Confronting extremism

o7Earlier this week, the Illinois Family Institute took the step of

publicly condemning Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church of

Topeka, Kan. Phelps and his congregation are known for their strongly

anti-homosexual and anti-abortion stands, declaring on their website

that God hates America for its moral decay. Phelps’ group planned to

protest at the funeral of an American soldier who had died in Iraq.

Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Fred LaBarbera

criticized Phelps for spreading a false gospel and denying “the love

and power of Jesus Christ himself.” How should religious groups

respond to extreme factions within their belief systems?f7

This is the question that haunts Christianity and why Christianity

and democracy are such good partners.

Biblical faith is, by definition, a choice. God created us and

endowed us with the choice to walk away from him. It is the only way

real love can exist. We have to have the option not to love for it to

be real.

Those who understand the Bible know that we must give all people

that same option. When we forget that, we end up with Inquisitions

and witch hunts and the Crusades.

The strength of our Christianity is also our weakness. The beauty

of love that comes from a free choice is beyond description. Not

everyone makes that choice to follow God’s ways, and instead of

beauty, there is ugliness and destruction.

It is unfortunate that Fred Phelps decided that his brand of

hatred was distinctly Christian. But like so many other “Christian”

groups, his doctrines are so opposite to Jesus’ teachings and

lifestyle that Christ is no longer recognizable.

Dallas Willard, a respected Baptist theologian and philosophy

professor at UCLA, calls these kinds of people “vampire Christians.”

He says that they believe that if they can be “covered by the blood

of Jesus,” then they are “saved.” They pay no heed to actually living

like the Jesus they claim to follow.

Unfortunately, this freedom of choice has made it so easy to claim

to be a “Christian” that the name has no real connection to the

namesake. As Jesus called each of his disciples, he said “follow me,”

not just “take my name.”

We also have a clear Biblical mandate to challenge those who claim

the name of Christ. Those within the family are held to a higher

standard than those outside. Scripture encourages me to eat with

nonbelievers, but I am forbidden by Scripture from eating with

someone who claims to follow Jesus, but does not live the life.

As we confront those who are errant in their theology and practice

-- as Fred Phelps clearly is -- we do so in love and then leave them

the choice that God leaves us all with ... to love him or to love

ourselves and disobey.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

More than 30 years ago, I was co-pastor of The Free Church of

Berkeley, a mission of both the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches.

Ours was ministry with the counter-culture, which Theodore Roszak

termed “youthful opposition to technocratic society.”

That we felt like an “extreme faction” within the “belief systems”

of our sponsoring mainline denominations was apparent in many of the

prayers we wrote. One said, in part, “ ... Turn the hearts of those

with whom we disagree that they, and we, may be confused and disarmed

by love.... Let love be the strength and the model for our struggle.”

The Book of Common Prayer has a similar prayer on page 816: “O

God, Father of all, whose Son commanded us to love our enemies: Lead

them and us from prejudice to truth; deliver them and us from hatred,

cruelty, and revenge; and in your good time enable us all to stand

reconciled before you; through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

After clarifying what the belief system of one’s religious group

is, and how some are “extreme” in relation to it, we must pray that

love will confuse and disarm among all of us children of God.

(THE VERY REV’D CANON) PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

A plea was scribbled on a wall in our nation’s capital after the

9/11 attacks: “Dear God, save us from the people who believe in you.”

How we have of late beheld the ugly face of religion!

Religion is neutral, to be used or abused. Martin Luther King and

a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan would read the same Bible in their

respective churches, but the God of one encouraged work for

emancipation, and the God of the other motivated bigotry.

Faith is either at the heart of human life or at the throat of

human beings. If applied with wisdom, reason and compassion, it is a

source of blessing; if applied by fanatics as a weapon, it embitters

the spirit and becomes a curse.

One’s belief in the divine can become a justification for division

between groups or the foundation of a belief in our common humanity.

We see that an ordinary person transforms himself into a self-guided

missile in the confidence of gaining a foothold on stairway to

heaven, while another deplores such an act as a debasing of religion

and a sure ticket to a hot spot far south of heaven.

