Circuit Writer

My column for the April 03 – April 09, 2011 edition of The Tahlequah Christian.

———

I just recently discovered a small blurb of an article posted on the Disciples New Service at our denominational website, and thought that it really deserved a little bit stronger coverage. It announced that Rev. Dr. Sharon Watkins had signed onto a statement entitled “Religious Leaders Stand Shoulder-to-Shoulder Against Extremism of All Kinds in Support of American Values.” Although it is clear that we are called not to participate in religious intolerance of any kind, this document specifically addressed the hearings on “the extent of radicalization of American Muslims” in the Homeland Security committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. continue reading…

I’m excerpting a copy of this post written by Rev. Craig Watts for the Disciples Peace Fellowship that was also featured in the Disciple’s Advocate (Vol. 9 no. 1) a publication of Disciples Home Missions.  It’s a great theological statement and well worth the read.  You can read the entire article by following the link below.

I am an atheist.  Sure lots of people have heard me talk about God, write favorable things about God, pray and worship.  And it was all sincere.  Still I am an atheist.  I’m an atheist the way the members of the early church were atheistic.  Atheism was one of the central charges officials of the Roman Empire made against Christians.  They were vilified for “irreligiosities” continue reading…

The latest column for The Tahlequah Christian, written for the week of April 11-17.

———

These past few weeks and months have been interesting on the political scene. The national picture has witnessed massive legislative and foreign policy shifts that will likely mark significant changes in how we understand ourselves as a nation. And while this may turn out to be a good thing, in the short run it may leave us feeling uncertain, unsettled, and perhaps even confused. For some, this is already the case, and the results have become chaotic. continue reading…

Here’s an excerpt from an article hosted by the National Council of Churches. It discusses the Ecumenical Advocacy Days gathering last Sunday, March 21 in Washington, D.C.  Disciples’ General Minister and President Sharon Watkins preached at the gathering Sunday morning.  The focus of this year’s event was comprehensive immigration reform.

Washington, March 21, 2010 — As more than 700 delegates to Ecumenical Advocacy Days continued to pursue their hope for just immigration laws, the Rev. Dr. Sharon Watkins preached about the oneness of the human family.

Watkins, General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), delivered the sermon at Sunday morning worship on the third day of the ninth annual Advocacy Days gathering in Washington.

Throughout the ages, Watkins noted, human beings have separated into distinct groups. “The broad sweep of human history is not a feel-good story,” she said. “We make boundaries, and we decide who’s in and who’s out.”

Click to READ MORE.

The irony of the day is that as the debate rages over scrapping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and allowing people of the LGBTQI community to serve openly in the armed forces, the Oklahoma legislature is actively working to prohibit state law enforcement agencies from cooperating in federal hate crime investigations. A bill sponsored by Senator Steve Russell (R – Oklahoma City) introduces changes to the state code designed to do exactly that. On its face, the most recent revision of the bill (Senate floor substitute) may sound innocuous:

WASHINGTON - APRIL 12 (2007): Judy Shepard, mother of hate crime victim Matthew Shepard, wipes away tears during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

An Act relating to criminal investigations … which relates to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation; limiting disclosure of certain investigative information; prohibiting state employees from assisting a federal agency under certain circumstances. continue reading…

(Photo by Chris Hondros/Newsmakers) Content © 2008 Getty Images All rights reserved

In a previous blog, “Hijacking History,” I took on the subject of the Texas state curriculum for K-12 education (known as TEKS) and the implications of the proposed revisions to the curriculum that was to be presented to the State Board of Education (SBOE).  This new curriculum will not only determine what will be taught in Texas’ many public schools, but will also likely determine what is seen in new history textbooks throughout the nation.  (I explain this in more depth in my previous post.) continue reading…

I’d like to dedicate this blog post to Bobbie Tetley, my high school AP American History teacher who instilled in me a love of history, and even though I am on the eve of completing graduate school, she remains one of the most challenging, demanding, and respected voices not only of my educational career, but of my life.  Thank you, Mrs. Tetley.  – cwc

————

This first came to my attention through an action alert from the United Farm Workers, an organization I’ve become connected to through my denomination’s participation in the National Farm Worker Ministry.  I received an email asking me to “Stop Texas from erasing Cesar Chavez and Hispanics from school books.”  It provided information about an upcoming session of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) that will be voting on new curriculum standards for social studies for the state of Texas.  UFW asked me to compose an email to Gail Lowe, the chair of the Texas SBOE demanding that they not further marginalize the voices of Latina/os within the history curriculum. continue reading…

If I would’ve started a pool as to what issue would be the first to catch my attention in this new year, my money would not have been riding on church and state.   That is, at least, until I discovered what may seem like a relatively obscure action of taken by the Board of Aldermen from my hometown of Centralia, MO.  In their final meeting of 2009 they discussed three proposed ordinances that would have amended the city code’s non-discrimination protections to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation,” a change that I welcome and support.  Unfortunately the meeting ended with a failure to pass the proposed changes by a vote of 4-2. However it wasn’t the inaction of the aldermen that concerned me; it was the religious activism on the part of a local pastor.  Here’s an excerpt of coverage from the local newspaper:

One speaker, for example, was Larry Lewis, interim pastor of the Centralia [First] Baptist Church. Suggesting he spoke for “Centralia’s faith community,” he said the ordinances violated the separation of church and state and would, among other things, give the city’s stamp of approval to those lifestyles. “This would be divisive when this community needs healing.”

