It’s a clear example of what Catholic writer Russell Shaw condemns as “clericalism.”

The question is, will we be seeing more bishops act like this?

Bush Administration: “Don’t Inspect That Beef!”

You’d think the government would appreciate meatpackers that want to go above the letter of the law, and inspect more than they needed to (given the state of the meat industry). But the Bush administration is trying to keep meatpackers from taking extra steps to protect consumers. Less than 1% of  cattle are inspected for mad cow disease. One company, Creekstone Farms, wants to inspect all their cows. But the Bush administration (and bigger meatpackers) doesn’t want them to.

Mitt Romney on Religious Liberty

Mitt Romney has given another church/state address. Jeffrey Weiss at DMN thinks it “more sophisticated” than his last one. I’d say it looks like he has indeed done further reflection and learned and grown as a result.

As you know, I gave a speech about religious liberty during the height of my campaign. This was not a speech I was forced to give, it was a speech I wanted to give. I felt that I had a unique opportunity to address in a very public way the role of faith in America.

In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest — unheard and unheeded. It also gave me an opportunity to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.

Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off — after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers — why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief — to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience — it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.

The IRS and Religion

Jeffrey Weiss thinks there’s an easy way to solve problems between churches and the IRS–remove the tax exemption. He doesn’t think that’s going to happen, though.

The Catholic Vote

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has a knack for getting his name in the newspapers. Last Friday, he called on the carpet Barack Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council. He said,

Practicing Catholics have every right to be insulted by Obama’s advisory group. What is the purpose of having an advisory group about matters Catholic when most of its members reject the Catholic position? If Obama wanted input from gay leaders, would he choose those who don’t reflect the sentiments of the gay community? In short, to choose Catholic dissidents to advise him about Catholic concerns is mind-boggling.

They responded yesterday–and yes, the list of signatories is a “who’s who” of the Catholic left.

As Catholics, we view abortion as a profound moral issue. But what have nearly three decades of Republican promises to end abortion accomplished? Other aspects of the conservative Republican agenda have been carried out with fervor, such as weakening of the social-safety net, privatization, deregulation, destruction of labor unions, and belligerent and aggressive foreign policy. But ending abortion remains the perennial promise, one that is too often hijacked by partisan operatives who seek only to divide voters. Many Catholics are fed up with the divisive tactics and empty promises around this issue.

Senator Obama recognizes that abortion presents a profound moral challenge, tied in part to a loss of the sense of the sacredness of sex and lack of parental involvement. On the campaign trail he regularly calls on parents to turn off the television and has called on fathers to meet their family responsibilities. Regrettably, these clips are not included in your press releases.

And Donohue went right back at them:

“It is more than embarrassing—it is shocking—to read how these Catholics view abortion. The Catholic Church regards abortion, as well as embryonic stem cell research, as ‘intrinsically evil.’ But not these folks. For them, abortion is merely ‘a profound moral issue.’

“Sadly, it has been apparent for years that many who fancy themselves ‘progressive’ Catholics do not treat abortion the way they do racial discrimination. No one in his right mind says that the best way to combat racial discrimination is by changing people’s hearts and minds, not the law. Which is why we do both. But when it comes to abortion—including partial-birth abortion—the progressives settle for dialogue.

“It is so nice to know that Obama thinks abortion ‘presents a profound moral challenge.’ Is infanticide another ‘profound moral challenge’? To wit: When he was in the Illinois state senate he led the fight to deny health care to babies born alive who survived an abortion. That, my friends, is not a moral challenge—it’s a Hitlerian decision.”

Deal Hudson also joined the battle:

The Obama Catholic advisors have responded to Bill Donohue’s statement concerning their dissent on non-negotiable Church teachings such as abortion. Their response is surprisingly aggressive for a group of Catholics who support a candidate who defends infanticide; for those who do not know what that means, infanticide is killing a child once he or she has been born.

Yes, Sen. Obama has supported infanticide when he voted against (or “present”) bills protecting these children as an Illinois state senator. He defends those votes to this day. …

Those of us who have been politically active in the GOP on behalf of a culture of life are accused of seeking “only to divide voters.” That is not only a silly statement, it’s arrogant and offensive. Are these Obama Catholics NOT seeking to draw Catholic voters into the Obama camp? Is this a tactic to “divide voters”? IT SURE IS! That’s what a political campaign is –getting the voters to vote for your candidate rather than the other guy.

But why would they accuse Catholics like me of dividing voters? I will tell you why — for the simple reason that they assume all Catholic voters should think just like they do, that it’s acceptable for a Catholic to support a candidate who supports infanticide as long as the candidate is a Democrat and a liberal.