Religion is always vulnerable to exploitation as believers

appropriate it to profane interests -- their own quest for profit and

power. Religious zeal can enlist the strongest prejudices of the

human mind and excite the worst passions of our nature under the

pretext of doing God’s service. Religious opportunists make room for

the demons that lurk within rather than appeal to the better angels

of our nature.

In the particular instance under consideration, religion

apparently allows adherents to violate elemental decency.

Any idea is dangerous in the wrong hands. Nothing has been more

difficult than seeing God or good and dignity in those who are

different than we. Too often, zealots invoke God’s name to sanctify

their positions and consecrate their poison.

To combat the lunatic fringe of a faith community, we who esteem

the religious quest must employ every opportunity to o7announce

f7God as a god of love, to o7pronounce hf7is message of mercy and

comfort, and to o7denounce f7those who hijack religion to their

nefarious purposes.

A dose of humility reveals that God is greater than religion;

that, at best, we are privy to only the most limited comprehension of

his essence. But what we do know reveals a God who calls us to live

“with malice toward none and with charity for all.”

Let those among us who hold fast to a vision of peace, steadfastly

join the ancient prophet in proclaiming the great truth: “Have we not

all one Father? Has not one God created us all? Why do we deal

treacherously every man against his brother?”

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

Each individual and group can express its own views as

persuasively as possible, whether labeled extreme, moderate,

mainstream or nuts.

Most Americans are well aware that the Christian denominations

have different teachings about gay and abortion rights, and that

within each group there are further differences of opinion.

What is important is that the groups and individuals clearly and

honestly identify themselves and who they represent. The credibility

of the speaker and the merit of the message can then be evaluated by

the public. Who are these people? Why do they want this media

attention? Do I agree with them?

Labels can be more important than substance. In our current

political climate, tagging a candidate a “liberal” will make it hard

for him or her to be elected, regardless of actual policies or voting

record. In the Roman Catholic Church, Fr. Richard McBrien noted in

his syndicated column that groups considered “right wing” 20 years

ago now occupy the center, causing centrist groups to seem further to

the left.

The labeling process is itself a power struggle, with both the

dominant and minority views within the religious organization seeking

to influence society according to deeply held beliefs.

The full range of opinions should be expressed, especially where

the views of a small segment might be misinterpreted as representing

the whole.

It was imperative after 9/11 that Islam not be characterized as

responsible for terrorist acts. More than ever, the public needs to

hear from credible Islamic leaders about Islam and denunciation of

those invoking Islam to justify wrongdoing.

Individuals who bombed abortion clinics and claimed a Christian

motivation were criticized by other Christians, who are also opposed

to abortion as a legal right, but who believe that such violent

methods are contrary to Christian teachings.

Many religious groups, including Zen Centers, are small, local and

independent in governance. In contrast, organizations with strong

bureaucracies can silence or expel those who stray too far from

official teachings. Those who have been appointed to speak

authoritatively for the denomination can do so and can claim that

distinction.

Obviously, the comments of a Roman Catholic Cardinal, the Dalai

Lama or Billy Graham are going to carry more weight than the views of

an individual representing a small group who attend some church in

Topeka or an institute from Illinois. Yet, as we see from the mother

protesting the war near President Bush’s Texas home, one voice can be

prophetic and affect millions of people.

In Zen, each person must decide what action he or she must take,

and assume total responsibility. The action is his or her expression,

but it does not claim to represent a group or ideals.

Yet the impact of simple, genuine actions can be seen in the lives

of people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. They were considered

extreme.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

There are extremes in all groups. Unfortunately, the extremes are

also the squeaky wheels that get a lot of attention from the media.

The media tends to report the extremes because they are sensational

and can be easily exploited.

It takes a skillful reporter to write stories that reflect the

benefit of a belief versus the sensation or conflict a belief system

generates. I honor the reporters and media that help educate the

public without minimizing or exaggerating the nature of the belief

systems they are investigating.

The greatest risk a reporter runs is to take sides and lose their

objectivity. I know that there have been some complaints about

political bias and that the media seems to be controlled by too many

special interests groups.

However, my greatest concern is that we are losing our free and

independent press because too many news outlets are now owned by a

handful of major corporations. This is a very dangerous precedent

and, if left unchecked, could mean the end to the kinds of

independent reporting we need to remain a free and democratic

society.

SENIOR PASTOR JAMES TURRELL

Center for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa