This is really just an introduction to the book, the cast of characters — and a promise that we will take the conversation forward wherever we can as the book rolls out. “What the Religious Left is doing isn’t working!” writes Rev. Dan Schulz (aka Pastordan of the group blog Street Prophets). From that working assumption we hope to jump-start a national conversation about how to create and sustain a far more politically dynamic — and effective — Religious Left than exists in the U.S. today.
“If he were alive today, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would remind us that we are the leaders we have been waiting for. Consider Dispatches from the Religious Left your briefing book on how and why it is important to be a “courageous leader” in these challenging times.” — Bob Edgar, President, Common Cause, and the immediate past General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, former Member of Congress (D-PA)
Other contributors include include former New York Times war correspondent (and former divinity student) Chris Hedges; Rev. Debra Haffner and Tim Palmer of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing; Rev. Dr. Carlton Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Rev. Barry Lynn of American United for Separation of Church and State, Kety Esquivel of the Institute for Progressive Chrisianity; Dr. Peter Hess of the National Center for Science Education; Rev. Peter Laarman, of Progressive Christians Uniting. Deepak Bhargava of the Center for Community Change; veteran Cleveland – based journalist and blogger, Anastasia Pantsios; and Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou, of the historic Middle Collegiate Church in New York City. We are also graced by a stirring introduction from Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, the former General Secretary of the National Council of Churches; and a wise and energetic afterward from best selling author Jeff Sharlet. (You can find links to bios of the contributors here.)
These writers question and challenge the status quo on multiple fronts, revealing what the movement needs to do in order to increase its viability and visibility.
In the course of working on this, three main themes emerged:
–Religious progressives need to seriously reevaluate where they are going and where they have been in order to live up to their highest aspirations.
–Marketing and public relations are not a substitute for political organizing, which history and hard earned experience shows us is how real progress is made.
–Religious progressives must never abandon such basic progressive values as reproductive rights, gay and lesbian civil rights and separation of church and state, no matter what political consultants in hot pursuit of seemingly persuadable conservative Catholics and evangelicals may say. Separation of church and state is “woven into their DNA” says essayist Rev. Peter Laarman.
Meanwhile, I will be tracking the progress of the book at my site, FrederickClarkson.com with frequently updated news, reviews, event and media announcements. We also anticipate considerable discussion of the book at Street Prophets and Talk to Action, among others. Meanwhile, check out my interview with the online magazine, Religion Dispatches.
The launch event for the book will be held on the evening of October 14th at Middle Collegiate Church in New York City and will feature the church’s famous gospel choir and conversation with several of the essayists. Check in at the web sites above for details.
As Joan Brown Campbell writes in her introduction, “Finally, the Religious Left has found its voice.”
Dispatches from the Religious Left: The Future of Faith and Politics in America
ContentsIntroduction
Joan Brown Campbell
Editor’s IntroductionFrederick Clarkson
Part I.
Envisioning a More Politically DynamicReligious Left
Hillel’s Questions: A Call for LeadershipMarshall Ganz
Religious Left: Changing the ScriptDaniel Schultz
Not by Outrage AloneKatherine Ragsdale
Religious Right, Religious LeftChip Berlet
Who’s God? Faith, Democracy, and the Making of an AuthenticReligious Left
Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou
Part II.
Memos on Hot Button Issues
A Progressive Vision of Church-State RelationsBarry Lynn
Towards a Theology of Sexual JusticeDebra Haffner and Timothy Palmer
Reproductive Justice and a Comprehensive Social Justice EthicCarlton Veazey
Creationism, Evolution, and the Integrity of Science and ReligionPeter Hess
Take it from a Stem Cell CatholicFrank Cocozzelli
Are We More Devoted to Order or to Justice?Kety Esquivel
Part III.
