Let me skip ahead . I pastored three congregations, two for substantial periods of time. I helped people find faith, I helped them move towards better mental health, I accepted people who were often rejected, and performed the rituals of the group known as the church. Occasionally I had a few minutes to let faith grow, but as often the conspiracies of life, disappointment and betrayal probably helped faith wither. Net gain? Net loss? I'm not sure.
I currently attend a churchy congregation. I've had a chance to be with some of these fine folks in situations where we talk, share, learn, and wonder together. Many of the questions these older folks seem to mess with are questions often raised in third, fourth and fifth grade Sunday School classes. I think back, and they were the questions raised most often in that college-age group I was accepted into when God first tapped me on the shoulder.
They are not questions that help me, or help most people, find faith, grow in faith or live faith.
At least, they are not questions that help as far as I can tell. They are somewhat on the order of, "Where did Cain get his wife?"
So, in many ways I am still asking, "Can anyone tell me where to go to grow in faith, not bigotry. to grow in faith, not mere belief. to grow in faith, and thus in agape love?"
What has your experience been? I look for the positive, not the negative. Leave a comment and let us know.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Can Anyone Tell Me Where To Go? Part Two
Eventually I went to seminary. I believe God led me to do so. I thought I was going to learn about Christian faith. To some extent, I did. But mostly I learned traditions, teachings, beliefs, controversies (ancient and modern) and a little bit of style. I learned to be a pastor.
The most useful thing I learned was a prayer that embodies something of "faith" to me:
"God, I give myself to you,
all that I am and all that I have,
wholly and completely,
for you to use as you will, where you will, when you will and with whom you will.
Take from me all that I withhold from you,
all that I will not give you,
and I am for you, against myself."
Dean Whiston called it the "Snowflake Prayer". Prayed once, not important. Prayed daily as a contract, it could deepen faith and grow a person.
Where to go to learn faith?
Well, Dean Whiston was one person who almost accidentally was the right person to go to.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
The most useful thing I learned was a prayer that embodies something of "faith" to me:
"God, I give myself to you,
all that I am and all that I have,
wholly and completely,
for you to use as you will, where you will, when you will and with whom you will.
Take from me all that I withhold from you,
all that I will not give you,
and I am for you, against myself."
Dean Whiston called it the "Snowflake Prayer". Prayed once, not important. Prayed daily as a contract, it could deepen faith and grow a person.
Where to go to learn faith?
Well, Dean Whiston was one person who almost accidentally was the right person to go to.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Saying The Same Thing Two Ways
A friend of mine said (a few years ago) that he thought that living by the Golden Rule was the summation of Christian faith. That has stuck with me. For some reason, this past week, I have been impressed by a couple of ways Jesus said it, sort of as an application of "Do to Others as you would have them do to you."
"Judge not that you are not judged. For as you judge others so will your heavenly father judge you." Hmmm. That's the Golden Rule applied to the whole act of judging, it seems to me.
On the Meyers-Briggs scale I come our pretty extreme on the J (judgment) side. That means I find it easy to relate to people via judgment. I have spent nearly half a century modifying my behavior so that I don't intuitively judge people but rather work to accept and understand them. It takes constant vigilance in that one cannot erase these traits that the M-B test uncovers, only modifiy the behaviors they lead to.
"Walk another mile in the other man's shoes" is another way of applying the Golden Rule. When I am allowed to, I try to perceive life as the "other person" perceives it, feel the feelings the other person feels, understand what it is like to live in the circumstances the other person lives in. And so forth. You "get it", I'm sure. I think this is another way of applying the Golden Rule.
It's not foolproof. Especially if I am the fool.
I once had the congregation use pencil and the margins of their bulletin to write down one way they wanted a person near them to treat them. One way. One thing.
Then I asked them to give that gift to the specific person they thought of. After a few minutes of pandemonium, I asked them to reflect on how it felt to be treated as the other person wanted to be treated.
In many cases it was a bust. Just because John wanted to be treated one way did not mean Bill wanted to be treated that way by John. Bill had a very different idea of what he wanted.
That's why walking in another person's shoes is so important. And why, of course, that "other person" has to communicate where her shoes are taking her. Without sensitive, accurate and non-judgmental communication there is no way either you or I can walk in that other person's shoes. We simply won't know.
What do you think? Leave your comment and let us know.
"Judge not that you are not judged. For as you judge others so will your heavenly father judge you." Hmmm. That's the Golden Rule applied to the whole act of judging, it seems to me.
On the Meyers-Briggs scale I come our pretty extreme on the J (judgment) side. That means I find it easy to relate to people via judgment. I have spent nearly half a century modifying my behavior so that I don't intuitively judge people but rather work to accept and understand them. It takes constant vigilance in that one cannot erase these traits that the M-B test uncovers, only modifiy the behaviors they lead to.
"Walk another mile in the other man's shoes" is another way of applying the Golden Rule. When I am allowed to, I try to perceive life as the "other person" perceives it, feel the feelings the other person feels, understand what it is like to live in the circumstances the other person lives in. And so forth. You "get it", I'm sure. I think this is another way of applying the Golden Rule.
It's not foolproof. Especially if I am the fool.
I once had the congregation use pencil and the margins of their bulletin to write down one way they wanted a person near them to treat them. One way. One thing.
Then I asked them to give that gift to the specific person they thought of. After a few minutes of pandemonium, I asked them to reflect on how it felt to be treated as the other person wanted to be treated.
In many cases it was a bust. Just because John wanted to be treated one way did not mean Bill wanted to be treated that way by John. Bill had a very different idea of what he wanted.
That's why walking in another person's shoes is so important. And why, of course, that "other person" has to communicate where her shoes are taking her. Without sensitive, accurate and non-judgmental communication there is no way either you or I can walk in that other person's shoes. We simply won't know.
What do you think? Leave your comment and let us know.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
How Much Money Does It Take to Have a Church?
The church we attend is, as are many churches in the USA, emphasizing giving and stewardship this season of the year. Well, most of the year, it seems. I got to wondering about how much money it takes to have a church?
Yes, church takes money.
Suppose a group of believers gather routinely in someone's home. That was the model in the first century of Christian growth, it seems. Even then someone provided refreshments, and the group gave something to help the "less fortunate" brethren in Jerusalem. It took a little money.
Add a person who gives pastoral care and prepares teaching messages. Should this person receive a stipend? Even suppose this person works full or part time away from the congregation, he/she gives evenings and days off to preparation and visitation. That's part of what church seems to require.
Add an enlarging congregation. Part time pastoring no longer cuts it. Really, an adequate, living salary seems required. Depending on the cost of living in the community that amount will be higher or lower. Still it seems pretty manageable if you look at it this way: 10 families tithing (giving 10% of their gross income) can support one family in pastoral ministry at an average level of their income. (I learned that from a Mennonite couple I had the privilege of working with and being friends with.)
There are a couple of catches. One, not every family will give 10% of their gross income. Two, most congregations want a building to house their activities in. Maybe they will rent one, first, but they outgrow the hospitality of the folks in the group with a sort-of large home.
With a building comes construction or rental costs, insurance, heat, lights, cooling in warmer climates, and so forth. Parking must be addressed and paid for. The cost has escalated big time when you factor in even a modest building. Oh, did I mention repairs and maintenance?
Some congregations feel the need for more paid staff. Add in insurance, retirement set-asides, the cost of finding such staff members, and the money it takes to have a church rises in a hurry.
