“Attentiveness to peculiar narrative identity seems to me an urgent practical enterprise for a religious community that is often so bland that it loses its raison d’etre. The issue is to practice a peculiar identity that is not craven in the face of the moralisms of the right or the left.”
– Walter Brueggemann, quoted in “Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church”; by Kenda Creasy Dean; p. 61.
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
“Because in fact, we are slipping back fast into something like the ancient world. We are slipping back towards a world of narrow tunnel vision of religions and superstitious practice, a world where lots and lots of people have their lords and god, their practices and their mysticisms, that do not really relate to each other. We are slipping away from the idea that there might be a faith that would bring all human beings together. We are slipping back socially and internationally into the assumption that there really are such differences in human beings that we can forget about God’s universal righteousness.”
Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, during Bible studies delivered at the 13th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, Nottingham 2005
Kenda Creasy Dean in her new-ish book, Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church, describes the primary “faith” of American teenagers as “Therapeutic, Moralistic, Deism” rather than a form of the enduring Christian Faith. This description of the faith-system (as much as it can be a formal “system” at this point) comes out of the results and analysis of the National Study of Youth and Religion project.
Both with Rowan and Kenda, these are pictures of where we are culturally, particularly among the emerging generations, and what is to come within the culture and within our individual lives as believers or not. How are we ready?
For Christianity to offer a true alternative in society, it does NOT mean that we mimic back to the culture itself, though dressed up in churchy garb or verbiage, in order to try to make people feel good about themselves or out of the Church’s collective insecurity regarding the culture.
Th
Image via Wikipedia
ere is an interesting review of Henry Kissinger’s new book, On China, in this past week’s edition of Newsweek, entitled, “Dr. K’s RX for China.” (Accessed 5/31/2011) (NYT’s Book Review)
So much effort by the Religious Right has gone to trying to prove that this country of ours is God’s divine creation and holds a special place in His heart and in His plans – akin to the way the Hebrew Nation was/is considered within the spectrum of the Hebrew Scriptures. This causes so much twisting of history and the writings of our Founders. This also fuels the demand that the geo-political and sociopolitical world of Neo-Conservative is actually what Christianity is all about. As I have often said, this harms the cause of Christ in the United States.
Here is a book that may well bring perspective to such claims by the Religious Right. Christianity Today has a review of “Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction” by John Fea (Westminster John Knox Press, 2011)
Fea also sketches a helpful history of the Christian
nation narrative, showing how feuding factions–northern abolitionists
and southern slaveholders, fundamentalists and Social Gospellers,
contemporary conservatives and progressives–have defined and
appropriated America’s contested religious heritage.In presenting the past disinterestedly, Fea rebukes the
habit of “cherry-picking from the past as a means of promoting a
political or cultural agenda in the present.” Washington’s Farewell
Address doesn’t validate the Religious Right’s blueprint for society,
any more than Jefferson’s bowdlerized Bible validates the Left’s
alternative.
Read the entire article, here.
Very good opinion piece by David Brooks in the New York Times. He uses the new musical, “The Book of Mormon,” as his backdrop. This notion of speeding away from anything that distinguishes us or makes us peculiar or diminishes the rigors of the Faith will in the end result in nothing but decline and a faith that has little real impact on the world, particularly for the cause of Christ.
A couple paragraphs:
The only problem with “The Book of Mormon” (you realize when thinking
about it later) is that its theme is not quite true. Vague, uplifting,
nondoctrinal religiosity doesn’t actually last. The religions that grow,
succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are
usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in
their convictions about what is True and False.That’s because people are not gods. No matter how special some
individuals may think they are, they don’t have the ability to
understand the world on their own, establish rules of good conduct on
their own, impose the highest standards of conduct on their own, or
avoid the temptations of laziness on their own.The religions that thrive have exactly what “The Book of Mormon”
ridicules: communal theologies, doctrines and codes of conduct rooted in
claims of absolute truth.Rigorous theology provides believers with a map of reality. These maps
may seem dry and schematic — most maps do compared with reality — but
they contain the accumulated wisdom of thousands of co-believers who
through the centuries have faced similar journeys and trials.Rigorous theology allows believers to examine the world intellectually
as well as emotionally. Many people want to understand the eternal logic
of the universe, using reason and logic to wrestle with concrete
assertions and teachings.
