This is your place to publicly comment on the topics and issues addressed in Speaking of Faith programs. React in a personal way, and put into words what this program meant to you.
Submit Your Reflection about "Evangelicals Out of the Box."
"Evangelical" Does Not Equal a Closed Mind (January 26, 2006)
This is the first program I listened to from Speaking of Faith. Yes, yes, yes. It is so refreshing and reassuring to hear people that can intellectually combine spirituality and science and make sense of it all. I admire Jamie and Nancey for their honest views. It is so encouraging to hear ideas that reflect things I have intuitionally felt for years — without all of the educational, philosophical, and religious background information. I welcome that "evangelical" does not equal a closed mind. This conversation has opened my eyes and gives me hope for the future. It is about compassion!
Aletha Stolar
Pax, WV (WVPB, 91.7 FM)
The Self Label (November 3, 2005)
This was a great program (as are they all). What I found interesting is that there seems to be this need to label individuals or groups, and much of this need seems to be from the individual or groups themselves. These labels seem to
add a bit of divisiveness to trying to follow Christ. It seems, to a degree, that with labels comes a certain amount of judgment, which Christ spoke clearly against. It was great to hear some clear thought about the polarized society that we find ourselves in, but the labels seem to add to that polarization. It is not a matter of what group that we belong to, it is a matter (for Christians) of a daily walk with Christ. I believe this is where some prayerful housekeeping of one's heart is useful.
Randy Perrenoud
Spartanburg, SC (XMPR, ch. 133)
More Than Two-Dimensional Caricatures (October 31, 2005)
I want to thank you very much for broadcasting this show. As an "out of the box evangelical" it is so very refreshing to hear voices with sympathies and concerns similar to mine — especially coming from a nationally broadcast program. Perhaps James Smith is right and we self-select our circle of friends, but in my experience a great number of evangelicals I know bear no resemblance to the image usually propagated in the media. And even those that do possess those stereotypical qualities in reality have so much more depth, substance, and humanity than those two-dimensional images. Anyway, thank you greatly for your work; it was a blessing, as it has been many times before.
Tim Schaffer
Ithaca, NY (Listens via Web Audio)
What It Means to be Evangelical (October 29, 2005)
What a joy! I was encouraged, uplifted, challenged, and excited when I turned on the radio this past early Sunday morning to listen to "Evangelicals Out of the Box" as I was getting ready for church (at my nondenominational evangelical
community church). Just the night before, my Catholic parents had asked what the difference was between Evangelicals and Pentecostals. And I had been struggling with hearing folks on Morning Edition describe the conservative Christian political agenda as the agenda of "evangelicals." It seems like few people in this country (including many who would describe themselves as evangelicals) understand the basic truth of what it means to be evangelical, without putting on trappings of specific religious practices, and certainly without a specific political agenda. There are many of us who are intellectual, who care deeply about learning the truth of God's world, who are passionate about social justice and ecological justice. There are evangelicals, like me, who believe that spreading the good news means paying a living wage, means caring about the treatment of animals, means fighting global warming, means buying fair trade products, means living as a neighbor with the poor, means investing time and effort to discovering truth through science. Thank you for inviting speakers who help others understand that "evangelical" does not mean closed-minded, conservative, nationalistic, or backward. Thank you!
Kara Greeley
Chicago, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)
Science and God (October 28, 2005)
I was motivated to write by a reflection sent in by Matt Johnson. Matt eluded to the Intelligent Design concept currently the subject of much discussion. I am a scientist, not an atheist. I believe in a Creator God. I believe in a Creator God for many reasons, including the beauty and awe that I see in the world and my understanding of God's creation through science. Science opens my eyes to God's creation that otherwise is before me unseen and uncomprehended. I see no conflict between evolution and the Bible. I am not compelled to believe in an intelligent Creator on the basis of some set of scientific facts. I am not compelled to believe in a Creator God in the way I am compelled to believe that germs cause disease or that the earth orbits the sun. I do not expect, nor do I believe that science can address matters related to God.
Science is not a set of facts, it is a methodology intended to control our bias so as to better know the truth. A key component of the scientific method is testability. If it can't be tested, science cannot address it. That does not mean it isn't real or true, it just means science cannot address it. This seems to get lost in the Intelligent Design debate. One cannot conduct experiments with and without God. One cannot measure effects and affect in the presence or absence of God. To conclude that irreducible complexity requires a designer, or that science currently cannot or might never explain certain gaps or inconsistencies I believe is again making a "God of the Gaps." Let me offer the following from Matthew 4:7: "Jesus answered him, 'It is also written, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."' To attempt to use science where it is inappropriate is I feel both foolish and a reflection of a weak faith. It suggests that one is attempting to prove God scientifically in order to validate one's faith. That adventure I believe is a path into darkness.
