Sunday, June 8, 2008

One is enough for me?

Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy

All Things Considered, May 27, 2008 · Although polygamy is illegal in the U.S. and most mosques try to discourage plural marriages, some Muslim men in America have quietly married multiple wives.

No one knows how many Muslims in the U.S. live in polygamous families. But according to academics researching the issue, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

You can see some of the women involved in polygamous marriages in the lobby of Sanctuary for Families, a nonprofit women's center in New York City. It bursts with color as a dozen women in bright African dresses and head wraps gather for a weekly noon meeting for West African immigrants. The women come each week to this support group where they discuss hard issues, such as domestic abuse, medical problems, immigration hurdles and polygamy.

Polygamy is freely practiced in parts of Africa, and almost every one of the women in the group has experienced polygamy firsthand – either as a wife in a plural marriage or having been raised in families with one father who has two or more wives.

Group member Sarah says that in her native Guinea, the husband springs it on his wife that he's going to marry someone else. Sarah, like the others interviewed for this story, would give only her first name.

"Sometimes he say, 'OK, I am going to be married tomorrow,' or 'I'm going to be married today.' He's going ask you like that. It happened to me," she says.

Sarah begins to cry. Others nod in sympathy. These women are all Muslim. The Koran states that men may marry up to four women. The Prophet Mohammad had multiple wives.

But there's a restriction, says Sally, another group member. The husband cannot favor one woman over another – with his wealth or his heart.

"You have to love them the same way, share everything the same way, equally," says Sally. "Nobody can do that. It's impossible."

Invisible Lives

Still, Muslims practice polygamy in the U.S., despite state laws prohibiting it.

Here's how a man gets around the laws: He marries one woman under civil law, and then marries one, two or three others in religious ceremonies that are not recognized by the state. In other cases, men marry women in both America and abroad.

Many women keep quiet for fear of retribution or deportation.

For example, Sally's husband moved to the United States from the Ivory Coast before she did. When Sally joined him, she found he had married someone else in America. But without legal immigration papers, she didn't dare come forward and report him to the authorities.

She said when she arrived in the U.S., her husband and his new wife put her in the basement.

"They told me to cook, clean, do everything. I didn't speak English. And he told me, 'Don't say nothing. You say something, she's going make you deported. And me, I'm going to be in jail.'"

Eventually, Sally left the house with her children, and now works at a hair braiding salon. But that fear of deportation prevents many from leaving their polygamous relationships.

"Legally, they're invisible," says Julie Dinnerstein, a senior attorney for Sanctuary for Families. "If you are the second or third or fourth wife, that marital relationship is not going to be recognized for immigration purposes. It means if your husband is a citizen or green card holder, he can't sponsor you. It means if your husband gets asylum, you don't get asylum at the same time. The man is always going to be in a position of greater power."

Secret Ceremonies

In the past decade, Muslim clerics began to notice that some men who wanted a religious wedding were already married to someone else.

According to Daisy Khan, who heads the American Society for Muslim Advancement and is married to an imam, polygamy is more common among conservative, less educated immigrants from Africa and Asia. It is rarer among middle-class Muslims from the Middle East. She adds that nowadays, imams do background checks on the grooms to make sure they're not already married in their home countries.

Some clerics in the U.S. perform second marriage ceremonies in secret.

Khan, who does pre-marriage counseling, says she always raises the issue of polygamy with engaged couples.

"I also explain to them that as a woman, you have certain rights, and as a man, he may one day exercise his right to have a second wife," Khan says. "And usually the man says, 'No, no, no. I'm never going to do that.' And I say, 'Well, in case you ever get tempted, how about we put that in the contract?'"

For Others, a Blessing

Abed Awad, a family law attorney in New Jersey, says for many Muslim men, multiple wives means many children — which is considered a blessing in Islam. And since Islam allows for sexual relations only in marriage, polygamy legitimizes the relationship in God's eyes.

Awad says conservative Muslims argue that in polygamy, "You're actually responsible for that person as your spouse. And the sexual relationship becomes a relationship of love and companionship as opposed to just a sexual fling."

Awad stresses he does not condone polygamy. But he says some conservative Muslim women see some advantages — particularly those who are divorced or widowed.

Mona, a Palestinian woman with six children from her first marriage, is happy to be a second wife. When Mona got divorced in 1990, she became a pariah in her conservative Muslim community in Patterson, N.J.

"When ladies divorce," she says, "the people look down on her — looking to her like [she's] second class."