I’m starting to make a distinction between the “Christian Faith” and the “Christian Religion.”
The “Religion” deals more with cultic practices and asking what I must know about stuff. The “Faith” deals with being – who must I be & how must I be with God, with one another, and with myself.
Perhaps, too, this deals with a too intense focus on “revelation” in our understanding of God’s dealing with humanity (or even if there is anything to such statements). Too much of a focus on revelation can too easily lead us to simply asking the question of what we must know in order to be right with God, rather than how we must be or what we must do to be right with God. I think the focus on being is much more in line with the great commands of Jesus – and even the Law.
“I am a practitioner of the Christian Faith,” which in my mind places the emphasis on being and relationship. I don’t think it is the same as saying, “I am a practitioner of the Christian Religion,” with all is rituals, dogmas, etc. (Believe me, this is not an attempt to downplay the importance of such things as ritual or doctrine, etc., in human life or in the practice of the Faith.)
This may touch on the divide between being “spiritual” vs. being “religious.”
This from Fr. Tobias Haller:
No New Revelation
When addressing controverted subjects, we are called to look back on the Scriptural text for guidance in dealing with things about which those texts are themselves silent. The issue is not, “What would they have said?” on a topic about which they did not speak; but rather, “What do we say based on what those texts say about other things, using natural reason and knowledge gained since their writing to interpret old texts for new principles.”
This is not about any new revelation. As one important story from rabbinic history shows: Revelation is now closed, but interpretation is open — even a voice from heaven, even from God, cannot contravene the findings of the living interpretative community because, “It [i.e., the Law] is not in heaven” — that is, God has given the Scripture to the people of God and it is up to us to wrestle with it.
People may well disagree about the outcomes of the wrestling match. And the question, “What Would Jesus Do?” is not entirely out of place, but has to be asked by positing Jesus not of his time, but as he is with us in our time — as I believe he is, in his church, through his Spirit, which is now engaged in addressing challenges he did not address in those earlier days. There is no new revelation, but there is always new understanding.
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
I truly like the way he put this.
Sometimes, groups within the Church (whether the larger Church universal or this Church, as in the Episcopal/Anglican Church), come to feel as if they are sitting by themselves in the midst of a wilderness. Sometimes, the reasons for such feelings (or realities) are do to geography and location, sometimes are because of sociopolitical or theological issues of disagreement, sometimes they are because the greater organization just doesn’t get what the groups are doing and to one degree or another ostracizes the various groups.
What can be done? There are a lot of things that can be done, but one of the “solutions” that is almost always and only destructive is separation. When a Church or parish or family or even friends separate, failure has already occurred. We can attempt to clean up the mess by giving all kinds of justifications for why the separation, the split, is good or profitable or better than the alternative. Well, we can try to spin the separation all we want, but we have already failed.
Within this new kind of ministry, the Imago Dei Initiative, outside the walls of current experiences of “church,” it is too easy for people to attempt to force us into already established modes of operation and definition that are no longer working very well. These modes of operation and definition are tending to fail in these days because the center of gravity – the very purpose for the existence of Church – has been overwhelmed if not usurped by the prevailing culture. As the whelming continues and as we continue to lose members and lose the interest of growing percentages of the population as a result, we like to lob bombs of accusation against those “godless liberals” or those “fundamentalist conservatives” and spin, spin, spin how it is all those other peoples’ fault. But, the very act of conceiving of and wanting to throw bombs is, again, already a sign of failure.