Getting from Here to ThereWrong about the Right
Jean Hardisty and Deepak Bhargava
Thoughts about Power, Organization and LeadershipMarshall Ganz
Organizing Clergy for Marriage Equality in MassachusettsLeo Maley
The Organizing Model of We Believe OhioAnastasia Pantsios
Three Wheels that Need Not Be ReinventedFrederick Clarkson
Using New Media to Strengthen the Religious LeftShelby Meyerhoff and Shai Sachs
The Funding Challenges of the Religious LeftPeter Laarman
I Don’t Believe in AtheistsChris Hedges
AfterwordJeff Sharlet
When we’ve got one lined up, I’ll definitely post about it here!
Sometimes I’m not sure which is more frustrating – the Religious Right implying that they have a monopoly on Christianity, or the secular left accepting the Religious Right’s monopoly claims and thus assuming we are all like that. I have addressed this before, but I want to remind people about the United Church of Christ, which is generally a progressive denomination even favoring marriage equality, though we welcome faith travelers on all parts of the theological spectrum.
Dan Schultz
Barry Lynn
Peter Laarman
Joan Brown Campbell
<
p>The UCC is the largest protestant denomination in MA.
Regarding being the largest Protestant denomination in MA. Unfortunately we and other mainline churches have lost members in recent years. In the UCC’s case some on the right will try to attribute it to our progressive stances, with kind of a sneering “told you so” tone. I advocate reaching out to the unchurched who are probably what I call cultural Christians (that is, not religious but celebrate Christmas for example just because it seems to be the thing to do). Many of these when asked there religion will say something like, “I was raised Catholic” suggesting that it’s been awhile since they practiced their Catholicism.
<
p>Our brand of Christianity has such a rich history in this country, especially in this state given who founded it. Congregationalism, which mostly has merged into the UCC, is really evolved Puritanism. While the Puritans have a somewhat justifiable reputation for being theocrats, the truth also is that they always valued theological discussions and learned clergy. After all, they founded Harvard and when that started trending Unitarian, some trinitarian Congregationalists founded Yale.
<
p>My religious tradition is at least as much part of the fabric of this country as evangelical Protestantism, which brings me to a great irony that has occurred to me recently, which goes like this:
<
p>Argument #1: The United States was founded conscientiously as a Christian nation. This is what the Religious Right likes to tell us.
<
p>Exhibit A for argument #1: The Pilgrims and Puritans settled in Massachusetts specifically for creating a Christian Commonwealth.
<
p>Rebuttal: The founding of Mass. Bay and Plymouth colonies are not the same as founding the country under our Constitution. However, I’m willing to let this slide for now since accepting the argument helps make my overall case.
<
p>Argument #2: Several passages in both the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality and Scripture should be the ultimate source of law.
<
p>Conclusion: Same-sex marriage is contrary to God’s law, so as a Christian nation we can’t have it.
<
p>But this is where it gets interesting. The very people cited by those as proof we were founded as a Christian nation (the Puritans and Pilgrims) evolved into Congregationalists. Most Congregational churches have become part of the United Church of Christ, which ENDORSES same-sex marriage. It would be nice if those claiming to be the voice for long-dead Christian founders had the decency to ask the opinion of those of who really are still part of that particular Christian tradition.
Some of the became Unitarians. In fact many many New England cities and towns have both a Congregational and a Unitarian Church a couple blocks away from each other in the town center because they disagreed with each other so much that one side or the other withdrew and formed their own church.
<
p>(For any of you who don’t know, Unitarians are equally liberal, but arguable not Christian, or some of us aren’t anyway. An actual conversation I had with some one: “I go to a very liberal church, people there get uncomfortable when they hear the word ‘Hell'” “Well, I go to an even more liberal church, people there get uncomfortable when they here the word ‘God'”)
Puritans were often called Congregationalists by the 1700s. The Unitarian split was not until the 1800s, which actually precipitated disestablishment in Massachusetts. I learned recently that “First Church” refers to Congregationalism, while “First Parish” refers to Unitarianism. If the name Trinitarian is in a church’s name it was because people wanted to make sure everybody knew who the “true” Christians were. Nowadays the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association get along quite well and some local churches are dually affiliated. I have heard from a few smart alecks that UCC should stand for Unitarians Considering Christ!