Steven Mann
Furlong, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)
What Liberals Need to See (October 27, 2005)
Your comment about fear of evangelicals is immensely troubling, coming as it does on recent e-mail exchanges I have had with liberal friends. I have literally received one email that talked about eradicating members of the "Christian right." I have other liberal friends who seem to literally hate conservative Christians and hold them in greater contempt than Muslim terrorists. These same people compare our country today to Nazi Germany. Ironically, their comments suggest a truth in what they are saying — what they don't realize is that they are the neo-Nazis!
Don Baucom
El Prado, NM (Listens via Web Audio)
Facilitating Discussion (October 27, 2005)
I just read through the comments and keep coming back to "how do we get people with very strong, seemingly very different, views talking to each other?" Speaking of Faith definitely plays an important role in broadening people's perspectives (thank you!). But I started wondering if there was a role Speaking of Faith could play in really facilitating the dialogue between those with opposing views — liberals and conservatives for example. Could Speaking of Faith help people listen to each other?
Nancy Vaccaro
Maplewood, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)
Finding Parallel Examples in History (October 26, 2005)
I was reared within the culture of evangelical though that label did not exist. We were all aware (in the 1940's and 50's) of the wide variety of expressions (now all labeled as evangelicals — not all of us were enthralled with Rev. Billy Graham and others), and of those with rather extreme positions that the majority did not practice. I am surprised to see the use of "fear" in describing responses to those with a more openly expressed belief in the Christian explanations of God. I have viewed it as such (fear) for some time and think it begs the question of why and why now!
I have been listening for some years to those who want to remove principles at the heart of Christianity, inserting new ideas/skeptical views and still wanting to call it Christianity. At some point it seems one must accept the idea of their new religion and concept of a god or a new religion denying the concept of a god. Are we moving back toward multiple gods so everyone can choose what is "moral"? Hebrew Bible prophets went through much of what some of the finest evangelical leaders are going through and the vast populist was as unknowing, unaccepting, and intolerant then as now. I would be interested in serious discussion of the possible parallel between then and now. Not an argument but a serious studied look. Thank you for your fine program.
Maxine Scheibe
St. Louis, MO (Listens via Web Audio)
History Tells Us Something (October 26, 2005)
Christianity, from the time the Bible was put together at the Council of Nicea 300 years after the death of Jesus, has always been political. In fact, that was the very reason Constantine made it the Roman religion. Why would we expect it not to be now?
Joyce Goulet
Milwaukee, WI (WUWM, 89.7 FM)
Recovering the Appellation (October 25, 2005)
You have provided a wonderful perspective for this member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. There have been many times in the past few years when I've wished it was the "LCA" because of the political and fundamentalist (in the worst sense) co-opting of the "evangelical" appellation. I am also grateful for the lead which allowed me to subscribe to Martin Marty's "Sightings." Thank you.
Stan Sanderson
Hainesville, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)
Listening to the Quiet Voices (October 23, 2005)
I just wanted to thank you sincerely for your excellent program. For years I have bemoaned the lack of intelligent dialogue in this area, where it seems the extremes are all too vocal and all too frequently unreasonable. I have been a person of faith and a person of reason since I was in my early twenties (I'm now 54), and I have never understood why people seem to have such a hard time reconciling these two — at least if by "people" we mean the views that are typically represented in the media. So I am delighted to hear your balanced approach, heartened to see it acknowledged as a necessary counterweight to the polarized views so often characterized as the only viable opinions, and thrilled to know that I am not alone in this vast frontier where faith, spirit, reason, and science find ways to inspire each other and together seek to further embody the Truth in which we all live and move and have our Being.
Lee Offenhauer
Aliso Viejo, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)
Redefining the Concepts (October 23, 2005)
These are polarized times in which fundamentalists of all flavors focus only on their own spin and refuse even to listen to anyone with a slightly dissenting opinion. Your show is a wake-up call to listen. Sadly, I doubt that the fundamentalists ever will. But that doesn't mean you should stop trying to open our ears, eyes, and minds. Thanks for your even-handed, intellectual rigor in a world of rigid preconceptions.
