Here is a partial listing of female heads of state since 1900:
Corazon Aquino - Philippines
Sirimavo Bandaranaike - Sri Lanka
Agatha Barbara - Mali
Benazir Bhutto - Pakistan
Gro Harlem Brundtland - Norway
Eugenia Charles - Dominica
Vigdis Finbogadottir - Iceland
Indira Gandhi - India
Golda Meir - Israel
Margaret Thatcher - Great Britain
Kim Campbell - Canada
Violeta Barrios de Chamorro - Nicaragua
Tansu Ciller - Turkey
Pamela Gordon - Bermuda
Sylvie Kinigi - Burundi
Chandrika Kumaratunge - Sri Lanka (her mother was the first female prime minister in the world)
Jenny Shipley - New Zealand
Jennifer M. Smith - Bermuda
Hanna Suchocka - Poland
Aung San Suu Kyi - Myanmar (Burma)
Agathe Uwilingiyimana - Rwanda
Vaira Vike-Freiberga - Latvia
Michelle Bachelet - Chile
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner - Argentina
Julia Gillard - Australia
Mary Robinson - Ireland
Mary McAleese - Ireland
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf - Liberia
Angela Merkel - Germany
Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf - Switzerland (one of several female Swiss heads of state)
... and the list goes on.
Notably missing from this list is that bastion of democracy and freedom, the United States of America, where in 2012, part of the dialog of the presidential campaign is whether or not the use of contraception is of the devil, and whether women should have access to medical care and counseling regarding reproductive health .
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The Purpose of Baptism
Holocaust-survivor and humanitarian Elie Wiesel has challenged the Mormon Church to renounce its practice of baptizing the dead. The request has likely received more than typical press attention because of Mitt Romney's run for the Republican presidential nomination. Wiesel's request comes on the heels of the revelation that Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal's relatives have been baptized in a Mormon ceremony that selects the names of deceased individuals to receive "proxy baptism."
Where does this Mormon practice come from? The practice comes from Joseph Smith's interpretation of I Corinthians 15:29, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead not rise at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” Mormons believe that Joseph Smith, their faith’s founding prophet, restored the apostolic practice after centuries of neglect by mainstream Christians. (See the washingtonpost.com.)
As a Jew who became a Christian as a young adult, I find the Mormon practice insulting, reprehensible, and frightening. First, orthodox Christianity teaches that the purpose of baptism is to welcome a person into the family of Christ. In liturgical churches, where infant baptism is still generally practiced, the parents and the congregation make the promise, on behalf of the baptized child, to raise that individual in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The family and the community assume responsibility for the spiritual development and growth of the child. That child takes responsibility for his or her faith through the experience of Confirmation - a choice the child makes to confirm his or her commitment to Christ and the teachings of the church.
The evangelical churches, including nearly every permutation of Baptist, assert that one should experience a "believer's baptism." In other words, when an individual makes an acknowledgement of Jesus the Christ as one's personal Savior and Lord, that commitment is demonstrated to the community through the act of baptism.
The key point is this: whether a child is baptized before he or she understands the meaning and purpose of baptism, or if an older child or adult "makes a profession of faith," baptism is a decision made by living individuals who have made the conscious choice to follow the teachings of Christ and to be an active and vital part of a body of believers, i.e., Christ's church.
Not only is the Mormon practice of baptism of the dead offensive to Jews and others who do not agree with Mormon teaching, but the practice has no theological basis in orthodox Christian teaching. Paul's statement has troubled theologians for centuries, but the general belief is that Paul may have either been asking, "If there is no resurrection, why bother to be baptized [i.e., why bother to profess Christ as Lord]?" The other plausible interpretation is that new believers were baptized in honor of a deceased believer who had been responsible for the believer's new found faith. Given the often short lifespan of first century individuals, this interpretation may have merit.
My own baptism was the result of my intentional decision to acknowledge that there was merit in the Christian teaching that Jesus was Messiah. My baptism was the "outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace." I would never insult my parents, grandparents, and other assorted relatives, both living and dead, by having proxy baptisms for them so that I can be "joined with them in Heaven": the Mormon assertion for proxy baptism. My own theology leads me to believe that a God of grace and compassion fully understands my family members' experiences that would have caused them to refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, but would not, however, close Heaven's gates to them.
Wiesel should be applauded for demanding that Romney condemn his faith's practice of proxy baptism. I would also like to see Romney take on the continued existence of polygamy among various Mormon sects. If nothing else materializes from Romney's run for national office, perhaps a serious examination of these Mormon aberrations will finally gain nationwide and mainstream attention. At the very least, the Mormons should let the dead rest in peace.
Where does this Mormon practice come from? The practice comes from Joseph Smith's interpretation of I Corinthians 15:29, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead not rise at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” Mormons believe that Joseph Smith, their faith’s founding prophet, restored the apostolic practice after centuries of neglect by mainstream Christians. (See the washingtonpost.com.)
As a Jew who became a Christian as a young adult, I find the Mormon practice insulting, reprehensible, and frightening. First, orthodox Christianity teaches that the purpose of baptism is to welcome a person into the family of Christ. In liturgical churches, where infant baptism is still generally practiced, the parents and the congregation make the promise, on behalf of the baptized child, to raise that individual in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The family and the community assume responsibility for the spiritual development and growth of the child. That child takes responsibility for his or her faith through the experience of Confirmation - a choice the child makes to confirm his or her commitment to Christ and the teachings of the church.
The evangelical churches, including nearly every permutation of Baptist, assert that one should experience a "believer's baptism." In other words, when an individual makes an acknowledgement of Jesus the Christ as one's personal Savior and Lord, that commitment is demonstrated to the community through the act of baptism.
The key point is this: whether a child is baptized before he or she understands the meaning and purpose of baptism, or if an older child or adult "makes a profession of faith," baptism is a decision made by living individuals who have made the conscious choice to follow the teachings of Christ and to be an active and vital part of a body of believers, i.e., Christ's church.
Not only is the Mormon practice of baptism of the dead offensive to Jews and others who do not agree with Mormon teaching, but the practice has no theological basis in orthodox Christian teaching. Paul's statement has troubled theologians for centuries, but the general belief is that Paul may have either been asking, "If there is no resurrection, why bother to be baptized [i.e., why bother to profess Christ as Lord]?" The other plausible interpretation is that new believers were baptized in honor of a deceased believer who had been responsible for the believer's new found faith. Given the often short lifespan of first century individuals, this interpretation may have merit.
My own baptism was the result of my intentional decision to acknowledge that there was merit in the Christian teaching that Jesus was Messiah. My baptism was the "outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace." I would never insult my parents, grandparents, and other assorted relatives, both living and dead, by having proxy baptisms for them so that I can be "joined with them in Heaven": the Mormon assertion for proxy baptism. My own theology leads me to believe that a God of grace and compassion fully understands my family members' experiences that would have caused them to refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, but would not, however, close Heaven's gates to them.
Wiesel should be applauded for demanding that Romney condemn his faith's practice of proxy baptism. I would also like to see Romney take on the continued existence of polygamy among various Mormon sects. If nothing else materializes from Romney's run for national office, perhaps a serious examination of these Mormon aberrations will finally gain nationwide and mainstream attention. At the very least, the Mormons should let the dead rest in peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)