Then 14 years ago, a man approached her to be his second wife. She resisted at first but then grew to admire him and agreed to become his wife. She says her problems evaporated.

"When I married the second husband, everybody's OK," she says, smiling. "If I go anywhere, I'm free, nobody talks, because I have a husband."

He provides for both of his families, and he divides time between the two homes. Mona says the first wife was initially angry, but she got used to it.

"What is the problem? If he is not happy with the first marriage, why he stay all the life like this? You know, my religion is good because it gives man and woman another chance to be happy."

NPR is not revealing Mona's last name, and her husband would not be interviewed for this story. Her husband could be charged with bigamy.

'One Is Enough'

At Mam African Hair Braiding salon in Queens, N.Y., husbands are often the topic of conversation.

As the Senegalese owner, Miriam Dougrou, weaves cornrows on a young woman, she says that her father married four women and she had 19 or 20 siblings. She lost count. So did her father.

"Sometimes he doesn't know who's who, and he forget the name" of his children and wives, she said.

"He calls them No. 1 and No. 2," says Dougrou's husband, Timothy.

Miriam Dougrou does not want Timothy to have a second wife. "Sometime he talked about it — like a joke. But I told him, 'I'm not joking. Don't tease me because I won't be a second wife. I'm going to be the first and last wife.'"

So does Timothy, who's sitting in the corner keeping awfully quiet, want a second wife?

"No," he says with a half smile. "One is enough for me."

If "Idol" wants to get back its former glory, it should once again show some sympathy for the devil.

'Idol' Worship

What's behind the newfound Jesus-friendliness of "American Idol"?

Emma Rosenblum, The New Republic

Published: Wednesday, May 21, 2008

"American Idol," which concludes its seventh season tonight, has always been touched by God. Each year, there's at least one contestant who sways through a gospel song, jams out to a song by a Christian rock band, or performs a number about how Jesus loves you (so call in to vote!). It's "American Idol," for crying out loud, so it's no surprise that Jesus would pop up here and there. But Christianity was never a show-sponsored policy, nor was its promotion a popular position. Two years ago, contestant Mandisa Huntley famously sang a song called "Wanna Praise You," announcing, "This song goes out to everybody that wants to be free. Your addiction, lifestyle, and situation may be big, but God is bigger." After the performance, Simon Cowell--producer, judge, voice of amusingly brutal and bitchy honesty--rolled his eyes and called Huntley "indulgent." Viewers also seemed to disapprove of her preachy (not to mention slyly homophobic) tone, and she was voted off two weeks later. That was the closest "Idol" ever came to being a forum for proselytizing. If anything, the producers have tolerated very un-Christian-like behavior from contestants, including lewd photos (Antonella Barba last year and this season's Ramiele Malubay) and backgrounds in male stripping (David Hernandez's pelvic thrusts made it all too obvious). Sure, second-season contestant Frenchie Davis was kicked off after a nude photo scandal, but only because the shots appeared on an illegal website promoting sex with underage girls. But showing skin on MySpace? Not a problem. And "Idol"'s penchant for dressing female contestants in crotch-grazing skirts and plunging halter-tops doesn't quite jibe with fundamentalist values, either. So how--and why--did this season turn into such a Jesus-fest?

To start, it has to do with this year's crop of contestants. Both 17-year-old front-runner David Archuleta (he of the controlling stage-father, recently banned from rehearsals) and perky blonde Brooke White, who came in fifth, are practicing Mormons. Though they didn't speak explicitly about their faith on the air, their religious beliefs have been widely reported, and they've both alluded to them onstage: Archuleta talks about his church performances as a child, and White, before she was sobbingly given the hook, shared her aversion to R-rated movies and alcohol. Archuleta, easily the fans' favorite performer this year, hasn't shied away from spiritual song choices: He's sang "Angels," "When You Believe," and "You're the Voice"--a trifecta of pro-God pop songs for which the audience has cheered (and cheered ... and cheered). Did Cowell or the other judges deem Archuleta's selections "indulgent"? Not in the least. They absolutely loved it, in fact. Cowell called "Angels," which Archuleta chose because he was moved by the song's "message," the "best song choice of the night so far." Huh? Since when did Cowell become a proponent of songs about religious faith?