God Damn America! – The Rev Wright
<
p>Isn’t that the Mantra?
<
p>UCC Ordains Women as Catholic Priests?
<
p>Who does Nancy Taylor think she is?
<
p>The UCC practices select diversity – meaning if you go against the current liberal agenda – you are ostracized.
<
p>Liberal to the core and wacko looney liberal is the National UCC, and most of moderate to right leaning churches have left and or are in the act of leaving.
<
p>SHAME ON THE UCC for their treasonous actions and their direct indignation for their own members.
You clearly have no clue regarding our denomination. The truth of the matter is that the message of Jesus was one of love and inclusion. I cannot think of a time, at least recently, when the UCC has not taken a position that is the most welcoming and inclusive option.
<
p>Your “accusations” hardly merit a response, but I can’t help myself, so here goes:
<
p>Rev. Jeremiah Wright was frankly using a style of preaching which was most known to have been practiced by the Old Testament prophet who shares his name. No it is not the UCC’s mantra. We value liberty of the pulpit. The UCC absolutely did NOT defend his words on the merits. The UCC takes a position regarding Ministers reminiscent of the quote attributed to Voltaire: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Besides, the title of your comment is exactly the kind of extremist rhetoric you accuse Wright of, so pot, meet kettle.
<
p>We have no authority to ordain clergy in another denomination – that should go without saying. We and our predecessor denominations have ordained the first African-American, the first woman, and the first openly-gay person, at least in the United States. We are quite proud of this legacy, thank you very much!
<
p>You are wrong about how we practice our liberal ideology. There is no doubt the National Setting is liberal, but keep in mind that policy is voted upon by delegates of 38 conferences throughout the country. We bend over backwards to keep dissenters as part of the ongoing discussions. The Biblical Witness Fellowship, for example, is a very active conservative organization within the UCC. A relative handful of churches have left, but a few have also joined. Very often churches considering leaving opt not to do so out of a belief that the denomination is stronger for having other viewpoints within it.
And you are losing churches and members because of your liberal agenda
<
p>And don’t call me clueless – I had my own Jeremiah Wright right here on the North Shore of Massachusetts at a UCC church.
…that those views were his/hers alone, not endorsed by the UCC and not necessaarily endorsed by congregants, including yourself obviously. It’s interesting that you cite the North Shore because it is part of the Essex Association, which seems to be a bit more conservative. Just remember in the UCC you can’t assume anything by listening to one Minister or attending one church. We have lost extremely few churches and like I said a few have even joined. (Cathedral of Hope in Dallas comes to mind.) Some of the loss can also be attributed to the overall trend in mainline churches, many of which do not share our views so be careful of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” logical fallacy. We neither are or our connected to any political action committee. We are forbidden by law from being so and recent investigations into whether we overstepped have completely cleared us. Maybe we have gotten bolder about speaking out for progressive Christianity in recent years, but we’re still playing catch-up with the Religious Right.
…the great thing about the UCC is that members can do something about this. You can of course always find a different church, including possibly another UCC church that is more to your liking. The Pastor can be removed by a vote of the congregation and the congregation can call a Pastor more in line with their views. The Conference will help with the search even if the church profile indicates they are looking for someone of a different theology.
Unlike, for example, Roman Catholicism there is no requirement that local churches adhere to policies of the National Setting. If your church doesn’t want to perform same-sex weddings then don’t – it’s that simple. In fact, my own local church has opted not to allow that, at least for now. This policy can always be changed by a vote of the church. Also funds for programs promoting these policies are separately raised; they do not come out of regular dues.
which is more frustrating – the RR implying they have a monopoly on Christianity, or the Religious Center & Religious Left capitulating that title by their silence. And so I’m really happy to learn about Frederick’s book, and looking forward to reading it.
Several Dispatches contributors discuss how capitulation on important matters is not only immoral but politically wrong headed.
