Much was made last month of Pope Benedict XVI’s reworking of a prayer (rarely) used during a Good Friday Mass. (I wrote a story last month for the Medill News Service on the controversy.)
The prayer, which Benedict authorized the use of for Good Friday last summer, calls for the conversion of the Jews and has been denounced by both Catholic and Jewish groups because of offensive language. Benedict changed the prayer to remove offensive references. His version reads:
“Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men. Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, as the full number of the Gentiles comes into your church, all Israel may be saved.” (Latin translation)
But is it offensive? Rather, should it be seen as such, or isn’t it simply common sense that a religious group would pray for the conversion of another–especially one so tied to its own history?
University of Chicago scholar Martin Marty has written about the latter take. In the biweekly Sightings column, Marty cites an op-ed written in The Jewish Daily Forum.
In the op-ed, Judaism professor Jacob Neusner writes:
“The proselytizing prayers of Judaism and Christianity share an eschatological focus and mean to keep the door to salvation open for all peoples. Holy Israel should object to the Catholic prayer no more than Christianity and Islam should take umbrage at the Israelite one.”
What do you think? Do you find the prayer offensive?
One of the new ’social sins,’ cited by Vatican official Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, is creating poverty. Another is widening the gap between the rich and the poor. But what about making it illegal to feed the homeless on public land?
Leave it to Sin City (OK, and Dallas, Fort Meyers, Fla., and other cities nationwide) to limit charity to the homeless. City officials claim the homeless in question won’t accept help and are only looking for a handout.
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released its Politics and the Pulpit 2008, a guide for religious institutions on what they can and cannot do during the election season. The publication is basically pulled from the IRS’s guide for churches and religious organizations, but it makes it very readable and easily understandable.
The Pew Forum’s guide breaks it down to 31 questions by topic: background, restrictions on political intervention and lobbying, voter education and outreach, religious organization facilities and publications and enforcement.
It’s not just sloth, greed and lust anymore. Vatican official Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti listed a new group of more explicit evils the Vatican says will modernize the seven deadly sins (sloth, greed, lust, envy, wrath, gluttony and pride) to “fit a global world.”
Bloomberg compiled the list of the new offenses, which include stem cell research, polluting the environment and “‘bioethical’ violations such as birth control.”
Click here for an article I wrote for the Medill News Service on how some churches and religious groups are getting involved in public policy.
“How can you read the Bible and not be concerned about politics?” [said Rev. Alexander Sharp, executive director of Protestants for the Common Good.] ”… To see something happening, to see people being hurt, seeing people not having an equal shot and doing nothing about it, is itself a political position.”
Churches, as 501(c)(3) organizations, are restricted from engaging in political advocacy for specific candidates. As leaders of churches, pastors cannot endorse candidates in their official capacity. The following video instructs clergy members on how to avoid investigations by the IRS for crossing the line of political advocacy. It is meant to be an example and isn’t based on any particular case.
John McCain first rejected backing from conservative radio host Bill Cunningham. Now he’s backtracking on statements he made accepting San Antonio evangelist John Hagee’s endorsement in attempts to appease Catholics who claim Hagee isn’t nice to them.
I’m not defending some of the things Hagee has said concerning the Catholic Church. But as someone who grew up Southern Baptist, I have to tell you some of those sentiments are not unique among evangelicals–a constituency McCain is trying his darndest to court.
Can he afford to only kind of accept those few-and-far-between evangelical endorsements he receives?
Which leads me to ask, what’s the point of endorsements at all? Certainly, campaigning with candidates (e.g., Chuck Norris with Mike Huckabee) can bring out more “fans.” But lately, it’s been more of a curse than a blessing for candidates (e.g., Barack Obama being forced to denounce Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement during the last Democratic debate).
There isn’t anyone I can think of, short of Jesus Christ, who could back a candidate and thus persuade my vote. So, am I just one of a few? Is there a great mass of lemings who will follow any so-called representative of their particular ”voting bloc”?
Rod Parsley, pastor of a megachurch near Columbus, Ohio, spoke with PBS’s Religion and Ethics Newsweekly on matters of Christians’ involvement in the political arena. He calls it a “biblical mandate” that stems from passages in which Jesus calls Christians to be “salt and light” for the nations.
Click here for one of the more eloquent arguments I’ve heard for overturning the IRS’s guidelines against politicking from the pulpit.
Some highlights:
“We’re not going to sit quietly by and not address the issues that we believe are central to our faith and central to our congregations.”
“Evangelical Christians can actually chew gum and walk at the same time. We can actually speak to justice and righteousness issues at the same time, and I think we’re going to have to.”
