I admit I'm watching all of this from the sidelines, but it's fascinating: unbenknownst to me, the right wing trash rag American Spectator features a blog by former Reagan political director Jeffrey Lord. Furthermore, this longtime conservative critic is actually a member of the same religious denomination--the United Church of Christ--as Portland's Chuck Currie, former pastor at the Parkrose UCC and sometime contributor to the UCC's "My UCC" pages at the national's blog.
If you know Chuck or have come to know about him from his own blogging or perhaps via the interview I did with him on health care this summer, you know that he's been a consistent champion for the rights of the homeless, those under siege by an out of control police force, universal health care, and other strongly progressive ideals. And of course the UCC, as a "welcoming church," is open and affirming of the GLBT community.
And that is mostly what confuses me about Lord--clearly there's an obvious political disconnect between the Spectator's brand of conservatism and the current teachings of Lord's faith in his church, best exemplified by UCC's Christian embrace of gay and lesbian seekers. Perhaps that philosphical discontinuity is part of the process of faith; I came across the news of this contretemps via a theology blog citing another blog, asking whether the UCC's championing of this "New Gospel" is a health tack for Christians to take.
So discussion and interplay between church teachings and any adherent's personal belief system is fine and healthy. But Currie finds Lord's criticisms of the UCC untoward, when they are based on what Currie sees as lies (given that he titled his blog posting Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them:
Drop[Lou]Dobbs.com is a project sponsored by Media Matters for America and other organizations. Lord falsely stated last night this grassroots effort was part of a United Church of Christ campaign.
Honesty and integrity ought to be highly held values for those in the media. Sadly, Dobbs and Lord have used their positions to spread misinformation about all those they find disagreement with.
The United Church of Christ is a diverse national church with people of all sorts of theological and political backgrounds. That's a strength for our denomination. Even with those differences, however, we normally respect our covenantal tradition by expressing differences of opinion freely, with respect and honesty. It's disappointing that Lord has used his website and CNN as a vehicle for making less than honest comments about our church.
Currie also cites a report from the United Church News, calling Lord's appearance on Dobbs' show part of a campaign which also includes "lengthy unsubstantiated opinion pieces over the past five weeks critical of the involvement of the United Church of Christ's Office of Communication, Inc. (OC, Inc.) in the So We Might See coalition."
This has caused Lord to respond at the Spectator, in a form many will quickly recognize: a sudden aversion to rhetoric and criticism, a complete avoidance of the substantive charge being made (ie, that Lord lied on Lou Dobbs' show about UCC), and some highly charged, if bizarre, ranting:
But his politics? When he uses the church to do politics, that should never get a free pass. The Reverend Chuck --let's remove the "Reverend" here since he's doing the political thing -- worships in the political temple of progressivism. Which is to say he has signed on hook, line and sinker to the political faith that supported slavery, segregation, lynching and racial quotas and the idea that people are "minorities" and not people living Dr. King's dream of a colorblind society. He supports a philosophy that signed on for torture (or "partial birth-abortion," as sticking a needle in the head of baby is called) and the economics of envy. All topped off by a totalitarian passion for suppressing the free speech of those -- like Lou Dobbs -- with whom Chuck disagrees. All in all, progressive politics -- as evidenced by every one from the federal government -- segregating Woodrow Wilson to the pro-lynching supporters of Social Security to the greed and envy economics of the Obama era has constructed quite the politics to proudly oppose. For those of us who believe in human freedom, a colorblind society in which people are judged by the content of their character instead of by their race, gender or sexual preference, the right of a free press, the right to free speech, to not have the government ration your health care etc. etc. -- this places us well on the other side of the extremist/race-based/totalitarian style politics favored by the quaintly named "progressive" philosophy.
Damn that political busybody Jesus, and his callout for treating the sick, feeding the hungry and assisting the poor--clearly all "progressive" positions! And don't forget to notice the barely clever ruse going through conservative circles these days, where "Democrats" are now the party that are responsible for slavery and segregation, as if many of the actual people aren't still living in the South and voting Republican.
There is a comment on Currie's piece that suggests the UCC has indeed been promoting the "DropDobbs" effort, but that's not the same thing as financing it or lending its name to a sponsor. However, it might be enough of a gray area for Lord to contest Currie's assertion of lying--but we'll never know, I guess, since Lord went the more traditional "ad hominem and quickly assumed victimology" route in his response. That forfeit suggests Currie may have the truth's edge. In any case, leave it to a Portland UCC figure to start a national-blog tussle with a conservative church fellow. Maybe Currie will get the chance to ask Lord how he reconciles his political beliefs with a faith that, if Lord were truly paying attention to the denomination's teachings, would strongly call into question his worldview. Maybe the "New Gospel" isn't really where Lord is at.
(As a final note, check out that Gospel Coalition link, the original blog post about the New Gospel and why it's a dangerous trap for Christians. Maybe it's my status as a nonbeliever, but the thrust of it seems to be that Christianity can't survive as a dogma without the specter of Hell, and the idea of God as a wrathful, smiting sonofabitch. The whole "Jesus is love" part is important, sure--but don't forget the rod while you're spoiling the child, apparently!)