It bugs me when progressive Democrats, including Senator Joe Biden, fetch out statements to the effect that although they are Christian, they nevertheless support reproductive freedom and other privacy rights.
<
p>So this book offers a breath of fresh air. Yes, it’s time for courageous leadership from progressive faith communities.
<
p>Yes, I’m a Christian. Yes, because I’m a Christian, I’m progressive politically. Yes, because I am a Christian, I stand for freedom of conscience, including reproductive freedom. Because I am a Christian, I stand for nondiscrimination, including marriage equality. Because I am a Christian, I stand for social justice, including separation of church and state. My Christianity is in good measure expressed by, not compromised by, my political positions. That’s why I feel that I don’t have to apologize for my private religious beliefs when I’m in the public square, and I don’t have to apologize for my political convictions when I go to the church on the square.
<
p>But that’s just me: feel free to believe and behave as you choose.
It helps to remind us all that there are people who are Christians and who are strong, knowledgeable, articulate progressives. This is a time in which we need such people.
<
p>we need people who are not boxed in by cramped, election year narratives about faith journeysm, faith outreach, and dialog with conservative evangelicals and conservative Catholics. There is so much more to being progressive than that.
<
p>Speaking only for myself, I’m continually mystified that anyone can read, and try to be guided by, the good news and still come up anything BUT progressive and liberal?
[quote]Argument #2: Several passages in both the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality and Scripture should be the ultimate source of law.
<
p>Conclusion: Same-sex marriage is contrary to God’s law, so as a Christian nation we can’t have it.[/quote]
<
p>If Scripture is the ultimate source of law, any clean-shaven pastor should be ostracized, because of Leviticus 19:27
Equate shaving and eating shelfish to homosexuality.
<
p>as if they have the same weight and moral code
<
p>Give it up – there are many more direct condemnations than Leviticus starting with the 4th Commandment and ending with The Apostle Paul who was struck by lightning BY JESUS for killing Christians, and rendered BLIND for 3 days after which time he was TOLD by Jesus to go and be his VOICE in the world.
<
p>The idea was to turn away from the old Jewish traditions and get with Jesus – and Paul makes this abundantly clear.
<
p>That was Pauls idea. Jesus said something entirely different (Matthew 5:17-20):
<
p>17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
<
p>But Jesus, at that time, was speaking only to Jews.
<
p>As people who were not raised as Jews began to believe the message of the good news, the debate was whether they ought to behave like Jews, following the law. Paul said they did not. James (brother of Jesus) thought that maybe they should. Peter, it appears, split the difference and they decided that some things like eating food sacrificed to idols and blasphemy and things like that were forbidden, else “everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.” (1 Corinthians 6:12)
<
p>People don’t realize that ‘The Law’ isn’t a universal code of conduct, but rather a program of training and habituation, given to the Isrealites, newly freed from bondage: un-educated and wandering slaves in the desert. (What do they do the first time they’re left alone? Melt their gold and sculpt a false idol) By the time of Herod the Great the pharisees and teachers of ‘the law’ had become nearly as oppressive and constricting as the Egyptian pharaohs. Jesus cautioned them to get it right and seek a deeper righteousness. Paul, who was a pharisee and probably more versed in the law than any of the original apostles, upon seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus was (I believe) able to instantly understand the law and Jesus’ place in it.
I thought it was well established that Paul and Jesus were not contemporaries.
Laurel, it doesn’t sound like you mean this as a joke, so I’m sorry if I’ve missed the point, but Paul had a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus.
<
p>Ted
I didn’t know about Paul’s reported vision, just that he supposedly came along several generations after Jesus. Now petr’s comment makes more sense, and I appreciate your clarification. Remember, not all people raised in the Christian tradition are very well versed in what the Bible actually says. I guess I’m a good example of that!