Is it true – I mean truly true – that new wine cannot be poured into old wine skins? I want to think (believe) that there is a way, with God’s help. I wonder – more than wonder at this point and suspect not. Not much of what I witness and experience leads me to believe that it is possible. Where, then, does that leave “new wine” kind of Christian communities and ministries within the greater structures of the Church (and I’m specifically thinking about Episcopal/Anglican Churches)?
All I can say at this point is that we are called to be faithful. I content that that to which we are to be faithful firstly is God and the restorative, reconciling relationship made possible again through Jesus the Christ. We are able to do this by the enabling of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. I find it quite true that we can take confidence in the “enduring Christian Tradition,” and for us that enduring Tradition is in the Anglican form.
I say “enduring” because it helps us jump out of the never-ending, swirling, swirling eddy of chaos that we find ourselves as we continually lob bombs and accusations about theology and politics and piety and all the rest. That which is “enduring” is not bound by ideas that call themselves conservative or liberal. It is apolitical, or should be. For me, and for what I envision for the Imago Dei Initiative, “enduring” is that which has survived through 2,000 years of persecution, trial and tribulation, through countless cultures and languages. That which has survived and continues to thrive is “enduring Christianity.”
Our call to ourselves and to others is to begin to experience anew the Tradition – those aspects of the Faith that have gravity and traction in the tactile world which help people to experience their Christian faith as consequential. We call people with intention and persistence to give themselves to the practice of the enduring Christian Spiritual Disciplines. These habits are simple and straightforward – the study of Scripture, the practice of prayer, the fellowship of believers, the worship of Almighty God transcendent and eminent, and the giving of ourselves for good works.
A problem we often run into is that we take up perhaps one or two of these and end up – even with only two – practicing them halfheartedly. Our busy world works against such discipline. When we do this, we end up experiencing a profoundly diminished form of the Christian faith. This is where much of American Christianity finds itself. All aspects of the Disciplines are important equally and need to be held in right balance, which means that as Christians our lives will by necessity look quite different from most other peoples’ lives.
How do we avoid throwing bombs, becoming disillusioned, ending up angry, being ostracized? How do we avoid separation and splitting up? Commit to the development of the Disciplines. Love God with our entire being. Love our neighbors as ourselves. Profoundly difficult stuff to do, but with God’s help we are able. Find like-mined people for support, encouragement, and accountability.
We want to find and bring together these kinds of people – these like-minded people who desire to be the imago Dei, the imago of God, where we work, play, study, help others, and have fun. The fields are ripe for harvest. People everywhere are seeking God and the significance found in a restorative relationship with God. In the emerging culture, it will be this kind of witness by consequential Christians that will make a difference.
This is how and what we want to be. God help us.
(Photo: The Coptic Christian chapel at Bethany-beyond-the-Jordan. @Copyrite 2011 by Bob Griffith, all rights reserved)
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
The Christian Science Monitor published an opinion piece online March 24th, 2011. The piece is by Jonathan Merritt and entitled,”Evangelical shift on gays: Why ‘clobber scriptures’ are losing ground.”
I’ve been watching this shift over the last 20 odd years. I’m still amazed at the length certain anti-homosexual groups go to attempt to reinforce their positions, even while the arguments they use are constantly changing over time because their arguments of justification loose their persuasive force as the blanket exaggerations or misinformation of gay people become all too clear. It does them no good nor their argument when what they say no longer seems to line up with what more and more people are experiencing in their day-to-day lives.
They’ve lost the emerging generations, already. In Barna Group‘s research project that resulted in the book “unChristian,” one of their primary findings suggests that emerging young people find Christianity in the U.S. to be profoundly anti-homosexual, and it doesn’t jib well with their own beliefs or experiences.