Here's part two of the interview I conducted in late August with Chuck Currie, now former minister at the Parkrose United Church of Christ in Portland, and a prominent online progressive faith activist. In Part One, we talked about the theological underpinnings of health care activism and the justifications for a moral argument on the issue, particularly concerning universality of coverage. I teased everyone with just the beginning of his answer to the last question in Part One, which we'll start with now...
Is profit an allowable occurence in the delivery of care?
That's an interesting question, and it depends on who you ask. You know, I think that everyone ought to be able to make a living, certainly, and even to be able to do good things—to enjoy their lives, to enjoy all the gifts that we been given. But I think there's a point where profit becomes greed, and that's where it becomes a problem. There are some physicians for example, who have delved into specialties that are costing enormous amounts of money, like plastic surgeries that are not needed, not medically needed surgeries, but done for issues of vanity or other such things. That's where I get particularly concerned. If companies -- -- hospitals -- -- are going to make a profit as they deliver health care to folks, they certainly need to be taxed adequately on those profits so those profits get back into the system as well, so we can provide support for even more people.
So it wouldn’t have to be a full singer payer, in your eyes? There could be some level of profit?
Sure. It becomes a little bit more difficult for me to say, “what would God want," when you get into those kind of situations. Because I don't want to say God is more in favor of a single-payer plan versus a public option plan versus an entirely privately run plan, for example. I think what God wants is for everyone to be cared for, and it's up to us to make decisions about what is the best plan, and we have to argue that -- -- not in the voice of God but out of our own experiences and our own concerns.
The United Church of Christ, in which I am a minister, has adopted a resolution, our general Synod, which meets every four years--met again this summer--adopted a resolution calling for a single-payer healthcare system. And that generally is what most of the Christian denominations, except for the very right-wing conservative ones. have come out for and said that they want--including the US conference of Bishops. who I believe at several different times have said that single-payer system is the one that would work the best.
So overall I think we’re on the same page with that. But I think that obviously the reality is that we’re not going to get a single-payer system right now. I think the best we can hope for is a system that has a public option and then maybe going down the line we’re able to move closer to a single-payer system.
We've spent a lot of time here discussing health care this summer, focusing on our Congressional representation and their responses to the question, and the various political-policy gambits tossed around in the abstract while folks lose coverage, become ill and die--every day. What we haven't done much is talk about the moral imperative. As I'm sure much of the readership knows through their Facebook account, this paragraph or something like it apparently graced as many as 800,000 status updates this week:
No one should die, go blind, or be crippled because they can't afford health care. No one should go broke because they get sick. No one should be unable to change jobs because of a "pre-existing condition." If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
Clearly it's a broadly popular sentiment, but what strikes me is the overtly moral tone in the underlying message for universal coverage: we should have it because we should...we should. It's one that Bill Moyers addresses in his appeal to the President, a message that Moyers has hammered repeatedly and insistently this summer, quickly becoming the nation's conscience on the issue--not the President, which is essentially the point Moyers is making. Where is the moral leadership?
I'm getting off-road just a bit, but the facebook mob and the Moyers comment both struck me as relevant to the questions I've been mulling: what are the moral components of health care politics and reform, and are the voices of the faith community active and engaged?
In both the Portland-reality and statewide online progessive communities, Interim Pastor Chuck Currie of the city's Parkrose UCC congregation is a clear and vigorous voice, who not only holds forth on Sundays but in Web2.0ville with ChuckCurrie.blogs.com. To the extent that Portlanders exercise their faith in mainline churches, there is a progressive bent you'd probably expect, and Currie is one of its most visible leaders. Below the fold is the opening transcript of our talk in late August, when I asked about the Scriptural prescriptions for the health of the people, and probed him on some of the lines of critique made by others opposing aspects of reform.
I have to say I'm of several mixed feelings regarding Barack Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his Inaugural. The side of me that's horrified by the pasasge of Prop 8 and revulsed by people who support it, is highly disappointed and disgusted that Obama seems not to have noticed--or cared--how offended many GLBT and allied members of the community would feel.
At the same time, this has nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with Obama's persistent hope and vision that the Inaugural can be a catalyst event for bringing the country together despite policy differences that can be quite deep in places. Warren has some nasty, bigoted and frankly homophobic views, but he is also a strong advocate against poverty and some of the "old school" concerns of the Christian church. Further, the benediction, in contrast, will be given by a very progressive cleric, one who is a strong supporter of GLBT rights. Isn't there something more important to our lives beyond January 20, that we could be focusing on?
So I've kind of vacillated back and forth whether I should be upset about Obama's choice or not. One person who's made up his mind is Portland's Rev. Chuck Currie, who is the Pastor over at Parkrose UCC, and also maintains an active progressive blog that I linked to his name, just above.>
I am deeply troubled that President-elect Obama has invited Rick Warren to offer the invocation at the inauguration. Warren stands opposed to the progressive agenda and to many of the core values that Barack Obama campaigned on. The symbolism of offering such as prodigious place in history to a figure such as Warren is upsetting.
Warren is a good spokesman for the Religious Right but does not represent mainstream Christianity.