Archuleta, whose fan club calls itself the Arch Angels, has no doubt mobilized the Bible Belt voting base, and the producers of "American Idol," faced with an average ten percent ratings decrease this season, are perhaps resigning themselves to the fact that the U.S. is, indeed, a very religious country. A guest appearance by Dolly Parton reinforced the new idea that "Idol" is open to getting in touch with its spiritual side. Parton belted out "Jesus And Gravity," and then the Clark Brothers came onstage to sing "This Little Light Of Mine/Jesus On The Mainline." "American Idol" used to be a home mostly for top-40 hits, from Britney Spears to Maroon 5, and the Jesusified combo was more than a little jarring.

Some chalked up the show to the God-heavy country music genre instead of seeing it as a reflection of "Idol"'s changing core values. After all, country week is usually "Idol"'s most religious (and most hastily fast-forwarded through by me). But the Jesus-happy tone this season has gone beyond a few outlier shows or contestants.

Take April's heavily-hyped "Idol Gives Back" charity extravaganza, in which the contestants, dressed all in white, sang a group version of "Shout to the Lord," accompanied by a full-blown gospel choir. The song began "My shepherd, my savior," with the word "shepherd" a substitution from the original version. As if the show's new politics weren't clear enough, the next episode started with a group version of the same song, only with the original version: "My Jesus, my savior." Whoa.

Will "Idol"'s Christly makeover continue? The Fox executive who oversees the show, recently declared, "'Idol' is all about cast and controversy." The goody-goody makeover certainly doesn't bode well for controversy. Little David Archuleta's not getting into any sex scandals, and Brooke White would sooner be caught dead than in Internet porn. Can the show live on Christian values alone? I have my doubts. Carly Smithson, a tattooed Irish rocker girl, was eliminated after a lively performance of the title song of Jesus Christ Superstar. Fans speculate that a contributing factor was the song's seemingly heretical stance--in the musical, it's sung by Judas. The Bible Belt's gain is "Idol"'s loss. A wholly wholesome music competition produces a lot of Pat Boones, but no Elvises or Chuck Berrys. It's no coincidence that the most Jesusified season of "Idol" has been its most boring one yet. If "Idol" wants to get back its former glory, it should once again show some sympathy for the devil.

Emma Rosenblum is an editor at New York magazine.

The church is the transformative agent of Christ’s love within culture through the direction of Scripture and the power of the Spirit

Pass the Popcorn Analysis: Engage culture without assuming it

(ABP) -- I’ve got to be brutally honest; I’m not a Rob Bell fan, although many of my students are. He has two best-selling books: Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (2005) and Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections between Sexuality and Spirituality (2007).

Additionally, he has completed three “teaching” tours, the most recent in 2007, where he visited America with his “The Gods Aren’t Angry” tour. Each tour was staged in a secular venue with theatrical lighting and the ever-hip, culturally relevant Bell at its center.

Although I disagree with much of Bell’s theology, this does not mean that I don’t appreciate what he is attempting: an engagement with culture. “Culture” is the matrix of human activity and structures that give life significance. In Christian theology, culture, like humankind, has experienced the Fall.

As sensationalist and provocative as his titles are, Bell is attempting to be relevant to “fallen” postmodern culture. Many young believers and spiritual seekers, feeling disenfranchised from the modern church, have flocked to Bell’s tours, podcasts and books. In Bell, they have found a kindred spirit -- someone who has experienced their disenchantment with the modern church, yet one who seems to have found a way to connect them to an authentic, relevant faith in God through Jesus Christ.

Regardless of what position you take on Rob Bell, he forces each of us to deal with the issue of culture and its relationship to our theology. This is an age-old struggle. It is the struggle of the Israelites with the Canaanites, Jesus and the various Jewish sects, as well Paul and the Greco-Roman culture of his day.

Theology and culture are locked in an eternal struggle until the end of days.

Interestingly, Christians can claim that the Bible lands on both sides of the debate. On one hand, Paul seems to encourage an engagement with contemporary culture in the form of his sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22ff).

On the other hand, Paul states that we should not “conform” to the world in his letter to the Romans (Rom12:2).

But if it is an age-old struggle, why then has it erupted with such a vengeance today?

A simple explanation is that culture is changing at a faster pace than ever previously understood. Technology advanced at such a rapid pace in the 20th century that it outpaced our ability to understand its moral implications. So, culture becomes a swamp of ethical and theological questions amidst a global technological explosion.

Complicating this situation, it would also seem that some of the philosophical concepts that helped sustain our modern culture are being questioned today. Thus, although the scientific, technological and philosophical ideals of modernity have been a great benefit to us, these ideals simply aren’t enough to sustain us spiritually.