How much money? How much will the organization give away to food banks, clothing banks, mission activities, outreach programs and so forth? I don't believe there is such a thing as a stingy Christian or a stingy Christian church? But each community has a different cost structure.
How much money? Think about it, and think realistically. It is usually more than most people think it should be, and almost always less than it could be.
Leave a comment and let us know what you are thinking.
Yes, church takes money.
Suppose a group of believers gather routinely in someone's home. That was the model in the first century of Christian growth, it seems. Even then someone provided refreshments, and the group gave something to help the "less fortunate" brethren in Jerusalem. It took a little money.
Add a person who gives pastoral care and prepares teaching messages. Should this person receive a stipend? Even suppose this person works full or part time away from the congregation, he/she gives evenings and days off to preparation and visitation. That's part of what church seems to require.
Add an enlarging congregation. Part time pastoring no longer cuts it. Really, an adequate, living salary seems required. Depending on the cost of living in the community that amount will be higher or lower. Still it seems pretty manageable if you look at it this way: 10 families tithing (giving 10% of their gross income) can support one family in pastoral ministry at an average level of their income. (I learned that from a Mennonite couple I had the privilege of working with and being friends with.)
There are a couple of catches. One, not every family will give 10% of their gross income. Two, most congregations want a building to house their activities in. Maybe they will rent one, first, but they outgrow the hospitality of the folks in the group with a sort-of large home.
With a building comes construction or rental costs, insurance, heat, lights, cooling in warmer climates, and so forth. Parking must be addressed and paid for. The cost has escalated big time when you factor in even a modest building. Oh, did I mention repairs and maintenance?
Some congregations feel the need for more paid staff. Add in insurance, retirement set-asides, the cost of finding such staff members, and the money it takes to have a church rises in a hurry.
How much money? How much will the organization give away to food banks, clothing banks, mission activities, outreach programs and so forth? I don't believe there is such a thing as a stingy Christian or a stingy Christian church? But each community has a different cost structure.
How much money? Think about it, and think realistically. It is usually more than most people think it should be, and almost always less than it could be.
Leave a comment and let us know what you are thinking.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Differing Points of View
The preacher might have begun: "All of us are going to die."
The preacher might have begun: "All of us are going to live."
The preacher might have begun: "All of us are alive."
Each statement tells the truth. Each statement could lead in a different direction. Each statement could be made in various tones of voice, such as anger, thundering, pedantic, bored ("so what?"), excited, happy, sad, resigned.
Try them: say each statement in at least four different tones of voice. If you record it on your iPad or iPhone, you can listen to how a statement comes across using differing tones of voice.
Each statement is true, but the tone of voice in which it is spoken may make the statement somewhat untrue.
Sadly, we don't have the tone of voice Jesus used when he told parables, taught crowds, reviewed things for his followers or pressed on with his journeys. Was he being humorous or scathing? Sarcastic or dead serious?
Tone of voice matters.
When you greet a stranger in your church, synagogue or mosque, you might say, "Pleased you are here", but your tone of voice, your body language and your follow up actions tell the truth. Your words . . . may not.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
The preacher might have begun: "All of us are going to live."
The preacher might have begun: "All of us are alive."
Each statement tells the truth. Each statement could lead in a different direction. Each statement could be made in various tones of voice, such as anger, thundering, pedantic, bored ("so what?"), excited, happy, sad, resigned.
Try them: say each statement in at least four different tones of voice. If you record it on your iPad or iPhone, you can listen to how a statement comes across using differing tones of voice.
Each statement is true, but the tone of voice in which it is spoken may make the statement somewhat untrue.
Sadly, we don't have the tone of voice Jesus used when he told parables, taught crowds, reviewed things for his followers or pressed on with his journeys. Was he being humorous or scathing? Sarcastic or dead serious?
Tone of voice matters.
When you greet a stranger in your church, synagogue or mosque, you might say, "Pleased you are here", but your tone of voice, your body language and your follow up actions tell the truth. Your words . . . may not.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Thinking About Freedom - 1
When Roe vs. Wade was new, I was asked to engage with a Roman Catholic priest in a debate about the issue of abortion. He was on the anti-abotion side, so I was tasked with taking the pro-abortion position. In debate, of course, a person does best of she/he can take either side of the question.
I was pretty sure I did not want to be a party to abortion, but I was also sure that the freedom to have a medically sound abortion was important to a lot of women. So I engaged. In some ways that advanced my thinking, feeling and commitments.
Let me say, first, that I highly value living in a country that is pluralistic and that provides the liberty to practice one's faith or religious beliefs.
Second, I did want to be a party to giving the poor a break. Illegal abortions were killing poor girls and women at an alarming rate, while upper middle class women and their daughters could "afford" competent medical interference with pregnancies even when they professed to believe it was wrong.
So giving the person most impacted by the pregnancy, the pregnant woman, seemed then and seems now to be the best possible compromise.
There can be no question that the anti-abortion voices have said it all, published the scary films and videos, shot abortion clinic workers and so forth. Few people are uninformed about the "evils" of abortion.
Somehow the message about freedom is not getting the same press.
For instance, Hobby Loby wants (and has gotten) and exemption from paying for medical insurance that would pay for an abortion. The freedom angle is this:
Whose conscience has priority? The profit-making employer or the individual employee? The way our system is currently working the employer holds the conscience card as well as the profit.
The same is true for religious organizations like the Roman Catholic church. Can they not trust their staff people to obey the teachings of the church? Can they not trust their staff to have compliant consciences?
Apparently not. The "big guys" will dictate to the little women of the world. It's complex, I understand, but individual freedom continues to come in second place.
What do you think? Leave your comment and let us know.
I was pretty sure I did not want to be a party to abortion, but I was also sure that the freedom to have a medically sound abortion was important to a lot of women. So I engaged. In some ways that advanced my thinking, feeling and commitments.
Let me say, first, that I highly value living in a country that is pluralistic and that provides the liberty to practice one's faith or religious beliefs.
Second, I did want to be a party to giving the poor a break. Illegal abortions were killing poor girls and women at an alarming rate, while upper middle class women and their daughters could "afford" competent medical interference with pregnancies even when they professed to believe it was wrong.
So giving the person most impacted by the pregnancy, the pregnant woman, seemed then and seems now to be the best possible compromise.
There can be no question that the anti-abortion voices have said it all, published the scary films and videos, shot abortion clinic workers and so forth. Few people are uninformed about the "evils" of abortion.
Somehow the message about freedom is not getting the same press.
For instance, Hobby Loby wants (and has gotten) and exemption from paying for medical insurance that would pay for an abortion. The freedom angle is this:
- a woman could choose not to work for Hobby Lobby (or any organization that won't pay the full amount for medical insurance)
- a woman could choose for herself not to get an abortion if she worked for such an employer
Whose conscience has priority? The profit-making employer or the individual employee? The way our system is currently working the employer holds the conscience card as well as the profit.
The same is true for religious organizations like the Roman Catholic church. Can they not trust their staff people to obey the teachings of the church? Can they not trust their staff to have compliant consciences?
Apparently not. The "big guys" will dictate to the little women of the world. It's complex, I understand, but individual freedom continues to come in second place.
What do you think? Leave your comment and let us know.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
What I Didn't "Get" - 5
I am wondering about the implications of "what I didn't get" for now, for life in my seventieth decade. I wonder, today, if there is any significant place for me in the kind of churches I attend, for instance.