Jim Padgett
Silver Spring, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)
Darwin and Religion (October 23, 2005)
I believe that it should be remembered in any discussion about Darwin and religion that Darwin was trained in seminary and that creation is a part of his theory. Darwin indicated that a group of proto-animals were created which then
by the means of natural selection were morphed into the range of animals we know today. The anti-religious timbre of Darwinism was crafted only after it was published by those who believed that science could be used to weaken religion's
position. It is important not to distort the views and intentions of one of the most influential thinkers ever.
Sam Oberholtzer
Los Angeles, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)
Refusing to Call Myself Christian Now (October 23, 2005)
From what I was taught in Sunday school, a "Christian" is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and tries to live in a way that emulates Jesus himself. As a Catholic, I feel that, technically speaking, I am a "Christian." However, I refuse to call myself that today in light of the awful connotation that I feel the word Christian has come to have in our society. The word Christian has become synonymous with the Evangelical Free Church. In my experience it seems the more Christian one deems themselves to be, the less accepting of others different from themselves and more narrow-minded a person becomes. Also, most of the evangelicals that I have met in my own community have come to think of themselves and their religion as superior to everyone else's and attain this holier than thou attitude. I know that many evangelicals do not consider Catholics, less rigorous Protestants, Methodists, and Presbyterians to fit under this new definition of the word Christian, which is something I don't mind so much, as I do not understand how someone who is attempting to emulate Jesus Christ can come to hate others so much.
Lucy Hafner
Minneapolis, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)
Open to New Truths (October 23, 2005)
Sometimes on Sunday mornings I am unable to attend my church (which is metaphysical) because you have a program on which is, I feel, important for me to hear. So I sit in my car or stay at home and try to absorb the information that you are presenting while simultaneously being very grateful that this programming exists. (Yes, I am a member of KWMU). I was listening to a women who was a teacher at a religious college and she said something like, "if you pursue the truth, you will often end up changing your mind." How simple but profound. If we are truly open to the truth, we have to also be open to looking at our belief systems that we hold to be true and unchanging. Interesting. Thank you for such inspiring programming. I am most grateful.
Judy Balducci
St. Louis, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)
Turning Back Extremists (October 23, 2005)
Thank you very much for publicizing the views of your guests, who are influential within the evangelical community. If more evangelicals took their rational views, I would have more respect and liking for them. The attempts to
hijack Christianity by extremists must be turned back.
Peter Wetzel
Orange, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)
Evangelical Faith — A Different Way (October 23, 2005)
This morning's segment on evangelical Christians who don't march to the drumbeat of the Christian Right was so very encouraging. I am an evangelical Christian because I believe in Jesus, believe that the relationship is personal and the
path to salvation, and it's important to share Him in a fallen world. But I don't believe it translates into conservative political action — what does the Bible say about providing for the poor? Having mercy? Showing Christ's love to all people? When people of genuine faith allow themselves to be co-opted by political movements that have objectives other than sharing the love of Christ, Christians lose.
I have a difficult time saluting the flag because my allegiance is to God, not a piece of cloth. I wonder how anyone of good Christian conscience and faith can justify a war that we now know was built on manipulated data. (A less charitable way to describe would be lies.) Thank you for your thought-provoking program. As I said, today's program was especially enlightening and made me realize that I am not such an odd person out in my church because of the way I think and feel.
Janet Williams
Indianapolis, IN (WFYI, 91.3 FM)
These Are Not Mainstream Evangelicals (October 23, 2005)
In today's program you spoke to two evangelicals who did not represent the mainstream of evangelical thinking. While it is fine to bring in diverse opinions within the evangelical group, the omission of mainstream opinions once again strengthened the stereotype that evangelicals cannot participate intelligently in the public forum of opinions. Again, we have been marginalized and you have, perhaps inadvertently, reinforced the stereotype that we have nothing of value to contribute to a discussion of politics or science.
I find my liberal friends are misinformed about evangelicals. In my experience, they seem to be angry about and afraid of what they perceive evangelical opinion to be, rightly or wrongly. They want to keep us in a very tight box and seem confused that we are not staying in there. It grieves me that we can't have an open conversation because of this. It will take a lot of coverage of the topic to effect a modification and even that may make little difference since it is so ingrained. However, if you are going to cover the topic of evangelicals, if you have not already perhaps you would like to speak to leaders of prominent evangelical churches such as Saddleback, social movements such as Samaritan's Purse, or influential seminaries such as Dallas Theological Seminary. There are many others. My only thought is that this type of coverage would kick up a lot of animosity from listeners who may well share the fear and closemindedness of my friends.