Consequently, we now live in a culture of difficult change where the very basis of modern Christianity is being questioned at every turn. How are we to proceed as faithful followers of Christ in such a chaotic cultural climate? How can our theology meet this challenge?

Let me suggest a two-fold answer: engagement, not assumption.

First, we must engage culture, which I believe to be the very heart of our Christian mission. This is the legacy of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) and the witness of Paul on Mars Hill (Acts 17). The church is the transformative agent of Christ’s love within culture through the direction of Scripture and the power of the Spirit (Luke 10:25-27).

Nevertheless, in this engagement, we do not assume or acquiesce to culture. Christ transforms it (Romans 12:2; 1 John 2:15).

As Christians, we have something unique to offer to our world -- the witness of Jesus. As Baptists, we affirm the centrality of Christ and the authority of Scripture as our sole rule of faith. That is the “what” of our assumption.

The Scriptures, as the book of the Spirit, then give guidance in regards to the “how” of our practice. What the Scriptures do not address directly will stand in tension with our engagement of culture.

A vigorous attempt to understand and engage culture, without surrendering to its secularizing philosophical tendencies would benefit the church well in the third millennium.

So Rob Bell and others of the emerging generation, you’ve thrown down the gauntlet to us all. Thank you.

-30-

-- Jay Smith is assistant professor in the School of Christian Studies at Howard Payne University in Brownwood, Texas.

If Christians aren’t engaged in culture, they will not change the world or have an impact on society

Pass the Popcorn: Christians struggle to decide how best to engage culture

(ABP) -- If Christians don’t learn to engage the popular culture that surrounds them, they will drown in it, experts insist.

“Christians tend to hear the words ‘popular culture’ and react as if spitting something yucky from their mouths,” said David Dark, author of Everyday Apocalypse: The Sacred Revealed in Radiohead, the Simpsons and Other Pop Culture Icons and The Gospel According to America.

But popular simply means “of the people,” he said. “It is never something we exist objectively from. It’s like the air we breathe, the language we use. … If we’re thinking, ‘Now we’re going to engage pop culture,’ it’s too late. We’re already soaking in it.”

Jeffrey Overstreet, contributing editor for Seattle Pacific University’s Response magazine, freelance movie reviewer, and author of Through a Screen Darkly and Auralia’s Colors, agreed.

“We are born into a pop culture,” he said, describing that culture as the very temporary, disposable details of a particular time and place.

Overstreet didn’t always see the importance of connection to culture. He grew up in a family that encouraged him to avoid pop culture and “steer clear of anything that did not have a clear connection to church,” he said. Rock music was questionable, and theaters were “dens of sin, contaminated by culture.”

Under the guidance of teachers, he realized complete separation from culture wasn’t the model Christ set.

“He was to be found at the corner pub, surrounded by messed-up people,” he said. “He was there among them, but he was different. He was compassionate.

“The more I look at it, in order to have a meaningful influence on society, we need to live fully engaged lives. How do we do that without hearing the stories told [in the wider culture]? Without listening to the music played?”

If Christians aren’t engaged in culture, they will not change the world or have an impact on society, said Greg Fiebig, associate professor of communication and theater at Indiana Wesleyan University and former theater director at Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Mo. “We’re not going to do it. Period.”

He said Christians, especially in Christian academia, tend to live in a bubble. “People isolate themselves,” he said. “There is nothing wrong with isolating ourselves -- Jesus did -- but if we don’t know how to exist in the larger culture when we emerge, we have failed.”

Instead of hiding from culture, Christians can use it as a learning tool, Fiebig said.

“When I show someone a movie or present a show, I’m telling a story that needs to be told,” he said. “Jesus spoke of loving and caring for people where they were. The last thing he did was judge people. It is harder for us to judge when we are willing to listen to their story.”

Part of the learning experience is realizing that Christians don’t have a monopoly on the truth, Dark said.

“We are learners of Christianity,” he said. “It’s weird the way we talk, as if truth is something we have over other people. That’s no way to talk about faith, as if it is property. … When we view our faith as a bragging right or a secret password, I don’t know how we think others will be attracted to that.”

Instead, that type of view cuts Christians off from their neighbors, Overstreet said.

“We need to see and understand our neighbors,” he said. If Christians only pay attention to items of culture that affirm their own worldview, “we don’t understand what the world looks like to them.”

Christ went to the woman at the well and began asking her questions, he said. He didn’t simply bombard her with the gospel.