This prompted me to look into the proposed ordinances for myself, and I was disappointed but not surprised to discover that the language of the bills included very specific exemptions for churches and other religious institutions and organizations.  (I write more about this at my own blog.)  The claim that the bills violated the separation clause was nothing more than political grandstanding designed to provide a supposedly “legal” cover for the public moralizing of an exclusivist religious perspective.  In actuality, this no-holds-barred attempt by so-called Christian interests to codify their own morality proved to be the greater threat to the separation clause.  In instances such as this, the dual meaning of “separation of church and state” is too often forgotten.  The first amendment not only protects religious institutions from encroachment by the state, but protects the state, and by extension its citizens, from the encroachment of religion.

I discovered that I wasn’t alone in this new year’s concern.  As I wrote about the moral tyranny of religion in local politics, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State wondered about similar issues at the national level.  They recently posted a report offering a look at President Obama’s record on this issue after one year.  Their findings aren’t nearly as gleeful as those on the Religious Right might have you believe:

There’s no denying that when Obama took office, many who stand guard on the church-state wall breathed a sigh of relief. The previous eight years had been difficult ones, and there was a sense that things had to get better because they really couldn’t get any worse.

…

But that doesn’t mean everything Obama has done has pleased advocates of church-state separation. Indeed, the Obama record on church and state is mixed. One year later, it’s a good time to step back and assess his record so far.

Lifting up Obama’s decision to open federal funding for stem cell research and inclusion of minority and non-religious voices in his speeches and public functions as highlights, this report goes on to address areas of concern.  Noting the President’s rather ambiguous record regarding appointments to federal judgeships, including the appointment of Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the report goes on to raise real questions with regard to the administration’s positions concerning faith-based initiatives, school voucher programs, and church/state cases being pursued by the Department of Justice.  While I don’t necessarily share these concerns to the same extent that Americans United might, I do think they make legitimate points about Obama’s record on the separation between religion and politics.

Yet, as important as these collisions between religion and politics are, I’m left with a troubling question: If we are to honor the non/religious pluralism of our contemporary society, how do we effectively work to promote the common good?  And perhaps even more importantly, how do we even determine a common good?  While it should be apparent that I support the liberal (lowercase “L”) ideal of tolerance, I’m not blind to its problems.  Ethicist and scholar David Hollenbach perhaps describes them best:

In public life, all encompassing understandings of the common good must be subordinated to the importance of tolerance.  A live-and-let-live ethos thus leads to what John Dewey once called an “eclipse of the public.”  The good that can be achieved in the shared domain of public life is hidden from view as protection of individual, private well-being becomes the center of normative concern.

(David Hollenbach, The Common God and Christian Ethics, 10)

In an age of religious and nonreligious sectarianism, competing political visions, and outright discord and distrust, how do we seek out a vision for the shared good?  The health care debate that spanned the entirety of 2009 really exemplifies the difficulties we face.  The cries of nationalized health care and “death panels” drowned out the voices of reason for a rational public discussion.  And to make matters worse, this non-debate effectively silenced discussions on other important issues such as the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, apprehension, detainment and trial of suspected terrorists, and the plight of the poor, which extends to far more basic concerns than health care.

It is my hope for 2010 that we as a nation will work to find some means for engaging in national discussions that don’t automatically degenerate into shouting matches and propaganda wars.  Yet looking back at 2009, I’m left to wonder if we can actually summon the ethical wherewithal to make that hope a reality.

Cross posted at the Xenia Institute.

So in a rather unexpected turn of events I ended up getting involved in the politics of the old hometown.  Well, at least editorially speaking, anyway.  I happened across a copy of the newspaper from back home, the Centralia Fireside Guard, when my parents visited for the Christmas holiday.  The front page included an article that caught my attention.  Firstly, for its content: an meeting of the Board of Aldermen that included voting on provisions to update the city’s non-discrimination ordinances to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” and secondly, for its character.  More specifically, a character in the story whom I both know and am acquainted with.  So here’s a look at the highlights from the article that most concerned me (the complete article happens to be posted on the Fireside Guard website):

One speaker, for example, was Larry Lewis, interim pastor of the Centralia Baptist Church. Suggesting he spoke for “Centralia’s faith community,” he said the ordinances violated the separation of church and state and would, among other things, give the city’s stamp of approval to those lifestyles. “This would be divisive when this community needs healing?”

