"Membership in the family of God is neither inconsequential or something to be casually ignored. The church is God's agenda for the world. Jesus said, "I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it." The church is indestructable and will exist for eternity. It will outlive this universe, and so will your role in it."
- Rick Warren
Saturday, January 23, 2010
I thought this post by Mike Potemra on Scott Brown (Senator-elect from Massachusetts) was pretty interesting.
Brown is a member of a church affiliated with the Calvinist-rooted Christian Reformed Church in North America. If you go on the website of his congregation, New England Chapel in Franklin, Mass., you will read the following testimony from an attendee: “I have found a home, a family, friends, and most importantly, begun the journey to a REAL relationship with God. It is not one based on guilt or fear, but rather love, hope, and mercy.” The rest of the website has a similar tone. This is clearly not the Calvinism that lives on today chiefly in anti-Calvinist apologetics: the Calvinism of Salem and Hawthorne, that continues to haunt America’s dreams with a God who is best understood as a cruel despot. This new Calvinism is a development of the post-Great Awakening era, a religion that’s not afraid of sentimentality — yet it remains recognizably Calvinism, in its stress on the Bible and on the sovereignty of God.
And then one reads that Mr. Brown helped raise $5.5 million for the Cistercian nuns of Wrentham, who pray for him daily. (Brown himself is quoted: “When you have nuns praying for you three times a day and you’re not Catholic, anything that anybody can do or say about me, it’s Teflon. . . . It bounces right off.”) A couple of years ago, I happened to be in the Wrentham area shortly after having read about this abbey in a book by Thomas Merton, so I dropped by — and I can tell you that Mt. St. Mary’s is a genuine survival of faithful Catholicism, in a time and place generally considered less than hospitable to its values. A beautiful place and one that I long to visit again.
This is the America Scott Brown is from, a place where Calvinists are cheerful and conservative Cistercians pray for their Protestant benefactor. Some on the Internet are upset because Senator Brown is pro-choice, but most are wise enough to realize that he is a friend to life in many ways that will actually count over the next couple of years. Brown, like the rest of us, is what religious folk like to call a “work in progress” . . .
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5784.
Comments on "On Scott Brown's Ecumenism":
2. don bryant
- 01/24/2010 2:58 am CST
Been to New England Chapel. It is evangelical. Uses normal model of seeker churches, per Willow Creek and Saddleback. Left of center when you take into account women's ordination and the "feel" of the place. You would never know they are CRC from a casual visit. Church of about a 1,000. Met some pretty sharp staff.
4. Shrode
- 01/24/2010 7:25 am CST
A pro-choice republican? It makes me think. What would typical politically conservative pro-life Evangelical Christians (I count myself among them) do given a choice between a pro-choice republican and a pro-life democrat?
Might it show our true colors?
Dovetails nicely with Jared's recent posts. What are we really trusting to save us? Do we really think Jesus would be a republican?
So many American Christians have aligned themselves with the Republicans, it would be hard to get off the train.
I wonder if the day is coming when one can no longer assume that Dem is pro-choice and the Rep. is pro-life? Probably a long way off, but maybe closer than we think?
Of course, I wonder if a pro-life Republican could even get elected in Mass... Remember Romney was firmly pro-choice when he was elected governor.
5. Jared
- 01/24/2010 12:42 pm CST
I think many rejoicing over his victory -- and it's okay to be happy about what is seen as a political victory regarding a social concern -- would be really surprised to know he's pro-choice.
Let's say we someday overturn Roe v. Wade. Then what?
I think too many in the church are willing to settle for the good behavior of a politically conservative nation. And then a bunch of people still go to hell.
6. Bill
- 01/24/2010 3:42 pm CST
I didn't post this to point out what is (to everyone but me) the obvious and pervasive hypocrisy of republicans, evangelicals, etc. There's too much of that type of postage out there already, and my conviction is to leave that to others.
I just think that these are, as I wrote earlier, strange days, and I think that Scott Brown is an interesting mix of a politician. This is, after all, Massachusetts we're talking about.
I'd vote for a truly pro-life democrat over a pro-choice republican, any day of the week (at least I'm pretty sure I would). My guess is some of you probably would too. Others of you voted for a very pro-choice Democrat over a pro-life Republican in spite of the abortion issue in 2008. I don't consider you a hypocrite (though I disagree with your choice)
I'm glad Scott Brown won, for a lot of reasons, and I can say that and still keep my pro-life cred intact. It was either him or Coakley. It's not like she's pro-life.
I'm also not happy about anyone going to hell and I don't think that politics is salvation. And I think a large portion of Christian people who vote either conservative or liberal get that too. I'm trying to find the balance in my own life between being interested, concerned and engaged in our country's political life and chucking the whole thing. I'm not there yet.
8. Bill
- 01/24/2010 3:59 pm CST
No apologies necessary. That was a rant and I was just getting on to delete it.
Guess since you've read it I need to leave it out there. I didn't mean to offend anyone. I'm just dealing with this particular subject right now.
For what it's worth, I think if the Republican party started acting like dems and visa versa, I think most conservatives (and I guess we lump evangelicals into that) would become Democrats.
10. Bill
- 01/24/2010 5:24 pm CST
Jared, I didn't take it personally. As you know, I'm thinned skinned (too much so) about the church as a whole. I just am, and I can't shake it, and it makes me unfair.
I'm not worried what anyone thinks of me.
I'd rather you keep your opinions here. In fact, I demand it :-) - If anyone needs to go away on this subject, it's me.
I think what you're saying is important. I think I see it from a little bit different angle, but that doesn't make me right. I'm weighing this out, trying to figure out what changes I personally need to make.
Let's make a deal: You keep posting your thoughts on this subject here and I'll keep my peace.