Here's what I am thinking in September, 2014. I'm thinking that all sides of this issue have good reasons to believe they see faith from the "right" perspective. All sides.
I'm thinking that the way I see it is "best". So what? I'm probably wrong, but then, who isn't?
I'm thinking that only a living God can pull these points of view together. If God chooses to. What if God does not choose to at this time? Darn! I may not be able to do one single thing about it.
I'm thinking that I may have to live with the pain of incompleteness, of not getting most things my way, of feeling out of place and out of time wherever and whenever I am. I've had a fair amount of practice with this over the 76 years of living I have been exposed to and participated in.
I'm thinking that just because I think I "get it", chances are I am only getting a tiny bit of the surface of the reality. I'd love to think I was smarter and had more insight than all this, but. . .d
So what do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Here's what I am thinking in September, 2014. I'm thinking that all sides of this issue have good reasons to believe they see faith from the "right" perspective. All sides.
I'm thinking that the way I see it is "best". So what? I'm probably wrong, but then, who isn't?
I'm thinking that only a living God can pull these points of view together. If God chooses to. What if God does not choose to at this time? Darn! I may not be able to do one single thing about it.
I'm thinking that I may have to live with the pain of incompleteness, of not getting most things my way, of feeling out of place and out of time wherever and whenever I am. I've had a fair amount of practice with this over the 76 years of living I have been exposed to and participated in.
I'm thinking that just because I think I "get it", chances are I am only getting a tiny bit of the surface of the reality. I'd love to think I was smarter and had more insight than all this, but. . .d
So what do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
What I didn't get - 4
I think a person who have never eaten venison properly prepared, seasoned and cooked can not really understand the taste of it. He or she has no experiential "hook" allowing a connection to the taste of well-prepared venison. In a like manner folks like me who were not raised in the American church cannot "taste" the experience people have enjoyed or hated of being raised in church.
Oh, I "got" the notion that people raised in an ugly church were hurt by it. I counseled a young lady whose father was a deacon in a church, and began abusing her sexually when she was six, claiming that God gave him that right because he was a deacon. Ugly. Wrong. I could connect, at least a little, with that hurt. I understood the gulf of despair living in folks raised in rule-based congregations as they read the Good News Jesus brought and realized they never experienced it as good news. Just rules, often silly rules. (The proper way to dress, the deference that must be shown to large givers, narrow visions of morality and propriety for instance.)
I didn't "get" the disconnect between my life experience in faith and my friends and colleagues life experience in church. I'm not sure I really get it today.
I wonder, from time to time, why people keep coming to worship when they do not now and never have at any time experience God. I keep involved, I keep encouraging my faith, because God has made Godself known to me at several points in my life. I cannot deny what happened and I can find no better explanation for what happened. In the words of the hymn, "He touched me."
Well, if I'm having a problem, my church friends who have not been touched by God have the same problem. I must seem very, very strange to them. The disconnect between my life experience and how it affected my pastoral leadership and the life experience of most folks attending church where I was pastor was huge. I am just now "getting" it.
What do you think about all this? Leave a comment, if you would. Or is it just too weird?
Oh, I "got" the notion that people raised in an ugly church were hurt by it. I counseled a young lady whose father was a deacon in a church, and began abusing her sexually when she was six, claiming that God gave him that right because he was a deacon. Ugly. Wrong. I could connect, at least a little, with that hurt. I understood the gulf of despair living in folks raised in rule-based congregations as they read the Good News Jesus brought and realized they never experienced it as good news. Just rules, often silly rules. (The proper way to dress, the deference that must be shown to large givers, narrow visions of morality and propriety for instance.)
I didn't "get" the disconnect between my life experience in faith and my friends and colleagues life experience in church. I'm not sure I really get it today.
I wonder, from time to time, why people keep coming to worship when they do not now and never have at any time experience God. I keep involved, I keep encouraging my faith, because God has made Godself known to me at several points in my life. I cannot deny what happened and I can find no better explanation for what happened. In the words of the hymn, "He touched me."
Well, if I'm having a problem, my church friends who have not been touched by God have the same problem. I must seem very, very strange to them. The disconnect between my life experience and how it affected my pastoral leadership and the life experience of most folks attending church where I was pastor was huge. I am just now "getting" it.
What do you think about all this? Leave a comment, if you would. Or is it just too weird?
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
What I Didn't Get - 3
As I continue to reflect on my own journey of faith, ministry, success, failure and church, I continue to new understandings. I am not interested in "right" or "wrong" -- just understanding. So far I understand that I cannot go back and "fix" anything, or change anything, or grow any faster than I did.
I didn't "get" that my life experience was substantially different than that of my fellow students, my fellow church members or my fellow pastors and ministers. All the evidence was present. I guess I was not present to the gulf in our various experiences.
In the 1950's many, if not most, "free" church congregation and pastors were influenced by the Billy Graham phenomenon. Billy Graham was an evangelist who preached a simple, possibly a simplistic, message and called for a decision when he was done. In secular terms he was a salesman who asked his customers to decide to "buy", to "sign on the dotted line". Even the university church where I was touched by God, moderately liberal, bland and inoffensive, had a pastor who gave an "invitation" at the conclusion of the sermon. It was to such an invitation that i responded after responding to the touch of God on my shoulder.
I thought everyone understood. It seems that few expected such a response from anyone. They were suspicious of the responders at Billy Graham Crusades, and few if any believed even in their own responses as anything but a cultural phenomena. The notion that a living Being, God, might interfere in someone's life, and that someone might be O.K. with such interference was not believable.
I recall thinking after a few weeks as a "Christian" that it was too bad no one warned us about what God would expect. We/I gave our/my allegiance in a "for all time" decision and then found out about morals, ethics, discipleship, attendance, people we would be associating with and tons of other stuff. What I didn't "get" was why no one else was bothered.
Why would they be bothered. Most of my new friends and acquaintances had never experienced a touch by God, and the "for all time" implications of their faith journey were the ones they had embraced by third or fourth grade in Sunday School.
More on this in another post. Leave a comment.
I didn't "get" that my life experience was substantially different than that of my fellow students, my fellow church members or my fellow pastors and ministers. All the evidence was present. I guess I was not present to the gulf in our various experiences.
In the 1950's many, if not most, "free" church congregation and pastors were influenced by the Billy Graham phenomenon. Billy Graham was an evangelist who preached a simple, possibly a simplistic, message and called for a decision when he was done. In secular terms he was a salesman who asked his customers to decide to "buy", to "sign on the dotted line". Even the university church where I was touched by God, moderately liberal, bland and inoffensive, had a pastor who gave an "invitation" at the conclusion of the sermon. It was to such an invitation that i responded after responding to the touch of God on my shoulder.
I thought everyone understood. It seems that few expected such a response from anyone. They were suspicious of the responders at Billy Graham Crusades, and few if any believed even in their own responses as anything but a cultural phenomena. The notion that a living Being, God, might interfere in someone's life, and that someone might be O.K. with such interference was not believable.
I recall thinking after a few weeks as a "Christian" that it was too bad no one warned us about what God would expect. We/I gave our/my allegiance in a "for all time" decision and then found out about morals, ethics, discipleship, attendance, people we would be associating with and tons of other stuff. What I didn't "get" was why no one else was bothered.
Why would they be bothered. Most of my new friends and acquaintances had never experienced a touch by God, and the "for all time" implications of their faith journey were the ones they had embraced by third or fourth grade in Sunday School.