(Now, I will say that much depends on how one defines “homosexual” or how one believes homosexuals think or act in the aggregate. The primarily Religious Right anti-homosexual groups try to persuade people that most all homosexuals are sex-crazed alcoholics who will just as soon molest your young son as have a coke at the corner dinner. Spreading this kind of misinformation is simply baring false-witness against a whole class of people, whether one believes those people need saving, healing, or death or not. As a Christian, I will say that much of what is presented as normative in the urban gay subculture by certain gay interests – hedonism – isn’t the kind of life that is conducive to our own personal best interests. But, the gay people involved in living their lives in such a way are no different than what I witnessed in my 20-years working in higher education with students who happen to be in the straight Greek system – unabashed hedonists.)
Back to the issue at hand and speaking of “clobber passages”… I’ve particularly noticed how Bible publishers have been dealing with the issue. As might be known, the term “homosexual” never appeared in an English Bible until the mid-to-late 1950’s – that’s approximate 450 years without such a term in English Bibles. Over the years, as their arguments against all forms of homosexual relationships continue to gain less traction, the anti-homosexual groups attempt to reinforce their position by becoming even more specific and detailed in their demand of and translation of Scripture to attempt to bolster their failing arguments.
For example, the length that the English Standard Bible goes to attempt to make specifically clear that the obscure Greek words found in I Corinthians 6:9 are absolutely about homosexuals, but not just homosexuals, but about men, and not just men, but in the footnote pertaining the to two Greek words, men who are the passive AND the active partners AND both giving consent. The ESV translates the Greek words, “nor men who practice homosexuality,” with the footnote clarifying the mean with, “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.”
The King James version translates the words this way, “…nor effeminate, or abusers of themselves with mankind.” The New International Version translates the words this way, “…nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.” The New American Standard Version translates the words this way, “…nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,” with the footnote specifying, “I.e., effeminate by perversion.” (How is one “effeminate by perversion?”)The New Revised Standard Version translates the words this way, “males prostitutes, sodomites…”
The truth is, whether it supports a socio-political position or agenda or not (conservative or liberal), we simply do not know what Paul meant. Yet, in order to tow the anti-homosexual line, Bible publishers cave into the demand by anti-gay Religious Right organizations to take a anti-gay stand in the translation of these words. (I Tim. 1:10, is another example) I’ve witnessed big campaigns that demand the Bible publishers publish the translation even more specific, as we witness in the EVS.
After all, we have to make the Bible absolutely specific in order to keep ignorant people from being deceived by Satan (through the liberal Bible “scholars”) trying to make homosexuality not a sin, make in normal and celebrated in the public mind, when we know that the end of this will be death and the end of Western Civilization by the punishing judgement of God. Right? You see why the anti-gay zealots have to exert a great deal of pressure on the Bible publishers to be absolutely specific that God condemns in no uncertain terms everything homosexual, whether we know the Greek words used by Paul actually mean “homosexuals” or not.
The problem, as the opinion piece details, these kinds of arguments are no longer persuading the emerging generations. It isn’t that the fags are winning in the deceiving of young, impressionable minds (although there is some truth in the assertion that the pro-gay message has more traction than the anti-gay message), but that the justifications and “proofs” for the anti-gay arguments are being shown to be fallacious.
I want to be clear, as a Christian and as a priest in this Church, our role and goal is not simply to affirm different groups of people, including homosexual people. Our goal is always and for everyone – everyone – the cause of Christ for salvation, reconciliation, and restoration calling us into such a life that we become free of so much within our world that binds us, deadens us, enslaves us, deceives us, and causes our lives to be separated from God and estranged form one another. This means that I call homosexual people as another other people into the reconciling relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This will transform us and cause us to be different – not tied up in knots by giving ourselves to the hedonistic culture. This does not mean, however, that homosexuals stop being homosexual. Gay or straight, we are called to be with God according to God’s ways and not simply according to the dictates of the prevailing culture or our own proclivities.
The anti-gay Religious Right will not win in their quest and crusade, because their positions cannot be sustained according to the truth that we know. Yet, they will become even more demanding and stringent as they lose influence, as their arguments fail. Unless, of course, as we are witnessing, people change their positions. This has already happened for the majority of younger people.
