Have we always been in the Post-truth era?

I think we have generally been in the "post-truth" era.  Rejecting evolution because it interferes with our attachment to a way of interpreting a holy book -- post truth.  Or is it pre-truth?  Rejecting the planet earth going around the sun because it doesn't square with our understanding of the sun "coming up" in the morning and "going down" in the evening -- post-truth or pre-truth? Rejecting women as equals with men because of cultural biases and their menstrual cycle -- post-truth or pre-truth?

I was told by a friend one Sunday morning that "I believe the Bible cover to cover!!!"  (Yes, it sounded like three exclamations marks, but I confess I cannot prove them).  I asked him if he had ever read the whole Bible.  He said, "No."  Hmmm.  More non-truth nonsense, I should think.

The problem with truth is that we only see a bit of it at a time, and often don't know what to make of what we see.  Darwin saw a bit of truth as did other scientists of his day, and followed it to a logical end.  He was right, but only partly right because he didn't have more data.

Today we have more data, and are wondering about genetic evolution, the evolution of thinking itself, and whether we are in the midst of evolution as more and more women have C-section birth experience and more babies are "too big" for the birth canal.  Too soon to say, but . . .

The Trump phenomenon is only a blip in the non-truth story.  He tells one "truth", denies it a few hours later, then tells another.  And the people who aren't really committed to searching for truth love him.  No surprise.  People who fear medicine don't get shots for their kids, people who fear differentness slam folks of other races, colors or religions, people who fear change deny even the truth about their own "good old days".  I recall one lady who told me once that the only thing good about the good old days were that they were gone.  She had barely survived the Depression of the thirties and World War II.  Good old days . . . for who?

Truth to tell, a few people grew in compassion, expanded their vision, got better jobs than farming dust bowl acreage.  Others didn't grow, didn't deepen, didn't prosper.  What's the truth about the good old days we love to Tweet and Email and Blog about?  Or have talk radio shows with people calling in to?  It seems that even our Alt-Right folks don't really want ALL that went into the good old days.  Nor do they want ALL that truth has to show us.

Then there is Jesus.  Whether he said it or not, he is credited with saying, "I am the truth."  He examined his faith and found substantial parts of it lacking.  He took on his biases and healed a Gentile woman's child.  He ended up poorly, by most modern standards, not by blowing people up or electing Fascist fear-mongers, but by changing and growing and trying to be faithful to the bits of truth he was discovering.

Faith is not belief in nonsense.  It is a commitment to search, research (search again) and think to make sense out of what we find without being dogmatic that we have found "IT" and nothing more needs to be explored.

What do you think?  In what ways are you committed to truth even when it disrupts your beliefs?

Jesus Visited

After worship this morning I continued thinking.  I always think during and about the worship experience.  This week my thinking has been impacted by reading the book, Pope Joan.  It was a well researched book about the possibility that there was one (or more) female pope in the Roman Catholic hierarchy.  That's interesting, but not what caught me.

What caught me was the legalism, the male domination believed to be constituted by God, the vicious warfare in the name of the prince of peace, the forced conversion, the persecution of those perceived to be "different", and the emphasis on wealth, politics and ostentatious aggrandizement.  After years of being a Christian pastor, and years of serving in the church, I heard myself say to my wife, "I am content following Jesus.  I am ashamed to be part of the church."

Think about the fellowship of the Twelve.  It contained at least one traitor, and it dissolved rather soon after Jesus death and resurrection.  Thomas is reputed to have gone to India.  Peter ended up crucified in the Roman Empire.  Paul (not one of the Twelve) became possibly the most influential of the lot.  John seems to have gone to Ephesus.  They were the church and they didn't stick together.

Hmmm.  Would we do better with communities which could form and dissolve easily?  I see so many church groups, congregations and denominations which seem to mainly seek to perpetuate themselves.  Defend themselves.  Secure a place for themselves in the history books, as it were.

Is it the fault of the forced conversion of the Roman Empire?

Scholars say that the misogynist writings in the late epistles of the New Testament was probably to ease the way with the non-Christian power structures that wanted to keep women down in the Roman influenced society.  In other words, early on Christian leaders were compromising with non-Jesus beliefs and prejudices.

Maybe the church should have totally died by 60 AD.  Or, 60 CE if your prefer.

So, as I continue to wrestle with the "Who am I?" question I am pretty turned off on the church, but still find hope and guidance in Jesus as best as I can know Jesus.

What about you?  Leave a comment and let us know.

Two Sides To The Coin

We have lived with it since before 9/11 -- Islamist extremists filled with hatred for all things American, all things Western (except our guns, bombs, incendiary devices and explosives).  Sad that a faith expression that once dwelt well with Jews and Christians is so filled with hatred.  So sad.

There is another side to the same coin of mistrust, hatred, revenge-seeking and fear.  Conservative Christians and conservative Christian churches and conservative Christian politicians peddle the same kinds of hatred, racism, and fear of all things Muslim.  Donald Trump, who can hardly be labeled a Christian, is an extreme example of people who play on these non-Christian extremes.  Isn't it interesting that, in response to pressure from the right-wing Christians,   Mississippi governer Phil Bryant singed a law April 15 legalizing guns in churches.  I guess Jesus died for nothing.

What, again, did he say was the standard?  Love God totally and love your neighbor as yourself.

That's it.  Those who live by the sword (gun) will die by it.  In other words, be careful what you ask for -- you might just get it.  In the face of hatred early Christians learned to love, turn the other cheek, carry the load an extra mile.  Sad, isn't it, that they didn't have open carry laws to help them?

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

What I Enjoyed Today at Worship

We attended a church near us -- United Methodist -- and found it enjoyable.  Sorry, they do not have a scent free zone, but they do have a large, airy sanctuary so we could find a place to sit where allergies were not triggered in a big way.