More on this in another post. Leave a comment.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Exclusive? I Think Not
In yesterday's worship we found a phrase, "You are ours and we are yours" in a prayer. It sounds so damned exclusive. (I speak theologically.)
Yet almost every faith grouping thinks or prays the same thing. I picture it like this:
Think of all the smaller circles of faith, from speck sized to gigantic sizes all of whom are trying to say to the Ultimate YOU -- "I am Yours".
None of us has an exclusive claim on that One, and none of us is actually fully correct. The One has give us to ourselves in so many ways.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Yet almost every faith grouping thinks or prays the same thing. I picture it like this:
None of us has an exclusive claim on that One, and none of us is actually fully correct. The One has give us to ourselves in so many ways.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Reflections On Church – What I Didn’t “get” - 1
This is a reflection on my persistent non-awareness, not a
reflection on anyone else.
What didn’t I “get”?
These days it seems obvious, to me, but for most of my adult life it was
only something I saw out of the edge of my peripheral vision, if at all. I didn’t get the difference between my
understanding of faith-practice, and the understanding most people in churches
had (and have). For me, adequate
Christian practice had nothing to do with dressing up on Sundays, gathering
with people like me, or keeping the institution of church prospering.
Rather, for me, adequate faith-practice was about outsiders,
making people feel welcome and valued, listening more than talking, thinking
about the questions working people, people without privilege, people who weren’t
raised in church were wondering about.
In my first pastorate, with twenty-two a “good” attendance
on Sunday, there was no question in anyone’s mind. We were a community church. We needed to be involved with the
community. I visited homes, I became a
Scoutmaster, I learned to care for not only the unchurched (nearly everyone)
but for the shy, the people who lived back in the hills by choice, the
disenfranchised on every street and in every home.
That, to me, was what faith practice was all about.
Sure, it was nice to get the crowd attending church
bigger. It was nicer when Ron said that
because of our conversation over coffee in his kitchen he could put his faith
in Christ. Faith that would change his
behavior, but that didn’t, when I could ever see it, make him an active
church-goer.
Hang on to what I am beginning to “get” about me. I'll write more in a few days.
Leave a comment if you care to.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Reflections on Church
Strange. I became a Christian when I was 19 years old, a Junior at the University, and a generally 'moral and ethical' pagan. Not anti-Chrstian. But not raised in the church and very ignorant of this whole "Christianity" thing. A bit over a year later I believed God was calling me to attend seminary to learn about this faith, so after graduation I went to Berkeley, CA, and worked my way through to a Bachelor of Divnity degree. A couple of months before graduation I felt God telling me to accept the call to a small church (22 people attending) in northeastern Washington.
Strange. I worked, I pastored, I became part of the community, I taught, I drank coffee with people, and never got it.
Then I was called to a university town to take a church that wanted to reach out to students. I felt God leading and spent eighteen and a half years there, pastoring, teaching, drinking coffee with students, walking the floor with people overdosing on drugs and booze, meeting town drunks at 2:00 a.m. when the bars were closing, caring. I never got it.
Then I felt "right" about accepting the pastorate of a suburban church that wanted to grow without adding new members. After two and a half years of "doing church" I moved into the IT field and tried to figure out how to be God's person in institutions and businesses.
Strange. I still didn't get it.
Recently I received a warm letter from friends back in that University town. They shared that they attend another church but how neat it is that people who were kids born while I was pastor there are active in that church. That church has left our denomination, has become very right wing, with an emphasis on narrowness and hostility towards others, and. . . I get it. I think.
This article begins a series of reflections on what I "get". How this will affect me is hard to say. We'll have to see.
Read on.
Strange. I worked, I pastored, I became part of the community, I taught, I drank coffee with people, and never got it.
Then I was called to a university town to take a church that wanted to reach out to students. I felt God leading and spent eighteen and a half years there, pastoring, teaching, drinking coffee with students, walking the floor with people overdosing on drugs and booze, meeting town drunks at 2:00 a.m. when the bars were closing, caring. I never got it.
Then I felt "right" about accepting the pastorate of a suburban church that wanted to grow without adding new members. After two and a half years of "doing church" I moved into the IT field and tried to figure out how to be God's person in institutions and businesses.
Strange. I still didn't get it.
Recently I received a warm letter from friends back in that University town. They shared that they attend another church but how neat it is that people who were kids born while I was pastor there are active in that church. That church has left our denomination, has become very right wing, with an emphasis on narrowness and hostility towards others, and. . . I get it. I think.
This article begins a series of reflections on what I "get". How this will affect me is hard to say. We'll have to see.
Read on.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Done With Forgiveness?
We attend a mainline church. Striving to be relevant (and it generally is) it also seems to want to disassociate from the right-wing "Bible" churches of our area. I understand that. We are inclusive, caring, giving, generous and thoughtful. I like that.
However. . .
I don't hear much, if anything, about forgiveness. I just noticed this when reflecting a couple of weeks ago. I got to wondering: have we as humans grown so much that forgiveness is fashioned, something we no longer need to get or give? Is forgiveness thought to be a panacea for guilt-ridden folks who need counseling, not redemption?
I wonder what you think about this question?
Tying it in with a news story I saw this morning where a Muslim village was savagely attacked by Buddhist fundamentalists, I wonder if there is a place for both side to work towards authentic forgiveness, or. . .
. . . should the Muslims seek counseling?
. . . should the Buddhists keep torching people's homes and killing their children?
. . . does God simply say, "Whatever. . . "
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
However. . .
I don't hear much, if anything, about forgiveness. I just noticed this when reflecting a couple of weeks ago. I got to wondering: have we as humans grown so much that forgiveness is fashioned, something we no longer need to get or give? Is forgiveness thought to be a panacea for guilt-ridden folks who need counseling, not redemption?
I wonder what you think about this question?
Tying it in with a news story I saw this morning where a Muslim village was savagely attacked by Buddhist fundamentalists, I wonder if there is a place for both side to work towards authentic forgiveness, or. . .
. . . should the Muslims seek counseling?
. . . should the Buddhists keep torching people's homes and killing their children?
. . . does God simply say, "Whatever. . . "
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Forgive
In the Christian west, forgiveness is a central act, an immediate concept, an activity honored more in the idea than in practice. That is changing, however. As people eschew taking responsibility for their behavior, they feel no need for forgiveness.
The person who changes lanes like a maniac, causing one or more crippling accidents, feels she has only exercised her rights. What need has she for forgiveness?
The student who spends his time texting and taking calls rather than giving his attention to the teacher feels no need for forgiveness. He has only acted in his own best interests, he believes.
The politician who takes bribes in the forms of campaign contributions is only doing what she/he needs to do to get re-elected. Whether she/he has represented the best interests of her/his constituents is nothing to feel guilt about. Why should she/he ask for forgiveness?
In what ways, then, is forgiveness relevant? Given the pressure to self-actualize, to help oneself, to simply meditate or contemplate or to live an aggressively purpose driven life, how does forgiveness work? Given the psychotic obsession of some religious groups on forgiveness, in which people get "saved" every week, every meeting of the group, or every revival meeting, might it be more healthy to skip the forgiveness thing altogether?
I find it worthwhile to differentiate between shame and forgiveness. Forgiveness is sought, and sometimes given, when one has been found guilty of something. You cannot forgive someone for having sexual impulses. Sexual impulses are built in to most living things as God's or nature's mechanism for survival of the species. To require forgiveness for feeling horny is to require forgivenss for being, not for acting.
