I Radical

This is very cool!  I’m a radical again!  It’s been so long.  I miss the days, back in the sixties and early seventies, when I saturated myself in defiant nobility—“Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice,” “Woodstock,” “Mad Dogs and Englishmen” six nights in a row at the Redondo Fox, Nehru shirts, bell-bottoms and long hair (hair period).  Then I got a job, got married, got kids, got responsible and fell into the mainstream of normalcy—but not anymore.  I just received a political mailer informing me that I’m extreme again.  Move over Jerry Rubin—sit down Abbie Hoffman—I’m about to blow out the Anthem on my Fender Strat.

I usually grow weary of election propaganda.  But the mailer forming the genesis of my neo-epiphany has rejuvenated my otherwise sedentary political bloodstream.  Of course I’m not running for office, so the mailer, strictly speaking, wasn’t about me.  It was about Craig Huey and some of his (what I thought to be) old time blah-blah American convictions.  But, apparently, Craig and I are edgy—bad boys if you will.  From whence does this edgy-ness arise you ask? 

For one, it comes from those with whom Craig and I associate—our bro-hams.  “He communicates” the flyer exposes “with the knowledge, understanding and language of the Evangelical community.”  Busted!!!  The man, the heat, the fuzz, the cops—they’re always judging me cause of my hair!  My old man told me to quit hanging out with those evangelicals.  “They’re just gonna get you in trouble Paulie!”  It just made me want to hang out with them all the more—same with Craig I guess.  Craig communicates with religious people—extreme—I like it.  But there’s more.

Huey punches his recalcitrant Tommie Smith toward the clouds in mutinous defiance of Roe v Wade.  He thinks the judges were “out of order.”  Tastes like fodder for a sit-in.  Did Huey really say “We cannot ignore the unborn” as the flyer suggests?  Dude!  Crazy, how it all comes back in style.  For hundreds of years Huey’s take on politics was main-stream.  He was normal.  Put one of those white fluffy wigs on him and he could have been a signer.  But now he takes rank with those truculent youths smoking cigarettes behind the library.  But there’s more.

The “deep-throat” like flyer reveals that Huey also “communicates…with the ‘Institute for Creation Research’ which promotes teaching Creationism in public schools.”  Has he no boundaries?  Was he raised by wolves?  The last thing on earth this country needs is someone with the irresponsible conviction that there is an actual Creator—scandalous, sinister—there should be a movie—I’m there—six nights in a row.  Maybe a cameo by Thomas Jefferson explaining what he meant by “Nature’s God” and being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  Guess he was a radical too.

I’m stoked!  After all this time I’m a radical again.  Gotta split now; see if I can find my eight-track of “Easy Rider” and my old lady (she left, lookin’ a little nervous). 

 

Texas Cheerleader Madness

School officials at an East Texas high school give ample evidence of Joseph Goebbels maxim that if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough people will believe it. The evidence in question is their attempt to bar high school cheerleaders from displaying banners with Bible verses—District Judge Steve Thomas granted an injunction allowing the Scriptures verses to remain until the lawsuit is settled. In the meantime the cheerleaders hold our nation hostage with their reckless use of ancient literature.

It makes you wonder what other portions of Harvard’s Five Foot Shelf are to be banned from government funded education. No doubt The Confessions by Augustine are out and these cheerleaders will be chomping on detention slips if they dare quote The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a’ Kempes. Charles William Eliot should have been more selective. What fine prose would find its way into 21st century five foot shelf?

Would these girls find resistance quoting Vince Lombardi, Woody Hayes or Bobby Knight? Perhaps a more palatable bibliography would include Noam Chomsky, Whoopi Goldberg or Bill Maher. Just how benign must the verbiage be to make the menu of the public school? A menu with pictures always whets the appetite. Is there a clear thinking person with the remotest grasp of American history who actually believes that stifling cheerleaders from writing Bible verses is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind with the establishment clauses? If so, why do they open congress with prayer, why are there numerous allusions to a Creator in our government’s documentation and why are Bible verses carved in granite all over our nation’s capital? Were the fathers double-minded men?

Are we aware of what we are doing when we chastise young people for choosing inscriptions from the finest volumes in human history? Listening to the running media commentary on this issue was maddening. Otherwise clear thinking journalists—journalists who would, no doubt, fight tooth and nail for literary liberties have transitioned into a covey of match-wielding Terry Jones wannabees. They speak as if the public school is sacred ground—a pristine environment that these girls are seeking to stain with the pollution of apostolic indecency.