He added that people know when they are the subject of marketing campaigns. “So much of Christian art is just advertising for Jesus,” he said. “If we just keep shouting, we shouldn’t be surprised when people react like we are salesmen.”

He recalled driving under an overpass where someone had spray-painted in big letters, “Jesus is the answer.” Underneath, in a different color, another person had responded, “Yes, but what’s the question?”

Christians shouldn’t be handing out answers to questions that haven’t been asked, he said. Instead, pop culture can be used to kindle questions.

But engaging culture will, no doubt, lead to viewing, reading or listening to objectionable content.

“As a Christian, I believe it can be insightful to critique movies for what they might have to say about important aspects of our lives,” said David Thomas, associate professor of rhetoric emeritus at the University of Richmond and freelance writer for Christian Ethics Today.

“I’m less interested in whether a movie contains language that offends me, or has scenes that depict sex or violence, than I am in determining whether the stories and characters ring true, and in what the characters’ moral and ethical choices lead to.”

That’s not necessarily a widely held view among many believers. “Christians tend to believe that films have the power to single-handedly disrupt or uproot a person’s spiritual development if they contain corrupting elements,” said Chad Johnston, production assistant for Allen Press in Lawrence, Kan., and adjunct online instructor in communication and film at Drury University in Springfield, Mo.

“I do think people should be discerning about what they watch, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater -- and sometimes the bathtub -- is a flawed method of encountering and dealing with media.”

He compares watching films to meeting people. When meeting a person, it is easy to dismiss him or her due to a simple disagreement, but perhaps at the expense of a potential relationship or opportunity for growth, he said.

“It always surprises me that Christians will dismiss an ‘R’-rated film, yet read ‘R’-rated books in the Bible, like Judges,” he said.

“I tend to think that life is ‘R’-rated and should not be experienced without a Parent -- i.e., our heavenly Father. After all, how can we handle the tougher realities of life, being as fragile as we are? So I recommend that if you are hesitant to watch a particular film, you should ask yourself why, and perhaps do some research. If you are still uncomfortable with seeing it, or you simply feel it is bankrupt of any value spiritually, by all means avoid it.”

“To think of a human story as objectionable is not fair,” Dark observed. “If all we do is count bad words or feel offended, we are not relating to the world we are called to love or the world God so loved.”

But that does not mean anything goes, he emphasized.

“I wouldn’t say anyone needs to walk into dangerous places,” Overstreet said. “Each person needs to know their own strengths and weaknesses. But a lot of ‘R’-rated films are profound movies.”

The importance lies in knowing how to interpret films, which may be difficult for those who have never studied literature or other arts, Overstreet said.

Fiebig added that the American culture has lost a lot of ability for interpretation because of the tendency to be individualistic. “Movies are not meant to be seen in the privacy of your own home,” he said. “They should be communal, with time for discussion.”

Dark agreed that too much such privatization has occurred. Typically, he said, Christians will watch, listen or read, but pretend the stories aren’t important to them when they step into church. “We are not living out loud to one another,” he said.

When Christians view things in isolation, they often miss the redeeming value, he said. “When we live isolated lives, we often hold wrongly applied guilt, as if our enjoyment is somehow separate from our relationship with God.”

Thomas’ church tries to break through the isolation by offering courses in faith and culture. He worked with Doug Gebhard, a pastor in Rockingham, N.C., to design a liturgical film class that accompanied the seasons of Lent and Advent.

“The movies we chose had a Lenten or an Advent theme,” Gebhard said. “David explained rhetorical devices in the film -- plot, symbolism, etc. -- while I pointed out theological themes [like] suffering, sacrifice, redemption.”

Gebhard has led other classes that reached beyond film.

“I hoped to prod people of faith to look at movies, listen to music, read novels with a lens of faith,” he said. “What spiritual messages can you see in Star Wars? The Matrix? Ironman? Where is Christ found in Springsteen’s anthems? U2’s music?”

Johnston also partnered with a friend to lead a film class, called Sanctuary of the Cinema, at University Heights Baptist Church in Springfield, Mo., where he lived until last year.

“Our goal was to explore films through the interpretive lens of Christian spirituality -- to see the light of God in the light of the silver screen,” he said.

The class met in the upstairs college Sunday school class, which featured comfortable chairs and couches and a projector to watch films on a large screen.