Love you
bill
12. Karl
- 01/24/2010 9:39 pm CST
As a Thinklings reader and occasional commenter, I would prefer that *both* Jared and Bill continue to post their thoughts, in actual Thinklings posts, and in comments to posts, and in responses to comments to posts. Regardless of whether "we've had this conversation before." The absence of either of your voices would be a loss. At least, as long as this blog is intended for a public readership and not just a private conversation.
13. Roy
- 01/24/2010 10:00 pm CST
Concur with Karl. Especially since, tho it takes lots of evident extra sweat to do so, both Jared and Bill work hard to make the issue the issue, not personalities or quirks connected to e commo the issue. Something about iron sharpening iron comes to mind. Blacksmithing ain't necessarily trivial work.
14. G. Frederick
- 01/25/2010 12:51 am CST
I concur with Karl as well, but I will say this, Not only Would I vote for a truly pro-life democrat over a pro-choice republican, I HAVE. There is no question for me that the life issue is THE issue and I take a lot of flak for "being a one-issue" voter. That of course is not a fair accusation, for I am generally educated on all the issues, but the life issue will always override all others.
15. Bob Sacamento
- 01/25/2010 4:11 pm CST
Some on the Internet are upset because Senator Brown is pro-choice, but most are wise enough to realize that he is a friend to life in many ways that will actually count over the next couple of years.
Brown has voted, at some risk to his career, for conscience clauses allowing Catholic etc. hospitals to opt out of things like dispensing contraceptives. And I think it's pretty clear that he will vote against Federal abortion funding, out of fiscal conservatism if nothing else. Martha Coakley, for her part, promised to vote for and only for said funding in the health care bill. I could wish for more from Brown myself, but as it has been said, politics is the art of the possible.
16. JMJ
- 01/25/2010 5:05 pm CST
First some disclaimers:
I am fundamentally pro life, and otherwise socially conservative. I am also fiscally conservative.
I also have more questions than answers, I don't intend to be judgmental, but I want us to realize we need to do more
OK, now to my comments:
I wonder if we Christians, who use abortion as a litmus test for our voting miss the forest for the trees. I too want abortion outlawed. But our republican "friends" haven't been very productive in this regard. Other than Dubya's partial birth initiative, there has not been any more offerings from Republican presidents or republican controlled congress. (please correct me if I'm wrong).
In addition, Jon Trott, formerly of Cornerstone magazine, points out, that of many of the republican appointed justices have voted pro choice in important abortion related cases.
My point is, just because a politician is pro life, it doesn't mean pro life agendas will be legislated.
It also should be pointed out that we Christians have greatly dropped the ball regarding care for those who get abortions the most:
We do well with crisis pregnancy centers (like we should), but not so well, with helping new mothers care for their babies, such as job skills, day cares for single moms, rehab for drug addicted moms and babies, etc.
We also have dropped the ball reducing the amount of abortions.
We do well campaigning against the morning after pill and RU 486 (like we should), but don't effectively teach purity to our own church youth. (Churched youth sexuality is incredibly high.)
Question that I don't have an answer to: What about abstinence only education? Damned if we do, damned if we don't: if we teach birth control, it is viewed (correctly so) that we're teaching people how to sin. If we don't, we get unplanned pregnancies and increased abortions.
How can our salty-ness affect the world such that abortions are reduced?
Sorry for rambling. I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts.
17. Shrode
- 01/26/2010 9:26 am CST
Here's a San Antonio Democrat who is avidly pro-life.
“I gladly admit that I have that position and will always have that position,” he told a group of about 200 abortion protestors at Milam Park. “If we do not stand up for our beliefs, then we will continue to see ... mass murder in the name of choice.”
A former Bexar County commissioner and county judge who also served in the Texas Legislature, Longoria once introduced a law stating that life begins at conception. The bill went nowhere — in part, he said, because even Republicans were afraid of addressing the controversial issue.
Sunday marked Longoria's first speaking engagement on the issue since August, when he said “pro-abortionists mounted a cunning, last-minute campaign” to ruin the possibility of the Bexar County Commissioners Court appointing him to oversee one of three new county courts at law.
Longoria said that although he initially was considered a favorite among the 23 candidates for the open benches, his support from commissioners faded after abortion rights advocates voiced concerns that he would become an activist judge.
Longoria told the crowd Sunday that the lack of support amounted to persecution since he would have no purview over abortion issues in a misdemeanor court. But he has no regrets about sticking to his convictions, he said as the crowd burst into applause.
Also standing in the steady wind and bright sun at Milam Park on Sunday were families who have adopted unwanted children, local clergy and other anti-abortion groups.
18. RobertRe
- 01/26/2010 12:04 pm CST
I am unable to fault Scott Brown on his stated thought concerning life/choice decicions considering the social fabric of his consitituent neighborhood. If we as pro-lifers are unable to carry forward the idea of the sanctity of life at conception then we can only expect to compromise in the political arena with those who have other agreeable qualities to their platforms. As regards those who have perpetuated horror upon unborn life, I would not want to be the judge or jury who decided punishment(death in Texas?et al)
for one whol, unprepared emotionally or financially or socially, and in reflex to rape by an HIV infected drug addict had tried to stop the horror of such impregnation! Yet life is the first of the unalienable rights listed in our Declaration.
19. RobertRe
- 01/26/2010 12:10 pm CST
I meant to mention that I enjoy the thought of happy Calvinists and also Protestants supported in prayer by Catholics. Being from W Texas and all.
Leave a Comment:
Sorry but it is not logical to claim pro-choice and also friend to life. It not only doesn't compute, but the one thing that will ALWAYS lose my vote is the pro-death plank.