Sandra Felton
Miami, FL (WLRN, 91.3 FM)
Religious Power (October 23, 2005)
I listened with interest to remarks by Smith and Murphy this morning. The goal of the media-savvy, self-serving spokesmen for Christian fundamentalism has little to do with theology, ethics, and spirituality; rather, it is about power — political, economic, social — which can be secured and maintained by defining agendas and by substituting clever catch phrases and twisted logic for scholarly discussion. In place of the old standard, "We'll know they are Christians by their love," they assert, "we'll know you are a Christian by your stated beliefs." The radical community that Smith envisions, where love is put into practice one person at a time, one life at a time, without pressuring Congress and voters, was always the vision of Catholicism, and I, as a Catholic, hope Catholics do not allow themselves to be persuaded they need to join the noisy bandwagon lead by false demigods.
Steve Benson
Chicago, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)
Guests' Definitions of Evangelical (October 23, 2005)
I found your show today interviewing two professed evangelical Christians interesting. The word "evangelical" comes with a lot of connotations, in everyday use in the area I live in (Los Angeles). I would like to hear these persons give their definition(s) of what an "evangelical Christian" is or believes or does; what constitutes defines an evangelical
Christian?
Coleman Colla
Studio City, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)
The Doctrine of Evolution (October 23, 2005)
This morning I heard Krista Tippett interview Nancey Murphy on the subject of evangelicals, creation, and evolution. Nancey commented that just as moderate Muslims have the responsibility to let the world know that fundamentalist Muslims are not the best representation of Islamic faith, so moderate Christians should let the world know that fundamentalist Christians are not the best representation of Christianity. I hope you realize that Krista allowed Nancey to put Christians who do not believe evolution in the same category as Muslims who fly planes into buildings. This is not only academically dishonest, it is offensive. Nancey went on to lament how the media portrays evangelicals poorly and how that gives ammunition to the argument that they are being persecuted. As a Christian who has not accepted the doctrine of evolution, I felt persecuted as I listened to Nancey and Krista this morning.
If you were really interested in academic honesty then you might stop for a moment to consider the theory of irreducible complexity. This is a credible theory which many scientists have embraced, and it is at odds with macro-evolution. But it seems that Krista, for obvious reasons, would rather interview H. Allen Orr than Michael J. Behe. There is also a problem here with the basic assumption that biblical data is transient or fluid while scientific data is perfect and trustworthy. Isn't this backwards? Biologists are just as sure about the truth evolution today as
astronomers were about the geocentric theory before Copernicus. Thinking Christians know that science and Scripture should not be approached as either/or, but as both/and. Evangelicals do not fear science. They simply question why Darwin must always trump the Divine. And this morning, on your program, Darwin won again. Not only did the Divine lose, but so did the faithful who choose not to believe a theory that can never be proved. This felt like slander. Please be more sensitive to your broad brush stroke comments in the future, otherwise you will continue to drive a wedge between people of differing beliefs.
Matt Johnson
Levittown, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)
Figuring It All Out (October 23, 2005)
I truly enjoyed this program. I listened to it on the computer. This morning I listened to it again on the radio; then I returned to the computer and listened to the extra audio programs. I have a question that I would like to hear more about. The definition of liberal and conservative seems to be different for political talk and religious talk. In political circles conservative means right wing. In religious circles liberal seems to mean right wing. This is very confusing.
Andrew Friddle
Chicago, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)
Other Flavors of Evangelical Christianity (October 23, 2005)
I enjoy listening to your show, often it awakens me gently Sunday mornings and sets the tone for the day. It took me some time a few years ago to realize that I am not an "evangelical" Christian. Sure, I do believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world, sent by God. And as the word "Christian" suggests, I am a follower of Christ. And am I "evangelical"? Most certainly, but I am also shepherding, teaching, leading, and encouraging. And all of the gifts of the spirit deserve validity within the body of Christ. To single out "evangelical" places special status to those who evangelize. Evangelism isn't even in the Great Commission — it's discipleship.
But the more important point I wish to express is that "evangelical Christian" is a term that has the connotation of a certain political perspective. I do not believe in the regressive, right-wing politics so often characterized by those
who refer to themselves as evangelical Christian, therefore I am not one of them. I am merely a Christian. So I am dismayed by your use of the term "evangelical Christian" as if it refers to all Christians. Even your guest Jamie Smith conveyed that his friends judged whether or not he was an "evangelical Christian" by some of his positions. From his comments he doesn't sound like one to me, but he really should not worry because he does sound like a mere Christian.