Sanctuary of the Cinema was advertised at local college campuses, coffee shops and an independent movie theater. As a result, the class was a diverse group. “Some of them were churchgoers, and others were a bit leery about the whole thing being set in a church,” Johnston said.

The group watched independent, art and foreign films together, then discussed the film, using questions from a faith perspective to help guide discussion.

Despite differences among the class members, “we all bonded because of the beauty of cinema,” Johnston said. “I think it’s because cinema is capable of reminding us all of what we share, rather than how we differ. Narrative cinema tells the sorts of stories that are common to all of us, and we therefore feel like we have a share in what’s happening onscreen.”

And, ultimately, that viewing can lead to Christ. “I have come to see the silver screen as a window overlooking a theologically charged world,” Johnston said. “As I look through this window, I find that I am better able to understand who God is, who I am, and how I relate to God and others. It is not a substitute for the Bible, but rather a supplement to it.”

A starting place for finding films to use in discussion is the Arts and Faith websites’s Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films list, published at www.artsandfaith.com/t100. The list is compiled by voting members of the site, including Overstreet, and is updated each year. The website also features discussion groups on film, music, literature, visual art, theater and dance, and television and radio.

Fiebig helps lead a film festival at Indiana Weslyan. Last year, the first year of the festival, they decided to screen Hotel Rwanda, a film depicting the true story of Paul Resesabagina, a hotel manager who helped house over a thousand Tutsi refugees during the Rwandan genocide.

A student from Uganda who had lost family members during the struggle attended the screening. He began the discussion after the film by announcing he could not stay, due to the fresh emotions the film conjured, but he asked the other students to pray for Rwanda and Uganda.

“It was an amazing moment,” Fiebig said. “In a room full of college students, you could hear a pin drop. A Hollywood film became a worship service.”

Glory

27 May 2008

Dear Prayer Partners,

1. I am preparing to go to Klang Valley to preach in a family church camp. Jessie and Ana will be accompanying me during this trip. Appreciate your prayers for mercy journey and for the Holy Spirit to reveal Himself to the campers.

2. Pray that God will manifest His glory and cause the campers to rise up to declare the majesty and greatness of God in Jesus Christ, for in Him dwells the fulness of God (Col 1:19). Bringing glory to God was the life purpose of Jesus Christ.

3. Pray that they will choose to love and worship the Triune God with all of their hearts. Pray that they will be passionate and zealous for the shekinah glory of God! Pray for me as I will also be preaching in other services before the camp.

4. After the camp, I will be back in Spore to attend my DMin lectures. Pray for me as I have several camps and teaching commitments until the end of the year.

June Klang Valley Family Church camp

Dmin lecture (Eldership)

July Penang teaching in a seminary (Leadership)

Aug Sibu preaching in an undergraduate camp

Miri preaching in family church camp

Sept Klang Valley teaching in a Bible College (Christology)

Oct Klang Valley teaching in a Bible College (Christology)

Kuching? Camp (tbc)

Nov DMin lecture (Ethics)

Dec Miri? Camp (tbc)

5. In between the travels, I am involved in giving Bible Study and counseling to various groups in Spore. Pray for me as I need divine wisdom, discipline and creativity to complete my assignments as well as to finish preparing all my teaching materials and messages.

6. There are so many needs, and it is not possible for one to minister to all of them. There are just not enough full-time trained pastors out there and the existing full-time ministers are over-stretched. Most people are avoiding full-time ministry, especially with the unrealistic demands and overly awful compensation.

7. To keep myself from burning out, I have turned down a number of invitations. Jessie has also lovingly relieved me from many household duties so that I can concentrate on the things that I need to do. She is a wonderful helpmate who understands the ever draining demands of ministry. And Ana is a great source of joy with her bubbly nature. Both are God’s loving provision to keep one sane in ministry!

8. And thank you too for your continued partnership in prayer and financial support. Without them, it would be difficult to serve so freely, without any expectations of payment from any of them. Pray that the Lord will continue to raise up more regular supporters as the ministry keep expanding – and as someone mentioned that I need to plan for my retirement now. I would have to trust the Lord that He would take care of that.

There is still time to plant the seeds of the Gospel message all over the world for the glory of God. Our mission is to proclaim Christ crucified, risen, and coming again. We do this by all means possible especially through preaching, training, discipling, and mentoring.