[Aldermen] Orsini and Parmeley tried to explain; citing language in the bill and its supporting ordinance that specifically excluded religious organizations. He suggested the bill could lead to immorality and wanted to know if it would affect hiring practices for churches and religious schools. “No,” said Orsini, “you can discriminate to your heart’s content.” That led Lewis onto another tangent through which seemed to equate gay and transgender lifestyles with prostitution. “Would I be required to rent out a prostitute?” Orsini assured him he would not.

Perhaps a moment of explanation is due before I move on to my response.  For one, I wholeheartedly support the passing of the three proposed changes to the city ordinances.  The ordinances in question included updating the Unlawful Housing Practices, Unlawful Employment Practices, and Unlawful Public Accommodation Practices; Chapters 8.1, 7.1, and 7.2 of City Code for all of those interested.  However, I found myself most concerned by the arguments offered by Rev. Larry Lewis, the interim pastor of First Baptist in Centralia.  But before I go on to post my letter to the editor (which was published in this last week’s edition of the paper), I should note that I’m acquainted with Rev. Lewis.  My father has farmed land owned by the Lewis family and I’ve met him a couple of times along the way.  And this isn’t the first time I’ve been on the opposite side of the issues with Larry.  In 1992 I rather matter-of-factly informed him, as only a 12-year-old can do, that the Toronto Blue Jays were going to fly in a poop on the heads of his Atlanta Braves in the World Series.  But before I digress too far, here’s my response to his concerns about the first amendment violations within these proposed (and sadly defeated) city ordinances:

To the Editor,

It is with a sense of sadness that I write in regard to the recent failure of the city to pass nondiscrimination ordinances with regard to sexual orientation and gender identification.  However, I write to specifically challenge Rev. Larry Lewis’ assertion that these ordinances would violate the separation of church and state.  Having read the language of the bills, including specific exemptions for religious or sectarian organizations or corporations, his claims that these ordinances violate first amendment separations are simply inconsistent with their language.  In fact, I would go a step further to argue that his actions more closely border on violating the separation of church and state.  By claiming to speak for “Centralia’s faith community,” he asks the city to implicitly enforce a certain religious moral perspective.  Just as the separation clause in the U.S. Constitution serves to protect religious institutions from government interference, it also serves to protect the state from the moral tyranny of religion; a tyranny all too often unchecked.

Yet in spite of our differences, Rev. Lewis and I do share two things in common.  We are both religious leaders and we both have ties to the Centralia community.  I just find it unfortunate when we can’t agree that the same Jesus who fought discrimination by associating with the poor and unemployed, lepers, widows, sinners, tax collectors, drunkards, and other societal outcasts 2000 years ago wouldn’t also fight discrimination and division today.

Respectfully,

Clint Collins

Pastor, First Christian Church of Tahlequah, Oklahoma

While it may appear that I stuck it to the good reverend pretty hard, the language of the proposed changes to city code supports my position.  The changes to the code concerning Unlawful Housing Practices appear to have no impact on religious organizations and corporations as far as I can tell.  However, the changes concerning Unlawful Employment Practices, and Unlawful Public Accommodation Practices do have ramifications for religious institutions.  Yet, as I read the language of these documents, they contain very specific exemptions that prevent the state from dictating to the church on these matters.  The changes to the Chapter 7.1 covering Unlawful Employment Practices contains a small, but clear exemption found in the definitions under Section 7.1-1 pertaining to definitions:

EMPLOYER: Any person employing six or more persons within the state of Missouri, and any person directly acting in the interest of an employer, but does not include corporations or associations owned and operated by religious or sectarian groups.

This definition can be found on page 41 of the Agenda for the Board of Aldermen for December 21.

Likewise, the changes to Chapter 7.2 covering Unlawful Public Accommodation Practices also offer clear exemptions.  In fact, this one appears to be wide enough to drive a large truck through.  Here is the exemption Section 7.2-3, subsection C:

C.. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a private club, a place of accommodation owned by or operated on behalf of a religious corporation, association or society, or other establishment which is not in fact open to the public, unless the facilities of such establishments are made available to the customers or patrons of a place of public accommodation.

This exemption can be found on page 48 of the Agenda for the Board of Aldermen for December 21.

I think the saddest thing about the whole affair is that my own fears appear to be true.  The fact that the separation of church and state clause serves to protect not only the church from government interference, but the government and the people from oppressive religious overreach has been lost on many in this country.  Too quickly we have forgotten the mythic history of our nation that this country was founded on the principles that the state could not enforce religious doctrines or impose pietistic moralities upon individuals.  In instances like this, in my own humble little hometown of Centralia, we continue to hide behind half of the first amendment separation clause in order to impose our own rules upon one another.

If this isn’t the oppression of empire that Jesus actively opposed in his life and teachings, then I’m sad to say that after years of seminary training, I don’t know what is.