What is the lie everyone is believing? For one, it’s the notion that the establishment clause pertaining to religion was designed to protect the state from the influence of the immaterial convictions of private individuals—regardless of where those convictions might surface. No, the clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” was designed to protect the individual from government tyranny and a government run church—a government who tells teenager girls what classic literature is verboten. To quote Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Plain and simple, the Bible is out because it has something of impact to say. It is a life changing, culture transforming document which is the last thing on earth a monstrous government wants to deal with. A steady diet of The View will yield a much more malleable culture of young people than those who would deign to embark upon a trek through the Epistle to the Hebrews. But strong societies are not made of oatmeal. We should desire our young people set their face like flint to wisdom. Suing them for quoting Scripture will not yield that desired end.

Are People Born That Way?

Hello sir, I had a couple questions regarding your sermon on Sunday. Listening to it, I became a bit confused as to your view of homosexuality. So, what precisely is your view of homosexuality? It goes without saying that way of living is wrong, but I wondered, do you think people can be born homosexual? Good Question, Humanity is a fallen, sin-laden race and we are born with various desires and/or we may acquire various desires as we grow. "Yet man is born into trouble, as the sparks fly upward" (Job 5:7) Some of these desires may be attached to our biological make-up, some may be psychological. My point was: ethics must transcend human desire. In short, whether or not someone is born with strong homosexual desires is moot. For example, if I am born with a strong (even overwhelming) desire to do violence, that desire must be overcome or somehow restrained. We certainly shouldn't redefine our ethics to accommodate our strong passions; that man "comes forth from the womb speaking lies" (Ps. 58:3) does not justify lying. None of this means we should be insensitive to the difficulties and struggles people have with their desires. More to the point is that we don't establish ethics via human passions.

Here's a vote for a Christian voice
April 2006

By Paul Viggiano

After six months of regular church attendance, the atheist/attorney finally called for an appointment. I was thrilled! Was there a transformation? Had the Lord touched his heart? People come to church for all sorts of reasons. Why had he been coming so consistently? I was more than happy to meet with him; a bit curious, too.

He sat across from me in my study. He had listened to me for hours. Now I would listen to him. A thinker, he had pondered Christianity, but there were roadblocks. He voiced them.

"Why do Christians insist," he asked, "on forcing their political and ethical beliefs upon others?" I hadn't anticipated this question. He just didn't understand why something as personal and intimate as one's faith, had to spill over into politics. After all, faith is so holy and politics is so ... political.

I'd heard this before.

As a Christian, I am often bombarded by some undefined segment of our culture chastising me for seeking to "force" my beliefs on others and, as a March 15 letter to the editor asserts, "insist that they live by morality."

There seems to be legitimate confusion and even frustration. Here's my explanation:

I asked my lawyer/friend if he thought I should vote. He said I should. To him, voting was serious business. People ought to vote! Good Americans vote! But isn't it logically necessary that, in the very act of voting, one is seeking to force his beliefs upon everyone who is voting against whatever he is voting for? (You may wish to read that sentence again ... I'll wait.)

It doesn't seem consistent to tell me I should vote and then tell me that I shouldn't seek to force my beliefs upon others. That is exactly what voting does.

Walk with me into the booth:

The propositions and candidates stare at me from the confusing little punch-card booklet. Vote "Yes" vote "No" vote for "ME!" It seems I have some decisions to make. Should marriage be only between a man and a woman? Should it be illegal to terminate babies prior to birth? Should murderers be put to death? Should creation be taught in schools? Should the Pledge of Allegiance include some reference to God?

These decisions lie before us. Can you hear the question begging? When we vote, whose beliefs should we be seeking to force upon others? I believe the reasonable and conscientious vote to all of the above should be "Yes." It's someone else's belief that the vote be "No." Either way, somebody is seeking to force his beliefs on somebody else. In a society where people vote, this is simply unavoidable.

Since voters necessarily seek to force their beliefs upon others, it would appear that the actual objection is against those who have a religious genesis for their system of ethics and beliefs. People don't want religion forced upon them. If by saying this people mean they don't want to be forced to attend church against their will, I say "Amen."

But people fail to understand that Christianity is a world view. My faith is not like my health club or butcher who I visit and then forget about when I move on to a different category in my life. My faith informs every aspect of my life, including politics.