The message of the gospel will upset many when faithfully preached

Opinion: Politics and the power of the Cross

(ABP) -- Sen. Barack Obama’s recent resignation of his membership in Trinity United Church of Christ was probably inevitable, but it is a melancholy occasion nonetheless. Since I cannot know the likely Democratic presidential nominee’s heart, I don’t know whether this was a cynical political move or a heart-rending decision. But this much is obvious: in Sen. Obama’s opinion, his Chicago church home -- or at least his membership there -- had become a political liability.

The resignation is melancholy because it speaks so starkly of the division in our society not only among the races, the classes, and the political parties. It speaks of the price of power in our nation and of our convictions about where actual power is to be found. The affair illustrates for me the continual and forced relegation of faith to the sphere of the purely private.

As has been observed elsewhere, a great part of Sen. Obama’s appeal has been his seeming ability to overcome the divisions that have for so long characterized the political life of the United States. Not least among these divisions was the sacred/secular. Here was a Democrat who could speak convincingly not only of the importance of a generic faith, but of his specifically Christian faith. And he did so without the overtones of triumphalism or exclusivity that so often alienate those of the so-called “progressive” element of national life.

I think these words of faith were heard with such hope because Obama tied them not to the glittering generalities of the American civic religion, but to the actual life of a real congregation. It was at Trinity Church that he met Jesus, at Trinity that his marriage was celebrated, at Trinity that his children were baptized. That congregation formed his life.

And this is the congregation that he is willing to leave in order to gain the presidency.

I should say that I am not particularly troubled by the few minutes of “rantings” from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Obama’s former pastor -- or by the few seconds of the same sort of things by Father Michael Pfleger, the Catholic priest who inflamed controversy over Trinity again over the Memorial Day weekend.

And further, I am quite willing to believe that the totality of the ministries of this congregation dwarf whatever offense is given by these YouTube moments. What bothers me is the implication that the real power to make a difference lies not in the church’s engagement with the world, but in the activity of a governmental office.

More than one “expert” called to offer insight on the recent pastor problems experienced both by Obama and his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, has called for the complete relegation of religion to the private sphere (“Why won’t these preachers just shut up? Why don’t our politicians keep their religious opinions to themselves?”) so that we can get on with the serious business of electing our leaders. In other words, banish religion to the non-public sphere where it ceases to threaten or offend, and politics will be better off.

If the early followers of Christ, however, had understood religion as private and politics as the machinations of government in the public sphere, there would have been no conflict with the Roman Empire. The early church, however, refused to avail itself of the protection of the cultus privatus (private sect) status that it could have enjoyed under Roman law. They saw, rather, that Christianity entails a whole way of life -- one that encompasses both the so-called private and public spheres. Thus they described the body of Christ in political terms: “a holy nation”(I Peter 2:9), a citizenry (Ephesians 2:19) and the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).

What we need to remember is that the gospel is offensive. Aside from whether the antics of certain preachers upset the world, the message of the gospel will upset many when faithfully preached. The wisdom of the Cross is foolishness to the world. If this cruciform folly is not embraced, “the Cross of Christ [will] be emptied of its power” (I Corinthians 1:17).

Sen. Obama says that he and his wife will choose a new church after the election. In other words, after the real work has been done. Such a decision makes quite clear where his hope for the future lies.

Hope in the power of the Cross, however, cannot be set aside or relegated to a private sphere. Rather, following the Cross empowers the body of Christ to overcome divisions in all areas of life and extend God’s love to all the nations.

Such hope might make Christians look foolish in the eyes of the world. Let’s hope so. It’ll be a sign that our lives, public and private, are more determined by the power of the Cross than other principalities and powers.

-30-

-- Beth Newman is professor of theology and ethics at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. bnewman@btsr.edu

Beware of politicizing churches or sanctifying politicians

Obama departure from Trinity garners concern, criticism

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- Religious and political leaders are expressing both concern and criticism in the wake of Barack Obama’s recent break with the church that brought him to faith 20 years ago -- but has brought him headaches on the campaign trail more recently.

The Illinois senator and likely Democratic presidential nominee acknowledged May 31 that he had mailed a resignation letter to officials at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. He and his wife, Michelle, were married there and have been active members of the congregation for two decades.

But continued controversy over the church -- re-ignited by a guest preacher’s May 25 sermon in which he mocked rival Hillary Clinton and seemed to imply that she was a racist -- forced Obama’s hand.

“It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles,” he said, in a statement announcing the resignation. “This was a pretty personal decision and I was not trying to make political theater out of it.”

Obama’s resignation came after months of controversies focusing on the church -- and primarily on its former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Obama has acknowledged Wright as a spiritual mentor, and even named his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, after one of Wright’s sermon titles.