Like he was high at the time,
<
p>Or
<
p> he was “blinded by the light, wrapped up like a deuce another runner in th enight”
<
p>or he must have been hallucinating because the weather charts for Damascus in the year 235 AD or whenever it was, showed that it was so hot that day it must have been a mirage
<
p>or that it wasn’t really Jesus he saw, it was Allah
<
p>or on and on and on like Petr above
… because I have no words that can accurately describe what, in fact, it was. Part of the wrestling with spirituality is in it’s mystery and, frankly, irrationality. There is no word to suffice here.
<
p>Paul certainly didn’t see Jesus in the same way you and I might, if we met on the street, see each other… merely as a corporeal incidence. That kind of meeting, and ‘seeing’, wouldn’t explain how and/or why Paul’s life did a complete turnaround. Nor would Paul, I believe, have so radical an interpretation of scripture from thenceforth..
<
p>
Jesus knocked Saul to the GROUND WITH LIGHNING AND BLINDED HIM.He spoke to him – “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He changed his name to Paul and TOLD HIM to be his messenger.
<
p>Liberals think this is too scary and mean and like to ignore it. And they like to ignore it because Paul condemns homosexuality.
<
p>And so they dismiss Paul as someone who “didn’t know Jesus” or “was just a messenger” or “a closet homosexual”
<
p>Indeed Paul tells his fellow Christians that he was charged directly by Christ – not of the Earth and opens his writings to the Galatians as follows;
<
p>”I Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead”
<
p>He continues, and admonishes those who would preach a false Gospel
kind of like the UCC and the Unitarians<
p>2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
<
p> 3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
<
p> 4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
<
p> 5To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
<
p> 6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
<
p> 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
<
p> 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
<
p> 9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
<
p>HERE IS AN IMPORTANT LESSON FOR THOSE WHO LIKE TO “CUSTOMIZE” THE BIBLE
<
p> 10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
<
p> 11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
<
p> 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
<
p> 13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
<
p> 14And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
<
p> 15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
<
p> 16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
<
p> 17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
<
p> 18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
<
p> 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
<
p> 20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
<
p> 21Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
<
p> 22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
<
p> 23But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
<
p> 24And they glorified God in me.
<
p>
<
p>… why liberals do anything. So stop trying to tell me, a liberal, what I think is ‘too scary and mean’. I don’t, in point of fact ignore it.
<
p>Yes. Paul had a vision of heaven opening wherein Jesus descended to him and spoke to him.
<
p>But Jesus and Paul WERE contemporary corporeals… but there is no record that they ever met prior to Jesus death. Paul is reputed to have had his conversion on the road to Damascus in around 35 AD at an unknown (but presumed young) age… only a few years after Jesus was crucified which is believed to have occured no later than 33 AD. Dates are uncertain because of different record keeping systems and resultant imposition of calendars by later pontiffs (Pope Gregory). (For example, it is well established now that Jesus was not born in the year 0 or the year 1, but between 6 and 4 BC because we know that Herod the Great died around 5-4 BC and Luke tells us that Joseph and Mary fled to Eqypt to escape Herod and only returned to Judea after he died. The “Anno Domino” – Year of our Lord – is a Catholic construct from the 3rd century)
<
p>It is thought, but not known, that Paul was in his late twenties or early thirties at the time and thus may have been deep in his studies when Jesus was preaching. It is certain, however, that he ‘bought into’ the deep pharisaical animosity to Jesus. He was on his way to Damascus to arrest some early Christians, apparently as a sort of ‘free-lance’ Christian prosecutor…
… as TedF does elsewhere in this thread, that this is a strictly Christian perspective on the events, told by a Christian… so, for example, any adjectives that might appear disparaging are merely descriptive in the context of the narrative and perspectives of the actors in the drama… Other perspectives are welcome, indeed encouraged.
Again, don’t forget the Jewish perspective! The Pharisees get a bad rap among Christians for obvious reasons. Just listen to the St. Matthew Passion! In fact, the Pharisees were the moderates and populists of their day, siding with the common people against the priestly aristocracy who ran the Temple, and tempering the strictness of the written law with their “oral law,” which became the Mishna and ultimately the Talmud. So where the Sadducees, the priestly party, thought that “an eye for an eye” should be read literally to require maiming as a punishment, the Pharisees interpreted the verse more liberally to require monetary restitution.