Why is it appropriate for certain people to vote in a manner consistent with what they learned from their parents or tabloids or sit-coms, but it is inappropriate for me to vote in a manner consistent with what I've learned from reading sacred scripture? After all, I think the scriptures are the zenith of truth and wisdom.

Why does the origin of my ideals somehow disqualify them (or me) from playing a part in the public arena? Why are the teachings of Moses and the Apostle Paul considered unacceptable influences in the venue of civic conscience, while the sentiments of Reiner, Moore and Penn are deemed admissible? It seems hardly fair to disqualify my opinion because you don't like its origin.

My attorney/friend's confusion was assuaged. I'm not sure if he was convinced. But if he wasn't, it's not because there was no reasonable answer to his question.

People should vote in a manner consistent with their highest beliefs. The Christian source for the highest ideals is the Bible. It trumps all human wisdom. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart," the Proverbs teach, "and lean not on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight." That includes politics.

My Afternoon at the Mosque

Dialogue and - delightfully - definitions at mosque open house
By The Rev. Paul Viggiano
Posted: 10/24/2010 05:31:42 PM PDT
Updated: 10/24/2010 09:58:49 PM PDT


In an effort to assuage the general discomfort many Americans' experience vis- -vis the Islamic religion, the Islamic Center of South Bay (along with numerous other mosques in Southern California) hosted an open house. I attended and, for the most part, it was a profitable and illuminating event.

I was delighted at the panel of Muslims who were willing to address politically charged questions without the normal political equivocations. There was an open and unanimous denouncement of the actions of terrorists committing atrocities in the name of Allah. One professor on the panel, Dr. Jamil Momand, explained that a fatwa (an Islamic decree) had been signed by the Islamic community uniformly branding the terrorist activities as heinous.

Significant disparity arose during the afternoon regarding the history of the Islamic religion. The panel had a different view of history than many of the visitors. Several guests saw Muslims as the perpetrators of great evil, whereas the panel saw Muslims more in the role of victims - especially over who has a right to the land in the Middle East. Clearly, the different communities have conflicting resources regarding actual historical events.

What I found particularly helpful and instructive were the panel's answers to the religious distinctions between Muslims, Jews and Christians. One panelist, Hafez Hafez, was quick to point out that Muslims believe in Islam, Judaism and Christianity. But further analysis showed that the Muslim's view of Christianity differs from a Christian's view of Christianity. Whereas they believe Jesus was a prophet, they do not believe Jesus to be the son of God and vehemently disagree with the notion of Jesus dying on the cross to deliver men from the guilt of their sins.

According to Islam, men are saved from hell by acknowledging their sin and stopping it. This is substantially inconsistent with the Christian's view of salvation, which is obtained by the grace of God through faith in the cross and resurrection of Christ - good works following as evidence of true faith.

The virtually impossible question that couldn't be answered by the panel was: Does anybody ever truly stop sinning and just how good does one have to be to escape hell? It was here that the words of the late John Gerstner rang true, "the Christian faith is the only religion where men don't save themselves."

The source of the disagreement about the person and work of Christ, according to the panel, arose from variants or errors in the Bible. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are respected by Muslims who view themselves as descendants of Abraham through Ishmael (whereas as Jews and Christians would identify more with Isaac) and men of "the book." Nonetheless, their respect for the Scriptures only goes so far. They were very clear that the Bible has errors but the Quran does not.

Arguments for the veracity of the Quran were given by panelist Adeel Syed. These arguments included the beauty of its writing, its effect upon people, its fulfilled prophecies and its consistency with science. Similar arguments are often made for the Bible.

It may sound odd for a Christian minister to find this kind of dialogue refreshing - I certainly do not agree with the Islamic religious propositions. But living in a society where so few are willing to make any clear authoritative statements whatsoever becomes nauseating - as is evidenced by today's political campaigning.

Dialogues are reduced to meaningless drivel if people aren't willing to make, and seek to defend, some form of propositional truth.
Truth loves a definition. And though I do not agree with the truths espoused by the Islamic religion, at least they had the courage and integrity to state them, which made the event profitable.

The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance (e-mail: pastorpaul@integrity.com).

Where in the Constitution?

I do not know the Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell at all, other than the hype over her supposed First Amendment debacle. But in her defense:

Separation of church and state is not mentioned in the constitution.

The clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is not synonymous with the phrase ‘separation of church and state.’ In context this clause means the government would not (as it literally states) make a law respecting the establishing of a religion. The most obvious example they were seeking to avoid being something similar to The Church of England. There would be no Church of America.

Demonstrably more foolish than anything Christine O’Donnell said was Ken Paulson’s drivel (even when he had time to think about it). The President of the First Amendment Center said the First Amendment “means that creationism cannot be taught in America’s public schools.” Now this is what should have made everyone laugh.

Blinding flash of the obvious moment: The Declaration of Independence states: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” If, Mr. Paulson, the First Amendment means that creationism cannot be taught, how is it that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator (with a capital ‘C’)? Acknowledging a Creator necessarily supposes a creation. And I’m pretty sure the Declaration of Independence is a government document.

Who made you president of the First Amendment Center? I declare myself president of the First Amendment….ummm….Alliance, yeah, Alliance.

Open-minded approach undermines church foundation
By The Rev. Paul Viggiano
Posted: 02/28/2010 06:05:29 PM PST


Some might consider it the most closed-minded statement in the history of the world, when Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me." The Presbyterian Church USA's "Religious and Demographic Profile of Presbyterians" is clearly uncomfortable with such an exclusive statement.

Almost 40 percent of the panel, made up of members, elders, pastors and specialized clergy of the nation's largest Presbyterian denomination apparently disagree with Jesus, believing there are other religious paths to heaven for those who are sincere.

A snapshot of this Universalist disposition among PCUSA leaders may appear forbearing and charitable, but is it truly? Is a doctor magnanimous when he tells his cancer patient there are numerous remedies for his disease when there is really only one?

And the question remains, which paths are included and how sincere must one be? Why would they say there are many paths but restrict themselves from saying any path will do? It is this departure from orthodoxy that is compelling many of my Christian friends and pastors in the PCUSA to rethink whether they wish to remain in that denomination. There appears to be a serious misunderstanding of the Christian faith. Jesus never presented Himself as one among many options.

Jesus didn't come to evaluate religions but to rescue fallen humanity. People often ask me if I think people go to hell because they're Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. The answer is "no."

Hell is not the consequence of an errant religious view; hell is the consequence of sin. People go to hell because they're sinners; it's an all-inclusive club.

Jesus didn't come to help us figure out how to overcome our sin, He came as the Lamb of God to take away our sin. This teaching is so central to a Christian, that to deny it is to deny one's faith altogether. Jesus, as the Savior of men's souls, is also a unique aspect of the Christian faith. Christianity is the only religion where men don't save themselves.

Such a denial of the clear, orthodox teaching of the Christian faith is endemic of Western Evangelicalism's anemic condition and subsequently the anemic condition of the culture. The PCUSA serves well as a case study exposing our culture's willingness to believe falsehoods.

A life and worldview that offers itself as true, while at the same time agreeing that a contrary life and worldview is also true, has adopted contradictions - which is a nice word for falsehood. We can amicably disagree while still maintaining intellectual honesty, but to say we agree with a system of thought that is contradictory to our own is simply nonsense.

And because of our willingness to believe nonsense, we elect officials who hold Bibles, take photo ops at Sunday morning church services and then engineer legal systems that run head-on collisions with the words in the very Bibles they tote. It has become the swan song for Western culture, which doesn't want to believe in absolutes.

In light of these things, the closed-minded statement of Jesus, so far from being an embarrassment to Christians who don't want to appear overly restrictive, becomes a necessary statement for any religious leaders who actually believes that what they teach is true. The actual question is not whether a person believes in exclusive truth, but which exclusive truth.

The calculated ambiguity that pervades our current ethical and political landscape can only last for so long. Eventually people must ask just what it is we believe. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and similar atheistic religious leaders filled the gap in the 20th century - offering their citizens the absolutes necessary for a culture to survive. Their exclusivity resulted in more deaths and destruction than any previous century in the history of man.

A time will come when Americans must fan away the smoke and mirrors that have come to represent the nonsense by which we are governed. What will the answer be? What, or who, will we be a nation under?

If the religious leaders in one of our nation's largest denominations are willing to adopt falsehoods, how can we expect more from our political leaders?

There are more than 20 nations in the Middle East that define themselves as Muslim nations. I believe they are mistaken in their religious and political convictions. But what are we? Even our churches don't want to be defined as uniquely Christian.