But when a person lets the sexual energy he or she is born with fuel a plan to seduce, rape, or otherwise violate another person, the possibility of an action of which she/he is guilty raises a potential for forgiveness-need. When a person lets the natural need to survive become a consuming greed that tramples on the legitimate needs and aspirations of others, and actions take place that hurt, demean or even murder others, then guilt becomes real and forgiveness might be offered.
What if a person is guilty, but does not feel guilty?
I think that's the issue for too many people today. They don't feel guilt and thus fail to realize how much they need forgiveness. I'm not thinking about heaven and hell right now, although we might look at that in the future. I'm thinking that possibly a person might be stunted, damaged, twisted or even destroyed by the failure to find forgiveness.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
The person who changes lanes like a maniac, causing one or more crippling accidents, feels she has only exercised her rights. What need has she for forgiveness?
The student who spends his time texting and taking calls rather than giving his attention to the teacher feels no need for forgiveness. He has only acted in his own best interests, he believes.
The politician who takes bribes in the forms of campaign contributions is only doing what she/he needs to do to get re-elected. Whether she/he has represented the best interests of her/his constituents is nothing to feel guilt about. Why should she/he ask for forgiveness?
In what ways, then, is forgiveness relevant? Given the pressure to self-actualize, to help oneself, to simply meditate or contemplate or to live an aggressively purpose driven life, how does forgiveness work? Given the psychotic obsession of some religious groups on forgiveness, in which people get "saved" every week, every meeting of the group, or every revival meeting, might it be more healthy to skip the forgiveness thing altogether?
I find it worthwhile to differentiate between shame and forgiveness. Forgiveness is sought, and sometimes given, when one has been found guilty of something. You cannot forgive someone for having sexual impulses. Sexual impulses are built in to most living things as God's or nature's mechanism for survival of the species. To require forgiveness for feeling horny is to require forgivenss for being, not for acting.
But when a person lets the sexual energy he or she is born with fuel a plan to seduce, rape, or otherwise violate another person, the possibility of an action of which she/he is guilty raises a potential for forgiveness-need. When a person lets the natural need to survive become a consuming greed that tramples on the legitimate needs and aspirations of others, and actions take place that hurt, demean or even murder others, then guilt becomes real and forgiveness might be offered.
What if a person is guilty, but does not feel guilty?
I think that's the issue for too many people today. They don't feel guilt and thus fail to realize how much they need forgiveness. I'm not thinking about heaven and hell right now, although we might look at that in the future. I'm thinking that possibly a person might be stunted, damaged, twisted or even destroyed by the failure to find forgiveness.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Monday, June 2, 2014
What if . . .
My wife is reading a novel set in the first century. A woman was born into a Christian family. Her family was killed. She is now a slave, a Christian, with no Bible (not written yet) and no guidance except for remembered stories her father told her about Jesus and what Jesus taught.
What if . . . that's enough? What if the mission of Jesus was to liberate humans from church, churchianity, dogma, laws, and traditions and assume that if they knew a bit of what he taught they would work out what they needed with God for themselves?
What if what we know as "Scripture" was an aberration 'invented' by insecure old men of all ages, by people who had mostly been part of pagan or Jewish institutions prior to being told to be Christians? What if the very idea of "inspired Scripture" is an affront to God?
I don't know. It bothers me to think about it. I confess, I am lazy. I would like other people whom I project "smarts" onto to figure this stuff out for me and tell me how to be a good Christian.
Oh. I'm like most church folks, I guess.
But what if. . . ? What if that's not how God wants me to relate to the Godhead?
What do you think? Leave your comment and let us know.
What if . . . that's enough? What if the mission of Jesus was to liberate humans from church, churchianity, dogma, laws, and traditions and assume that if they knew a bit of what he taught they would work out what they needed with God for themselves?
What if what we know as "Scripture" was an aberration 'invented' by insecure old men of all ages, by people who had mostly been part of pagan or Jewish institutions prior to being told to be Christians? What if the very idea of "inspired Scripture" is an affront to God?
I don't know. It bothers me to think about it. I confess, I am lazy. I would like other people whom I project "smarts" onto to figure this stuff out for me and tell me how to be a good Christian.
Oh. I'm like most church folks, I guess.
But what if. . . ? What if that's not how God wants me to relate to the Godhead?
What do you think? Leave your comment and let us know.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Conservatives Cannot Be Christians
A conservative can be Jewish. A conservative can be Muslim. But there is no way outside of Hell that a conservative can be a follower of Jesus.
Bold words? Stupid words? Follow the logic for a moment.
Jesus is quoted in Matthew 5-7 saying, “You have heard it said of old. . . but I say to you.” He is taking on the conservative Jewish teachers and leaders by saying God has something new. Essentially he is teaching that if you rule out the new works of God by sticking to the good old ways, you miss God and you (be extension) don’t “get” Jesus.
On the other hand, a Liberal cannot be a Christian either.
Espousing any creed, any belief system, even a “liberal” position means the mind is closed to whatever God is doing right now. Tomorrow. Next year.
God works with “what is”, and keeps working with “what is” extending grace, passing judgment, impregnating young girls (at least once), giving covenant laws and then abandoning covenant laws in favor of a new covenant. God even embraces conservatives.
I speak of “conservatives” and “liberals” as folks who have taken a stance, adopted a position or become an evangelist for a point of view. I don’t speak of people whose inner nature tilts toward the good old days, or towards the unknown future. These folks always have a battle to follow Christ, but they can (and many do) choose to listen for God, look for the works of God, remain open to God every day. Not the god of the good old days, not the god of the latest liberal cause — the the living God.
What do you think? Leave your comment and let us know.
Bold words? Stupid words? Follow the logic for a moment.
Jesus is quoted in Matthew 5-7 saying, “You have heard it said of old. . . but I say to you.” He is taking on the conservative Jewish teachers and leaders by saying God has something new. Essentially he is teaching that if you rule out the new works of God by sticking to the good old ways, you miss God and you (be extension) don’t “get” Jesus.
On the other hand, a Liberal cannot be a Christian either.
Espousing any creed, any belief system, even a “liberal” position means the mind is closed to whatever God is doing right now. Tomorrow. Next year.
God works with “what is”, and keeps working with “what is” extending grace, passing judgment, impregnating young girls (at least once), giving covenant laws and then abandoning covenant laws in favor of a new covenant. God even embraces conservatives.
I speak of “conservatives” and “liberals” as folks who have taken a stance, adopted a position or become an evangelist for a point of view. I don’t speak of people whose inner nature tilts toward the good old days, or towards the unknown future. These folks always have a battle to follow Christ, but they can (and many do) choose to listen for God, look for the works of God, remain open to God every day. Not the god of the good old days, not the god of the latest liberal cause — the the living God.
What do you think? Leave your comment and let us know.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
In What Do You Have Faith?
In what, or in whom, do you have faith?
In how many "whats" or in how many "whoms" do you have faith?
A person lived to be 80 years old. During this person's life many objects of faith came and went. Mother, Father, god, doing homework accurately, the stock market, one or more weapons, dressing a certain way, one or more hairstyles, taking orders, resisting orders. . . the list was long. If asked, "In What Do You Have Faith?" this person might have said, "Allah" or "God" or "Jesus" and let it go at that.
