I was lucky enough to stumble across an archive of David Bumbaugh’s sermons on-line today. For the past year I’ve been reading Forrest Church’s sermons as part of my sermon preparation. Bumbaugh was my preaching professor at Meadville Lombard and I’m thinking that once I finish reading all of Church’s available sermons, and I’ve a couple of dozen left, I might want to read Bumbaugh’s. They’re from roughly the same generation but one is a humanist and the other a theist, with Christian leanings, so I think Bumbaugh might be a nice balance to Church… They are both excellent preachers.

This past week I attended the first session of my First Parish Project group. It was a great experience and one that I will reflecting on a lot over the next year or so. One of the highlights of the session was a three day workshop and discussion on preaching led by Fred Craddock. Craddock is considered one of the best preachers in the country–he had a spellbinding presence–and I think I learned a lot about preaching from my nine contact hours with him. In case anyone out there is interested below are my notes from his workshop.

(more…)

One line from Sarah Palin’s speech on Wednesday really has me pissed off. She said, "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s [Barack Obama] worried that someone won’t read them their rights?" The fact that the United States government is required to assume people are innocent before proven guilty is one of the basic freedoms that people are supposed to afforded by the United States constitution. I think that whether or not people are citizens is pretty irrelevant. Everyone should be entitled to certain rights under the law. The difference between a police state and a representational democracy is that in a representational democracy people are allowed to hold dissenting views and engage in political organizing without fear of reprisal. It is clear that right now is this country dissenting views are increasingly be equated with terrorism. It is also clear that those suspected of terrorism are not treated like human beings by our government (for examples visit the site freedetainees.org).

It is clear from the actions of the police in St. Paul during the Republican National Convention that not all people have the basic rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in our society. Journalists such as Amy Goodman were arrested while covering the protests. Several organizers for the RNC Welcoming Committee have been arrested and charged with conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism. The RNC Welcoming Committee organized civil disobedience efforts in order to disrupt and protest the convention. While many might not agree with such actions they are certainly not acts of terrorism. If the United States is a democracy people should be able to express themselves and peacefully protest government and political parties. I have read or heard nothing about efforts from protesters to violently disrupt the proceedings of the convention. Having been involved in similar protests several times in my life I find it hard to imagine that such plans existed. At the most there probably were plans to erect barriers and blockades in the streets to limit Republican delegates movement and draw attention to the issues that the protesters are mad about–issues such as poverty, the war and oppression of dissent.

Palin’s comment and the actions of the police in St. Paul–where well over 300 people have been arrested–have reminded me of Benjamin Franklin’s famous line: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I hope that in the coming years people will be able to organize to ensure liberty–freedom of thought, speech and political organization–in this country. I am, to be honest, less concerned with safety. Far less people in the industrialized world die from terrorism and violence than automobile accidents and the lifestyle health issues that result from living in the exurbs (I discussed this a little in my sermon "Fear Itself" a few months back).

Like a lot of people, I was shocked by John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his nominee for Vice President. I have spent a little on-line, reading the paper and listening to the radio trying to figure out her positions on issues. What I’ve discovered is that her positions are pretty far from those that religious liberals might be comfortable. Family friend Nate Silver wrote a detailed analysis of her positions on five issues near and dear to the hearts of most religious liberals–evolution, global warming, hate crimes, sex education and abortion. I think I am most bothered by her position on global warming. It’s imperative that the next administration take serious action to address this issue. Here’s an excerpt from Nate’s blog fivethirtyeight so you can see where Palin stands on the issues:

The Issue: Evolution

Palin’s Position: Although Palin’s personal views on evolution are ambiguous, she favors teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools (source).

America’s Position: A USA Today/Gallup poll in June 2007 reported that 53 percent of Americans believe that evolution is definitely or probably true, as opposed to 44 percent who think it’s definitely or probably false. More relevant to Palin’s position, however, a Pew Research poll in July 2006 showed that Americans favor teaching creationism along with evolution in schools by a 58-35 margin (source).

Conclusion: Although this fact will annoy many liberals – including yours truly – Palin’s views are squarely within the American mainstream.

The Issue: Global Warming

Palin’s Position: She does not believe that global warming is manmade (source). In addition, in an interview in May with Fox’s Neil Cavuto, Palin expressed skepticism that climate change is occurring at all:

We don`t believe that this speculation, again unprecedented, on computer modeling could forecast the effects of climate change, to the degree that leaves us in a comfortable position. It`s just too far out into the future, this speculative modeling (source).
America’s Position: An ABC News study in July showed that an 80-18 majority of Americans believe that global temperatures have been rising. A CNN poll in June broke responses down into three categories: 54 percent believe that global warming is real and manmade, 22 percent believe it is real but not manmade, and 23 percent describe global warming as a “theory that has not yet been proven” (source).

Conclusion: If Palin believes in global warming but does not attribute it to manmade causes, her views are at most somewhat out of the mainstream. If she does not believe in global warming at all, her views are strongly out of the mainstream.

The Issue: Hate Crimes

Palin’s Position: Opposes proposals to expand hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation, and seems to imply that hate-crimes statutes are superfluous, period (“No [I do not believe in expanding hate-crimes statutes], as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate”). (source).

America’s Position: In a May 2007 Gallup poll, Americans favor hate crimes statutes by a 78-18 margin. When the definition of hate crimes is expanded to include sexual orientation, support diminishes slightly, but such statues are still favored by a 68-27 majority (source).

Conclusion: Palin’s position is well outside of the mainstream. Note: McCain also opposes expanding hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation.

The Issue: Abortion

Palin’s Position: Believes abortion should be illegal “With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued” (source). Palin also said that she’d be opposed to abortion even if her daughter had been sexually assaulted (source).

America’s Position: Although most polling shows that Americans are pro-choice by only narrow pluralities or majorities, tolerance for abortion increases substantially in cases where there are mitigating factors. In particular, an October 2007 FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll says that by a 70-21 margin, Americans believe that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. A CBS News poll, also conducted in October 2007, revealed similar numbers: just 16 percent of Americans share Palin’s position that abortion should be legal only in order to save the mother’s life, while another 4 percent believed that abortion should be illegal in all cases (source).

Conclusion: Palin’s position is far outside of the mainstream.

The Issue: Sex Education

Palin’s Position: Would replace sex-ed programs with abstinence-only programs (source).

America’s Position: A broad consensus around the teaching of sex education has existed for decades, with 85 percent of Americans favoring sex-ed in schools as early as 1985 (source). The numbers appear to have increased since, as a 2004 poll conducted by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Kennedy School of Government showed that 90 percent of Americans believe that sex education is a “very important” or “somewhat important” part of the school curriculum, whereas only 7 percent believe that sex education should not be taught at all. In the same survey, just 15 percent of Americans supported abstinence-only programs (source).

Conclusion: Palin’s position is far outside of the mainstream.