We were greeted in a friendly manner by several people.  That counts as a strong positive.

Although two children wore felt capes to light the candles, the adult participants were not playing dress up (in centuries old frocks that I find distasteful in century 21).  Another strong positive.

The service was simple.  It didn't try to include every liturgical notion developed in the past two thousand years.  Another strong positive.

The sermon was to the point, and from her heart.  And she ended it!  She made her point(s) and stopped, and had a song to follow up that "fit".

The pianist/organist was superb.

Was this an aberration, and after New Year's Day will it be cluttered, out of place in Century 21, or obnoxious?  We'll see.

Meanwhile, I hope you grow in faith in the next year of Century 21.

Faith without Works is Normal

As I mull this over, and listen to right-oriented preachers agree with them, I want to explore and idea from a Christian point of view.  (For this reason this blog article will be on the Faith Reflections blog as well.)

First, Jesus was clear:  love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you, feed the hungry, visit the sick, make people welcome in practical ways.  The church has been much less clear, especially after the third century.

Second, Christians assert they will live resurrection lives after death.  They assert that this living will be without tears, without illness or death -- it will be wonder-full, and eternal.

Oh, yes, third:  Jesus said if we would follow him we have to carry our cross to do so.  That doesn't mean no drinking and no smoking and no drugging.  It means living with the instrument of shameful death on your back, ready to experience it as Jesus did/does.

Dare we wonder if these evangelical, or fundamentalist, Christian shouters actually every intend to do what Jesus said?

Dare we wonder whether these folks actually believe in a wonder filled life beyond death?

Dare we wonder whether carrying the cross goes beyond giving up meat for Lent, or wearing a necktie to worship?
  Along that line, think about this:  carrying the cross, as the Romans defined it for Jesus, meant being ready to die, but not knowing just when the moment of death would occur.  It means living with shame and accepting it as something O.K.  In other words, it means living in the U.S.A. with the possibility that someone we help may turn on us and kill or wound us and helping people anyway.

I'm not encouraging us to be foolinsh, or martyrs looking for a place to happen.  Jesus never said, "Be stupid and follow me."  But the shrill tones of fear from people espousing Christian values are as out of place as terrorism in the name of Islam.  Neither fit.

I am old, and if I die, I am reasonably ready.  I don't want my kids or grandkids caught in a bombing or strafing act of terrorism and hurt or killed.  But as a follower of Jesus I have to think clearly and decide whether I really  believe.  If I do, I must act on it every day.

In the Orthodox tradition the priest says, on Easter, "Christ is risen!"  and the congregation responds with vigor:  "He is risen indeed."

But does anyone really believe it?

Religion for the United States?

Recently a political candidate noted that Islam cannot be true to itself and live in a land with religious liberty.  I think he is correct.  Islam, at it's core, must dominate.

Yes, in it's history it has tolerated Jews and Christians, Sufi and Hindus, but when it decided to be "pure" it persecuted, exiled and murdered followers of anyone but Allah.  In fact, the nation of Iran is so dedicated as Shiite Muslims it works to destroy Sunni Muslims.  By nature it's "conservative" adherents are intolerant.

Ditto:  Christians.

Roman Catholicism, when it has the upper hand, persecutes Protestants, kills Jews, and goes to war with Islam.  Sorry, folks.  At it's heart conservative adherents of dominant Christianity do not believe in live and let live, in religious liberty or freedom of conscience.  It's "Our way or the highway -- to hell" as can be seen in the county clerk who believes it is her "right" to both refuse to sign marriage licenses for gay couples AND receive a salary from her government for not doing her job.

Judaism struggles now that it has a nation to let non-Jews be first class citizens.

The ideals of the framers of the Constitution of the United States were primarily secular.  They had studied the history of Europe and the Middle East and came up with an alternate solution:  a secular nation in which all could practice their religion within the limits of equality with people of other religions or no religion.  When anyone calls the USA a "Christian nation" they lie.

Moderate Christians have learned to both worship God through Jesus Christ AND evangelize gently.  Moderate Muslims have learned to worship Allah AND evangelize gently.  They go beyond the strict interpretation of certain scriptures and appeal to the nature of a loving god or a peace-loving god.  But the fanatics in many religions (not just the ones mentioned) can find justification for proselyting by force and cleansing by killing.  Religion . . . not really comfortable with a secular nation or a humanistic constitution.

No wonder many, many people prefer no religion and just trying to develop a spiritual connection.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

What Kind of Faith, What Kind of Future?

We attend an aging church.  It is well over 100 years old, had a young staff, but. . .

The congregation tilts towards the retired, and the somewhat long-retired.  In other words, the average age is getting old.  That has a lot of meaning.

For instance,

• retirement income is not what employed full-time income is.
• Medical costs for these folks are rising.
• Many have downsized into retirement communities or assisted living.  Costs more.
• More and more people cannot drive themselves to worship or church service events.
• More people are dying at the advanced age end of the spectrum than are joining the congregation in their young adult age.
• Older people tend to want and need more pastoral care.

Not only that,

• Older people tend to want things about the same.
• Older people have (in this congregation) tended to win their changes in faith through difficulty and trials.  They are tired.
• Older people often (in this congregation) do not want to go back to the "good old religion".  They have moved past it.
• Many older people come to be with old friends, and don't extend themselves to welcome newcomers.

As is the case in many Denver area churches, there is not much of a sense of community.  People talk about "community" but they are not in each other's lives, homes or social circles.  It's not "small town" living, for sure.

So I wonder:  Is the only future of such a congregation is slow dissolve, the intentional disbanding, or could there be a new, exciting life for this congregation and others like it?

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know. especially if you have a magic formula or potion.