This person would have answered inaccurately. I haven't even mentioned the effects of alcohol, the promise of drugs (including medicinal drugs), the power of love or hate, or avoiding stepping on a crack in order to NOT break his mother's back.
During any person's life time he or she venerates many objects of faith. Sometimes he consciously gives up an object of faith. I recall a friendly acquaintance who gave up on Jesus as the answer and bought into civil rights as the object of faith. When that movement didn't produce quickly enough he sought his salvation in alcohol and drugs. We lost track of each other. . . I don't know what other objects of faith he may have embraced as life continued for him. Or did he die along the way stuck in the dead end of misery?
In what or whom to you have faith? Do you have any faith that seems "ultimate" to you -- leading to the meaning of life, or salvation, or eternal rest? Is it possible to have mixed an "ultimate" object of faith for a "transient" object of faith? For instance, have you substituted an approach to investing that seems to be working for faith that will last into eternity? Or, have you invested a faith in god for a sound approach to investing?
Thank about it. Leave a comment about it. Let us know. . .
In how many "whats" or in how many "whoms" do you have faith?
A person lived to be 80 years old. During this person's life many objects of faith came and went. Mother, Father, god, doing homework accurately, the stock market, one or more weapons, dressing a certain way, one or more hairstyles, taking orders, resisting orders. . . the list was long. If asked, "In What Do You Have Faith?" this person might have said, "Allah" or "God" or "Jesus" and let it go at that.
This person would have answered inaccurately. I haven't even mentioned the effects of alcohol, the promise of drugs (including medicinal drugs), the power of love or hate, or avoiding stepping on a crack in order to NOT break his mother's back.
During any person's life time he or she venerates many objects of faith. Sometimes he consciously gives up an object of faith. I recall a friendly acquaintance who gave up on Jesus as the answer and bought into civil rights as the object of faith. When that movement didn't produce quickly enough he sought his salvation in alcohol and drugs. We lost track of each other. . . I don't know what other objects of faith he may have embraced as life continued for him. Or did he die along the way stuck in the dead end of misery?
In what or whom to you have faith? Do you have any faith that seems "ultimate" to you -- leading to the meaning of life, or salvation, or eternal rest? Is it possible to have mixed an "ultimate" object of faith for a "transient" object of faith? For instance, have you substituted an approach to investing that seems to be working for faith that will last into eternity? Or, have you invested a faith in god for a sound approach to investing?
Thank about it. Leave a comment about it. Let us know. . .
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Looking Through A Glass Darkly
The reference is probably to the difficulty seeing clearly, with yourself or someone else. In context, it probably means we don’t really know what’s going on with someone claiming to have a spiritual gift like “tongues” and therefore — the MAIN THING is to behave with agape’.
Think of all the people you meet whose inner life, motives, hurts, broken relationships, satisfying relationships, pressures, illnesses, fear and hopes and stuckness you do not know. Talk about looking through a glass darkly (I Corinthians 13:12) The more excellent way, the harder, more rarified “way over a high mountain pass” is that of agape’.
For the person of faith, the way of agape’ combines well with the inevitable lack of clear vision we have.
Think of all the people you meet whose inner life, motives, hurts, broken relationships, satisfying relationships, pressures, illnesses, fear and hopes and stuckness you do not know. Talk about looking through a glass darkly (I Corinthians 13:12) The more excellent way, the harder, more rarified “way over a high mountain pass” is that of agape’.
For the person of faith, the way of agape’ combines well with the inevitable lack of clear vision we have.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Christianity, Church and Authenticity
I read of "Christians" who torch villages of Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus. I read of Christian leaders who connive, coerce, weasel and whore. I read of churches where preaching/teaching a party line is more important than exploring, searching, and becoming. And I wonder: what does it mean to be a Christian?
I do not think it means being born in a Christian village, Christian culture or Christian home. Tribalism is not a valid answer.
Here's what I think. In Romand 10:9 the apostle Paul wrote: "If you confess Jesus as Lord, and believe God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved." Paul goes on to explicate a bit, but the concept seems personal, individual, and it involves a couple of important things.
First, it involves confessing "Jesus is Lord". As Paul Brown once wrote, "If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not lord." A "lord" in the first century Roman culture, for which and in which Paul wrote, had the absolute power of life, death, obedience, punishment, etc. over those who owned him "lord". In an essentially verbal society, confessing "Jesus is Lord" made a contract with society and with Jesus that one's life was Jesus to command, lead, send, shape, or end.
Following that to a reasonable next step, then, a person is a Christ-follower if she/he lives in obedience to the teaching and command of Jesus. To the extent one does not, questions arise about whether one is a contract breaker (living in breach of contract) or a liar. This confession must be personal and authentic.
Then there is believing that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Wow! Paul puts his finger on the only real stumbling block. The virgin birth is not worth fighting about. Whether or not Jesus healed people, or turned water into wine is not worth arguing over. But if God really, actually, literally, raised Jesus from the dead then a persons who believe that have a different basis for living, dying, obeying, laughing, staying silent, speaking -- for everything, really. While one might still be afraid to die, at some level a person who believe God raises the dead can push through the fear and love his neighbor as himself, just as Jesus taught. He or she can accept people who seem to need rejecting. He or she can walk the extra mile when it hurts so much. He or she can say loudly and often, quietly and persuasively, "I will not help burn my neighbor, or my neighbors village, or steal my neighbor's possessions."
I live in a community that is quite churchy. The churches are churchy, whether right wing, middle or left wing. Liturgies are more important than people, and large is clearly better than small. Mostly peole are "raised" in church, but I am learning that while they might be Christians, they might not be either.
What do you think? Leave a comment, a thoughtful comment, and let us know.
I do not think it means being born in a Christian village, Christian culture or Christian home. Tribalism is not a valid answer.
Here's what I think. In Romand 10:9 the apostle Paul wrote: "If you confess Jesus as Lord, and believe God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved." Paul goes on to explicate a bit, but the concept seems personal, individual, and it involves a couple of important things.
First, it involves confessing "Jesus is Lord". As Paul Brown once wrote, "If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not lord." A "lord" in the first century Roman culture, for which and in which Paul wrote, had the absolute power of life, death, obedience, punishment, etc. over those who owned him "lord". In an essentially verbal society, confessing "Jesus is Lord" made a contract with society and with Jesus that one's life was Jesus to command, lead, send, shape, or end.
Following that to a reasonable next step, then, a person is a Christ-follower if she/he lives in obedience to the teaching and command of Jesus. To the extent one does not, questions arise about whether one is a contract breaker (living in breach of contract) or a liar. This confession must be personal and authentic.
Then there is believing that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Wow! Paul puts his finger on the only real stumbling block. The virgin birth is not worth fighting about. Whether or not Jesus healed people, or turned water into wine is not worth arguing over. But if God really, actually, literally, raised Jesus from the dead then a persons who believe that have a different basis for living, dying, obeying, laughing, staying silent, speaking -- for everything, really. While one might still be afraid to die, at some level a person who believe God raises the dead can push through the fear and love his neighbor as himself, just as Jesus taught. He or she can accept people who seem to need rejecting. He or she can walk the extra mile when it hurts so much. He or she can say loudly and often, quietly and persuasively, "I will not help burn my neighbor, or my neighbors village, or steal my neighbor's possessions."