I would like to suggest that you refrain from using the term evangelical in front of the word Christian when you are referring to Christians. Not all of us view ourselves as evangelical. Some of us haven't even realized there is a difference but unfortunately still identify with evangelical Christians because the pervasive use of the term in the Christian and secular media causes them to be unaware that there are other flavors. Like Jamie Smith said, why can't we (non-evangelicals) have a hold on the media like the evangelicals do? Perhaps even the whole issue of the use of the term evangelical Christian as opposed to other flavors can even be a topic for one of your future shows.
Jim Sullivan
Wyoming, MI (WVGR, 104.1 FM)
Thinking Fundamentalists Do Exist (October 23, 2005)
Unfortunately, Dr. Smith did what he said he didn't want to do — he stereotyped. While I agree that there is a group of my brothers and sisters evangelicals who prefer to be spoon-fed their philosophies of life, there is not a small group of us who do think, ponder, challenge — even among fundamentalists. My circle of influence at this time includes middle-school students rather than college students as Dr. Smith's does, but I do challenge ideas that are typically "right-winged" with the Bible: the support of big business, pro-life issues, even historical racial prejudice. My students hear me say that if businessmen were mature Christians, there would have been no need for labor unions; that if the Bible-believing church were supporting her teenagers with clear messages and examples of personal holiness, there would be fewer abortions; and that if, in our nation, Christians had unified their voices against the din of first slavery, then racial superiority, racial divisiveness could be buried. But I know that I am not the only one speaking this way because I learned it from wonderful thinking fundamentalists (my mother being one of them) who continue to stand on Scripture as guide for life and practice.
Terry Feliz
Miami, FL (WLRN, 91.3 FM)
Living the Doctrine (October 23, 2005)
First of all, your show, Speaking of Faith, is one of the jewels in American public radio's crown. Would that every public exchange were as well-reasoned. We'd surely be living in a greatly different world. On today's show: Jamie Smith and Nancey Murphy make me want to try to enroll in their schools just to take their classes. What great thinkers. What were the two biggest messages I took from this show?
- Reform begins with the self. If, for example, conservatives abhor abortion, then perhaps one of the greatest ways to live that belief is to nurture the living. What do all the poverty, malnutrition, child abuse, substandard wages, and myriad other social dysfunctions tell us about how we treat the living? Honor one another. Honor thyself.
- To marry politics and religion is to destroy both.
Jennifer Conway
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)
Wanting More Explanation (October 23, 2005)
I love your show and listen to it faithfully, but I found myself frustrated on two accounts this morning listening to Krista and Jamie Smith talk about another vision of the evangelical faith. First, you never really gave a full explanation of what an evangelical is, compared to other Christian faiths such as my own, Roman Catholicism, or Methodism or Lutheranism. I only heard what Jamie Smith contends it is not (the James Dobson haranguing right-wing judgmental blowhard type). I know Krista knows of him. Both of these omissions made me feel the program was incomplete. Sometimes, when a producer or writer knows a great deal about something, it is hard to remember that listeners or readers need to be introduced to the basic concept. I learned that as a newspaper reporter — you always have to reiterate your foundation, no matter how briefly. The tiny blip at the beginning was not sufficient for me to distinguish the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons from the "ordinary, good people" who you say make up 40 percent of the American people.
The other problem I had was that in all this talk about a progressive way of being an evangelical, and how it is so under the radar screen of the press, no one mentioned Jim Wallis, who has been working on behalf of the poor and against war for many, many years, and is an avowed evangelical. His book, God's Politics: Why the Right Is Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It was on the best-seller list for weeks, and his magazine Sojourners has been published for many years to advance these concepts.
Finally, as I was reflecting on the want of Jim Wallis's views at least being acknowledged, I also realized that the progressive, liberal arm of the Catholic Church, still very much alive, has not gotten much play on Speaking of Faith. There are many faithful Catholics who are working for the very values Jamie Smith was espousing — against the war, for the poor — and for a broader acceptance of gays, for dialogue about the abortion issue, and so on. I, like Jamie Smith, get tired of the media kneejerk reaction to "Catholic" as authoritarian, narrow-minded, pedophilic, and anti-woman. God knows I struggle with these and many other qualities that indeed are part of the Church, but there is so much more to it that needs to be written about. Thomas Reese, Joan Chittister, Thomas Gumbleton, Joe Nangle — these are just a few of the voices who are more than worth hearing. And even the documents issued by the American bishops make call after call for social justice. Please consider a "good" Catholic dialogue. Thanks for all you do.