"My blood pressure is really high right now," said Rev. Chuck Currie, minister at Parkrose Community United Church of Christ in Portland, Oregon. "Rick Warren does some really good stuff and there are some areas that I have admired his ability to build bridges between evangelicals and mainline religious and political figures... but he is also very established in the religious right and his position on social issues like gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights are all out of the mainstream and are very much opposed to the progressive agenda that Obama ran on. I think that he is very much the wrong person to put on the stage with the president that day."
Kudos to Chuck for getting his voice out there, and standing up as a progressive Christian definitely NOT fixated on gays and abortion. I think, given the fact that Obama and Warren are personal friends, that the chances the latter's appearance won't go off as planned are basically nil. But it's a good debate to have.
In my little pimpfest yesterday on News Novick, I neglected to note a prominent endorsement of one of Steve's plans, if not the whole candidate (yet). I'm really heartened to see the active rise of the religious left, and while I've moved past my vicarious interest in figures like Jim Wallis and Portland's own Donald Miller, there is still a lot of truth in their call for renewal of focus on healing through service and individual faith.
At the time I was really reading those guys, I was also stopping by the UCC and Unitarian churches in downtown Portland. I liked the UCC better, not sure why. One thing I do know I like about the UCC is Rev. Chuck Currie, who follows in the progressive religious tradition at his fine blog.
About two months ago, Currie did what moral leaders should do--challenge our leaders on moral issues--when he called for Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick to be public and comprehensive in their plans for the reduction of poverty in Oregon and the US. According to Currie,
[B]oth campaigns responded. Steve Novick invited me out for coffee with him and his campaign manager to discuss poverty and Jeff Merkley's net outreach coordinator did the same.
Now Steve Novick has issued a comprehensive anti-poverty plan:
Today nearly 39 million Americans, including 480,000 Oregonians live below the federal poverty line. That is a staggering disgrace. We are the richest nation in the world, yet the number of people in poverty has been actually been rising in recent years.
It is a central commitment of mine in this campaign to help rebuild this nation’s middle class and that means providing opportunities for every American to make a better life for themselves. And I mean everyone. Too often those living in real poverty are overlooked in our discussions of the economy. I simply cannot accept a society where people are left out the effort to create shared prosperity. Therefore, I have outlined a “Poverty Agenda” to help those living in poverty join the middle class.
His plan addresses affordable housing, national health care reform, the minimum wage, affordable child care, assistance for those needing food, better investments in public transportation, and public advocacy.
Aside from policy prescriptions and proposals, we must do more to ensure that the poor in America are never overlooked or forgotten. I was proud to support John Edwards’ campaign, in part for his commitment to addressing poverty and economic inequality in America.
As Oregon’s next U.S. Senator, I’d be an outspoken advocate on poverty issues – demanding real action in Congress to ensure that everyone in our nation can get ahead, not just the richest one percent. In addition, I’d use the bully pulpit to put the issue squarely in the public’s eye, holding town halls, visiting communities to talk about their challenges in fighting poverty and pushing the media to cover the issue.
All of this - on top of Novick's already announced health care reform plans - offer us a good look at how he would address the issue of poverty in America. I'm proud of him for being the first candidate in the race for the U.S. Senate to make this issue a top priority. His plan is solid and he has chosen many of the right issues to address. Take the time to read the full plan.
Chuck got a cup of coffee and undoubtedly a charming and attentive chat with Carla Axtman, representing Jeff Merkley. From Novick he got the candidate and his top man, but then he got something more: a serious and detailed response to his challenge.
I assume and hope that the Merkley campaign's plan to combat poverty is directly forthcoming; I look forward to seeing it. But I already know who responded to one of Portland's Democratic leaders better, and who is ready right now to deal with an issue that should be near the top of any serious progressive's& priority list.
I saw this on the inside cover of last week's Willamette Week, and I thought for sure someone would mention it. I think it's an awfully interesting picture and concept:
If you didn't figure it out, that's Jesus there kneeling on the floor, washing the feet of prominent world leaders--some "good" ones, some "bad." It comes from the website "GoodNewsTour.com," and I know little else about it or GoodNewsTour (obviously, it's a Christian organization of some kind). What does it mean? It's been a while since I've seen so eloquently expressed what I believe we're supposed to get out of the Jesus story: He loved everybody, because everybody human was made in the image of God. EVERYBODY.
Now, I'm not religious. I'm not even particularly spiritual. I'm not an atheist; I'm willing to accept that there just might BE some kind of superior Creator who fabricated the universe and the stuff in it. But if she does exist, she's so far beyond my meager plane of understanding that it seems senseless to attempt comprehension or understanding of her, in a misguided attempt to "serve" her.
But I can easily get behind the (these days, seemingly forgotten) message: love thy neighbor. Obviously it's hard to love Osama bin Laden...or George Bush, for that matter. But it's a reminder that whatever our origins, we share those origins with the rest of humanity. If Jesus were alive today, he wouldn't be picketing abortion clinics or standing with Fred Phelps and hatin' on the gays. He'd be washing some asshole's feet. Thank God.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