I live in a community that is quite churchy. The churches are churchy, whether right wing, middle or left wing. Liturgies are more important than people, and large is clearly better than small. Mostly peole are "raised" in church, but I am learning that while they might be Christians, they might not be either.
What do you think? Leave a comment, a thoughtful comment, and let us know.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Knowing God. Really?
We Christians affirm “God is Personal” because God manifested and became incarnate in Jesus. So far so good.
However, God in Godness remains more mystery than knowable. We may “know” God in the sense that we know another person — partially, incompletely, tangentially. Most of us must admit that we don’t really know ourselves. Part of our not knowing comes from not remembering, part comes from the reality of “still becoming me” for each of us, part comes from living in denial (I could never be like that!) and so forth.
So, if you don’t really know yourself and I don’t really know myself, chances are good we don’t really KNOW another human being all that well. Even when we know that other person’s habitual responses, there is so much more to that person than predictable, habitual responses.
If we don't know ourselves very well, and we don't know another human person very well, we probably don't know God very well, either. Personal? Most of us haven't even gotten to kindergarten level with regard to "knowing personally".
God in God’s Godness — who can know God?
However, God in Godness remains more mystery than knowable. We may “know” God in the sense that we know another person — partially, incompletely, tangentially. Most of us must admit that we don’t really know ourselves. Part of our not knowing comes from not remembering, part comes from the reality of “still becoming me” for each of us, part comes from living in denial (I could never be like that!) and so forth.
So, if you don’t really know yourself and I don’t really know myself, chances are good we don’t really KNOW another human being all that well. Even when we know that other person’s habitual responses, there is so much more to that person than predictable, habitual responses.
If we don't know ourselves very well, and we don't know another human person very well, we probably don't know God very well, either. Personal? Most of us haven't even gotten to kindergarten level with regard to "knowing personally".
God in God’s Godness — who can know God?
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Writing and Faith
I wrote this for our church's Lenten Devotional:
| Stretching |
You stand very still, the knife just breaking the skin of your throat. “You heard the question. Answer me. Who do  you say that Jesus is? Your life depends on what answer you give."I was 14 years old, standing at a bus stop in Tacoma when a wild man (no knife!) backed me up against a brick wall and ranted that question at me. Scary. My bus came, and I got away from him. I don’t think Jesus asks this question with a knife to your throat, or your back against a brick wall. Maybe with the threat gone I (or you) can find an honest answer. Today or tomorrow, it may be your time to answer the question again. Don’t worry if the answer is different from the time before. We must grow, and grow, and grow and each new answer expresses our growth. I didn't do the art -- someone added that. It is an OK piece, but not perfect. Grabbing the audience I used the "Knife" bit, and the guy who accosted me when I was 14 years old could have had a knife -- he was that scary -- but he did not. That added confusion. The intensity, however, might come through. This is a question most Christians don't ponder deeply. They are content with whatever their traditional answer has been and . . . well, that's all. I suspect that is true for the questions each person's faith asks them. Even radical Muslims who are bombing innocent civilians don't ponder their faith questions -- they merely act out their insecurity and angst without adequate thought. Hindu fundamentalists who form mobs to burn worship centers of people with whom the disagree are mostly as inattentive to the questions Hinduism asks as anyone else in their faith. It's all tradition, habit, comfort, taking the faith journey for granted. And taking faith for granted ultimately fails us, in my opinion. What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know. |
Thursday, March 13, 2014
"Lord, Use My Lips . . . "
The title phrase is usually prayed to ask, “. . . use my lips to speak for you.”
I heard it Sunday at the end of worship, and got to wondering: what if one prayed, “Lord, use my lips to say nothing rather than provoke or hurt others.” Sometimes silence is better that what I speak.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
I heard it Sunday at the end of worship, and got to wondering: what if one prayed, “Lord, use my lips to say nothing rather than provoke or hurt others.” Sometimes silence is better that what I speak.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
"Lord, use my lips. . ."
The title phrase is usually prayed to ask, “. . . use my lips to speak for you.” I heard it today at the end of worship, and got to wondering: what if one prayed, “Lord, use my lips to say nothing rather than provoke or hurt others.”
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Extremism In Defense Of. . .
Barry Goldwater once said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
Certain kinds of religious folks have modified his words to say, or imply:
"Extremism in defense of the way I believe is no vice."
Mostly, these folks don't agree with each other about what to believe. Many brands and stripes of Christians assert their form of this (whether liberal or conservative, liturgical or free-form, "spirit-led" or "traditional" does not seem to matter. They reserve the right to be extremists.
Then we have contemporary Muslim fundamentalists who, in may ways, cannot agree on what the fundamentals of Islam really are except that they probably require them to kill people who disagree wit them. For some, they are required to kill people who agree with them in order to "make a point". The people who die agreeing with them, will, of course, enter Paradise (so killing them is really good for them).
Fundamentalist Hindus have been attacking Christian churches in India even though Hindu beliefs are more inclusive than exclusive. They seem to be thinking, "Extremism in defense of the way I believe is no vice."
Of course, we have the same thing in political religious beliefs. Whether conservative or liberal, democratic or republican, monarchical or communal, people assert by faith that their way is the right way and the only right way.
Pretty much everyone can quote some authority (Bible, Koran, tradition, Federalist papers, etc.) for their extreme assertion. Doing so is so much easier than thinking.
Questions to ask the statement of Goldwater include:
"Whose liberty?" (ours or theirs, mine or yours, blacks or whites, etc.?)
"What liberty?" (liberty to try, liberty to defraud, liberty to murder, liberty to discriminate against people that scare me?)
"Liberty here or there?" (liberty in the United States, but not in Nigeria where we need people to get our oil on the cheap, liberty on my side of town but not on yours, liberty in my wealthy neighborhood but not in your middle class neighborhood?)
How, you ask, are these "faith reflections"?
They are faith reflections because Goldwater was making a statement of faith, one that has religious overtones even today. Neither the study of the science of biology nor the study of the science of astronomy produces his assertion. He makes a faith statement, and people for whom faith is important must think clearly about this.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Certain kinds of religious folks have modified his words to say, or imply:
"Extremism in defense of the way I believe is no vice."
Mostly, these folks don't agree with each other about what to believe. Many brands and stripes of Christians assert their form of this (whether liberal or conservative, liturgical or free-form, "spirit-led" or "traditional" does not seem to matter. They reserve the right to be extremists.
Then we have contemporary Muslim fundamentalists who, in may ways, cannot agree on what the fundamentals of Islam really are except that they probably require them to kill people who disagree wit them. For some, they are required to kill people who agree with them in order to "make a point". The people who die agreeing with them, will, of course, enter Paradise (so killing them is really good for them).
Fundamentalist Hindus have been attacking Christian churches in India even though Hindu beliefs are more inclusive than exclusive. They seem to be thinking, "Extremism in defense of the way I believe is no vice."
Of course, we have the same thing in political religious beliefs. Whether conservative or liberal, democratic or republican, monarchical or communal, people assert by faith that their way is the right way and the only right way.
Pretty much everyone can quote some authority (Bible, Koran, tradition, Federalist papers, etc.) for their extreme assertion. Doing so is so much easier than thinking.
Questions to ask the statement of Goldwater include:
"Whose liberty?" (ours or theirs, mine or yours, blacks or whites, etc.?)
"What liberty?" (liberty to try, liberty to defraud, liberty to murder, liberty to discriminate against people that scare me?)