But Obama was forced to distance himself from Wright in March, after several snippets from Wright’s sermons showed up on YouTube and were replayed repeatedly by cable-news programs. The sound bites contained rhetoric that some have interpreted as anti-American and anti-white, such as the declaration that God condemns America for its treatment of blacks as well as its foreign-policy mistakes. But many have defended Wright, saying that the comments were better understood in the context of the entire sermons in which they appeared and in the broader context of the African-American tradition of prophetic preaching that challenges the powers that be.

Then Obama was forced to denounce the minister more formally after an April 29 National Press Club appearance by Wright that was equal parts erudite speech, bitter tirade and theatrical performance.

The controversy over Obama’s ties to Trinity subsided until the Memorial Day weekend sermon by Michael Pfleger, the white pastor of a predominantly African-American Catholic church located near Trinity. In it, he mocked Clinton and claimed she was surprised by Obama’s success because of her white sense of entitlement.

Obama denounced the sermon and noted that Pfleger had resigned from a campaign advisory council months before. Pfleger also apologized for his homily. But it, like the Wright sermons before it, kindled a media firestorm nonetheless.

Explaining his decision to reporters during a campaign appearance in South Dakota May 31, Obama said that he and his wife had been talking about leaving the church since Wright’s National Press Club performance. He said they discussed it with Otis Moss III, Trinity’s new pastor, and decided that the separation was in the best interests of both his campaign and the church.

“We prayed on it and, you know, my interest has never been to try to politicize this or put the church in a position where is subject to the same rigors and demands of a presidential campaign,” he said. “My suspicion at that time … was that it was going to be very difficult to continue our membership there so long as I was running for president.”

Obama continued: “The recent episode with Father Pfleger I think just reinforced that view that we don't want to have to answer for everything that’s stated in a church. On the other hand, we also don't want a church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes. I mean, that’s … I don't want Rev. Moss to have to look over his shoulder and see that his sermon vets or if it’s potentially problematic for my campaign or will attract the fury of a cable program. And so, I have no idea how it will impact my presidential campaign. But I know it's the right thing to do for the church and for our family.”

But some political rivals suggested the decision to leave Trinity was clearly politically motivated.

“Early in the campaign, the Obama for President website was filled with glowing reports about the positive and close relationship that Sen. Obama enjoyed with his home church and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Once it became clear that Rev. Wright and the church were becoming a liability for Senator Obama, he resigned the church out of political expediency,” said Patrick Mahoney, of the Christian Defense Coalition, in a statement.

But several news reports indicated that Trinity members interviewed on their way to and from worship services June 1 were saddened, but not angered by their most famous member’s departure.

The church issued a statement wishing the Obamas -- and their two young daughters, who were baptized at Trinity -- well.

“Though we are saddened by the news, we understand that this is a personal decision. We will continue to lift them in prayer, and wish them the best as former members of our Trinity community,” the statement said. “As in the prayer of the Ephesians, the entire Trinity family asks that the nation entrust Barack, Michelle, Malia and Sasha to God's care and guidance, so that Christ may continue to dwell in their lives, in their hearts, and in their work. We ask now for God's peace to be with them.”

Obama, at the South Dakota news conference, rejected the suggestion that he had chosen Trinity out of political expediency and was now leaving it for the same reasons.

“There are a lot of big churches on the South Side of Chicago,” he said. “There are a whole bunch of churches that were better connected politically, so I reject that notion, which I think is a very cynical one, that I would join a church simply to maneuver politically.

He also said that, if political expediency were his motivation, he would have denounced Wright and left the church more than a year ago, when he made the formal announcement of his presidential bid. Then, a smaller controversy arose over Wright’s past statements and actions, and Obama disinvited Wright from giving the invocation at the announcement event.

Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister who is president of the Interfaith Alliance, said all parties were to blame in the episode, which he views as a cautionary tale against politicizing churches or sanctifying politicians.

“No candidate for the presidency should ever have to resign from or join a particular house of worship in order to be a viable candidate for that high office,” Gaddy, who is also preaching pastor of Northminster Baptist Church in Monroe, La., said in a statement released after Obama’s announcement.. “To make such a decision for political reasons dishonors religion and disrespects the Constitution. This is a sad day in American politics and even sadder in American religion.

“Sen. Obama is at the center of the storm, but all who wed religion to partisan politics share responsibility for this tragic development.”