<
p>Indeed, while I’m not prepared to defend the point in detail here, a lot of the sayings and parables of Jesus sound very much like the sayings and parables of the early rabbis, who of course were from the party of the Pharisees. And this shouldn’t be a surprise, if you think about it.
<
p>TedF
The present day ‘rabbinical’ tradition in the Jewish religion descends directly from Pharisaical teachings in the wake of the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 77 AD.
Many of us who are frustrated by those who point to Leviticus point out that there are many archaic laws in the same Book. Nobody but possibly the most orthodox of Jews even remembers they exist, let alone tries to adhere to them. The Sodom/Gommorah story is easy to dismiss as being more about a guest/host relationship than sexuality. After all, Lot offered up his two virgin daughters instead, which doesn’t sound terribly moral to me. I don’t understand your 4th commandment reference (“Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.”), but even if you got the number confused we like to point out that homosexuality didn’t even make the ultimate top ten list.
<
p>We must read the Bible in the context in which it was written. Much of the Old Testament was written down during the Babylonian Captivity and the Israelites sought to set themselves apart by creating a strict moral code. I will not pass judgement on people living 2500 years ago for not knowing what we know now or having the same values, but neither will I consider myself bound by every word of a Book written that long ago. You would never dream of relying on every detail of a history, science, geography, language, or even math book written that long ago, so how does relying on every detail of a religion book written that long ago make sense?
<
p>As for Paul, the Damascus Road story notwithstanding, much of what he wrote was his interpretations. He had every right to do this as far as I’m concerned, but we in turn have every right to disagree. Paul was very much a product of his time and also had views on women that are completely unacceptable in most circles now. I cannot consider the one-time chief persecuter as the pre-eminent authority. Jesus Himself says absolutely nothing on the subject of homosexuality. I even read recently the theory of one author, a retired Episcopal Bishop, that Paul himself was gay and condemned homosexuality so strongly as a way of wrestling with his own issues in this regard.
Paul was gay – yeah – that must have been it
<
p>So what if he was? Does that make the sin, not a sin?
<
p>This hypocrisy angle you guys love to throw around, what you are really getting at is part of the religion we belong to. To be a Christian is to acknowledge we are sinners and we can make mistakes and we try to redeem ourselves. Yes we have weaknesses and temptations, yes some people are better than others at dealing with them, yes some people are repressing their sexuality, no most people are not, on and on and on. Its all perfectly rational to Christians who grapple with these and other parts of one’s life.
I’m not sure I personally accept the idea that Paul was gay. We will probably never know for sure, but I just threw it out there as an interesting theory. I personally don’t care if he was or not since I’m convinced homosexuality is not a sin. I just don’t think one should be so roundly condemning something that one is or does himself. That’s the very definition of hypocrisy and I would invoke Jesus’ admonition that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.
<
p>BTW, your actual comment here was tame compared to the 3 rating you gave it.
Politically, I’m with you. But I have to say that this point, which you see often, is so, well, Christian. Remember, for Jews the commandment against shaving (Lev. 19:27), like the other ritual commandments, is “still good law,” as they say, though electric razors, which cut rather than shave, allow observant Jewish men today to be clean-shaven if they want to be. Likewise with the prohibitions against eating shellfish, etc. So one answer–a Jewish answer, which probably wouldn’t make sense to a Christian–is to question your premise that the commandment against shaving is meaningless today.
<
p>TedF
that any Jewish law that Christ did not refute specifically is still valid in Christianity. For example, Jews did allow divorce, Christ was very much against it (Matthew 19:4), so a good Christian should not divorce. But since Christ did not say anything about beards, the old Jewish law should still be valid. If it isn’t, then why the old Jewish law about homosexuality should have any validity?