"Liberty here or there?" (liberty in the United States, but not in Nigeria where we need people to get our oil on the cheap, liberty on my side of town but not on yours, liberty in my wealthy neighborhood but not in your middle class neighborhood?)
How, you ask, are these "faith reflections"?
They are faith reflections because Goldwater was making a statement of faith, one that has religious overtones even today. Neither the study of the science of biology nor the study of the science of astronomy produces his assertion. He makes a faith statement, and people for whom faith is important must think clearly about this.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Critical Thinking and Faith
As we walked I thought about quantum physics and the old saying, "You can't be two places at once." Well, according to quantum physics certain particles can be two places at once, and are. That' doesn't invalidate the "old math" or "old physics" -- it simply adds to it. A person simply has to define which framework of thought she/he is working in.
I believe that to be true with the supposed conflict between "creationism" and "science". Scientists have carefully observed the age of the earth's crust, carbon dating, species evolution. They are now able to discern Neanderthal DNA within some human DNA today. Within the framework of science, some form(s) of evolution are obviously true.
Within the framework of faith (no observable proofs or evidence) believers assert that God created the world, or the universe, or more. It's a different framework. It should never be taught as science. This assertion is not within the framework of science but that of faith.
So, in a faith based setting, it seems appropriate to teach that God created everything. In a secular school system, however, it should only be offered as one of many beliefs, and never as science.
What do you think? Which framework are you living in when you think these thoughts? Share with us by leaving a comment.
I believe that to be true with the supposed conflict between "creationism" and "science". Scientists have carefully observed the age of the earth's crust, carbon dating, species evolution. They are now able to discern Neanderthal DNA within some human DNA today. Within the framework of science, some form(s) of evolution are obviously true.
Within the framework of faith (no observable proofs or evidence) believers assert that God created the world, or the universe, or more. It's a different framework. It should never be taught as science. This assertion is not within the framework of science but that of faith.
So, in a faith based setting, it seems appropriate to teach that God created everything. In a secular school system, however, it should only be offered as one of many beliefs, and never as science.
What do you think? Which framework are you living in when you think these thoughts? Share with us by leaving a comment.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Criticizing God -- or Not
Odd Thomas, a character invented by Dean Koontz, gets me thinking. He is ruminating, and wonders:
"I’m not criticizing God, if that’s what you think, because nobody knows why God does things or how He thinks, and He’s humongously smarter than any of us, even smarter than [massive super computer artificial intelligence - Ed]. They say he works in mysterious ways, which is for sure true. What I’m saying is, maybe the whole praying business is a human idea, maybe God never asked us to do it. Yeah, all right, He wants us to like Him, and He wants us to respect Him, so we’ll live right, and do good. But God is good—right?—and to be really good you’ve got to have humility, we all know that, so then if God is the best of the best, then He’s also the humblest of the humble. Right? So maybe it embarrasses Him to be praised like around the clock, to be called great and mighty all the time. And maybe it makes Him a little bit nuts the way we’re always asking Him to solve our problems instead of even trying to solve them ourselves, which He made us so we could do.”
“Odd Interlude”, by Dean Koontz, p. 225 (paper)
What kinds of wondering about God goes on in your mind? Do you ever think, really think, about God as person?
I recall as a young man being impressed, or depressed, by the number of church people I knew who never thought about God. They thought about rules, about salvation, about heaven, about hell, about right, about wrong, about theological formulae -- but they never thought about God.
Then ten or more years later I was impressed, or depressed, by the number to church leaders (mostly televangelists) who knew exactly what God wants, who described in great detail how we could impress God. After a bit of their blather I began realizing they still weren't thinking about God as person. They were thinking about self as impressing the great favor-dispenser in the sky.
Odd Thomas raises some interesting musing in my mind. What if God really is humble, for instance?
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
"I’m not criticizing God, if that’s what you think, because nobody knows why God does things or how He thinks, and He’s humongously smarter than any of us, even smarter than [massive super computer artificial intelligence - Ed]. They say he works in mysterious ways, which is for sure true. What I’m saying is, maybe the whole praying business is a human idea, maybe God never asked us to do it. Yeah, all right, He wants us to like Him, and He wants us to respect Him, so we’ll live right, and do good. But God is good—right?—and to be really good you’ve got to have humility, we all know that, so then if God is the best of the best, then He’s also the humblest of the humble. Right? So maybe it embarrasses Him to be praised like around the clock, to be called great and mighty all the time. And maybe it makes Him a little bit nuts the way we’re always asking Him to solve our problems instead of even trying to solve them ourselves, which He made us so we could do.”
“Odd Interlude”, by Dean Koontz, p. 225 (paper)
What kinds of wondering about God goes on in your mind? Do you ever think, really think, about God as person?
I recall as a young man being impressed, or depressed, by the number of church people I knew who never thought about God. They thought about rules, about salvation, about heaven, about hell, about right, about wrong, about theological formulae -- but they never thought about God.
Then ten or more years later I was impressed, or depressed, by the number to church leaders (mostly televangelists) who knew exactly what God wants, who described in great detail how we could impress God. After a bit of their blather I began realizing they still weren't thinking about God as person. They were thinking about self as impressing the great favor-dispenser in the sky.
Odd Thomas raises some interesting musing in my mind. What if God really is humble, for instance?
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Aging, Faith and Questions
As I left he said, ". . . before the end." Meaning, the end of his life on this planet. We talked a bit about what eternal life might look like, and he was animated, excited, hopeful. "Maybe the Lord will say, 'We've got a problem on a planet over there. Take a look at it and see if you can handle it for me." The idea of having something useful to do while living in eternity was exciting to my friend.
On the other hand, Abraham Lincoln was sure there was nothing past this life. He believed in God, Providence, the purpose of God in creating the American experiment and he even worshiped with his wife from time to time in church. While she held out hope for seeing her beloved boys who preceded her in death, he did not.
In many cases older people see to have stronger beliefs, and become more regular in public worship attendance. In other cases older people seem content to do other things with their lives than attend church. Do they have stronger beliefs? Or, do they have stronger doubts? Or, are they content with 'however it turns out' and content with their lives, overall?
There does not seem to be any single thread that informs aging with regard to faith.
I know that we are not as enthused to attend worship as we once were. Although we are experiencing a great deal of pain, sitting in a pew with people we know and like and listening to yet again another sermon does not entice us. We go, some, but we are not devastated when we don't.
Yeah, we are aging. We we have pretty strong beliefs that don't seem to need "church" to remain strong.
What about you? What is your experience of faith as you age? Leave a comment and let us know.
On the other hand, Abraham Lincoln was sure there was nothing past this life. He believed in God, Providence, the purpose of God in creating the American experiment and he even worshiped with his wife from time to time in church. While she held out hope for seeing her beloved boys who preceded her in death, he did not.
In many cases older people see to have stronger beliefs, and become more regular in public worship attendance. In other cases older people seem content to do other things with their lives than attend church. Do they have stronger beliefs? Or, do they have stronger doubts? Or, are they content with 'however it turns out' and content with their lives, overall?
There does not seem to be any single thread that informs aging with regard to faith.
I know that we are not as enthused to attend worship as we once were. Although we are experiencing a great deal of pain, sitting in a pew with people we know and like and listening to yet again another sermon does not entice us. We go, some, but we are not devastated when we don't.
Yeah, we are aging. We we have pretty strong beliefs that don't seem to need "church" to remain strong.
What about you? What is your experience of faith as you age? Leave a comment and let us know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)