Susan Burke
Front Royal, VA (WETA, 90.9 FM)
Thinking People of Faith (October 22, 2005)
Listening to this show lifted a burden from my shoulders. My political positions line up with what is called the liberal side of politics. At times I felt that in order to be true to my political ideas I have to renounce my religious belief, often lumping myself with people with not religious belief whatsoever. Even when it was clear to me that inside my soul I had no conflict with my faith and my politics. Actually, to be completely honest, I think my politics are a natural and complementary aspects of my faith. Thank you for bringing out the voice of "thinking people of faith." I think from now on I will coin that term to identify myself.
David Alvarez
New York, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)
Too Much Time Already (October 22, 2005)
I realize that Krista appears to have a bias towards any form of Christianity. But is it necessary to try to paint a kind and benevolent face to at least a portion of the group (evangelicals) that insist they know the right way. It appears that once again organized religion is at the head of the pack when it comes to murder and killing on a massive scale because their god is better than anyone else's god. Why is it necessary for this show to give an hour of national radio time to a group of people that insist their take on morality is the right one and that everyone needs to conform to their ideas. I can only hope that rather than sweet voicing along with whatever these guests have to say you can confront them with some of the glaringly arrogant attitudes held by a large portion of this group. Also where did you get the 40 percent figure for the U.S.A.? [Editor's note: see the entry at the 1:48 mark on the "particulars" page for sources cited.] I would strongly challenge that figure, at least I hope it's not true. I want to believe that it's still possible for people to think for themselves in this country and not fall into lock step with the people that think they are closer to god.
Patrick Graney
O'fallon, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)
I Never Even Knew (October 22, 2005)
I want to congratulate you on the most refreshing guest I have heard in a long time. I enjoy the show immensely and am a liberal committed Catholic who is deeply concerned about the direction of the Christian faith in the United States. I am well-informed about my faith and never even knew that there was an intellectual, moderate strain of Evangelicalism. Assure Professor Smith and his colleagues that I am praying for him. God bless.
Kevin Kelton
Nyack, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)
Emerged from the Narrow Interpretations (October 21, 2005)
I have been following the arguments over the true evangelicals and the sham evangelicals for a long time now. I grew up as one and, in the original sense of the word, I still consider myself an evangelical Christian and a very happy and devout Episcopalian. What many commentators neglect to note (or are simply ignorant of its existence) is the evangelical church found in countries without separation of church and state. I give you my native Greece as an example.
My grandfather, and several other young men of spirit and faith, established indigenous communities of faith throughout Eastern Orthodox Greece during the early decades of the 20th century. These communities are thriving today. Yes, they are evangelical, and they mostly ascribe to an "inerrant" interpretation of Scripture, but they are people of faith and integrity. They are also liberal and democratic (again, in the Greek sense) and horrified at the harm the Bush administration and the publicity surrounding its political religiosity have done to the evangelicals' good name in Greece. They tell me, "he has shamed us and we are now accused by the Orthodox that we are all like the warmongering evangelical wing of the Republican party."
A former high school classmate telephoned me the other day to ask, "Is it true that American schools are teaching this 'intelligent design?' My friends, who know I studied at Cornell, are making of fun of me and the Americans who educated me." And so it goes. I would like very much to have a sense of humor about it, but it is heartbreaking when one knows what evangelical Christians have been subjected to in countries with a national church whose clergy finds them a threat.
I am grateful to have emerged from the narrow interpretations of evangelicals, but also grateful for the abiding faith and love I learned in my childhood community of faith. My own contention is that reading the Bible with new eyes can bring much light and freedom to believers. I would ask you, if at all possible, to look at my books that retell biblical stories from the viewpoint of the characters themselves. Those who take the time to read them find the experience liberating. I would be so grateful if you would review them or mention them in your program. I write under my full name, Katerina Katsarka Whitley, and the books are: Speaking for Ourselves: Voices of Biblical Women, Seeing for Ourselves: Biblical Women Who Met Jesus, Walking the Way of Sorrows: Stations of the Cross, and Waiting for the Wonder: Voices of Advent.
Katerina Whitley
Vilas, NC (Listens via Web Audio)
Reminded Me of Sculpture (October 21, 2005)
Enjoyed this program. In 1996, I created a series of sculptures titled "To Go Boxes — Prepackaged Society"; one of the boxes was "Pharisees, Sadducees, Dontyousees" (www.sculpture.org). Today's program echoed some of the ideas behind this work.
Dee Vandyke
Bluewater Bay, FL (Listens via Web Audio)
