"But I don't believe what they believe..." redux

A little over a year ago I posted a piece about the theology of one of the local megachurches - Eternal Punishment and the Local Megachurch in which I questioned whether the member of that church really believe that their "unsaved" neighbors are all going to suffer eternal punishment in hell.

I had a vacation week this week and we were in town on Sunday and attended that church.  The church scene in greater Santa Barbara is dominated by a couple of megachurches and it seems that the individual congregations go in and out of style.  When I speak to the families whose children attend our nursery school and ask whether they're a part of a local religious community, about 1/2 say they attend whatever megachurch is in style at that time.  The church we attended this morning is the in style church now and it showed.  There was a line of cars waiting to get into the parking lot.  The average age was significantly younger than Cambridge Drive and there were scores of pregnant women, toddlers, and kids. The sanctuary was very full.

This morning's experience felt authentic.  I felt the genuineness of the worship leaders and deeply appreciated that.  Signage was poor.  A first time visitor could easily get lost in the shuffle but that is part and parcel of a megachurch.   There were bits of the service that literally made no sense (communion was just weird), but the biggest problem for me was the sermon.  The preacher spoke on John 12:27-33 and said the passage addressed two questions: why did the cross have to happen and what did the cross accomplish.  The sermon was consistent with the statement of faith I read a bit over a year ago.  The woman who spoke (yes, a woman) talked about the purity and justice of God requiring the death penalty and that Jesus "had to suffer for a day so we would not have to suffer for eternity."  I'll let the logic behind some of the arguments go but the theological underpinnings I find really problematic.

The preacher presented the defining characteristic of God as being purity... and the purity is so pure that it is literally immiscible with the sinful nature of humanity.  Why is the cross necessary according to the sermon?  Because God's purity requires wrath and justice, which in the case of human sinfulness equals death and eternal punishment.

I found myself wondering how many of those young mothers would pour out wrath on their children regardless of what they had done.  Earlier in the service, members were asked to share scripture passages that gave them comfort during difficult times and one quoted Matthew 7:9-11

⁹ Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? ¹⁰ Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? ¹¹ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

You can see the inconsistency here... especially since these words were spoken by Jesus long before the cross.

Again, I found myself wondering how many of those in the congregation actually believe in a God whose wrath is so all consuming that the only answer is the death penalty or eternal agony... and if that penalty is meted out on one who is innocent, then all the better.

Sorry... that i not the God I believe in.

I would argue that the defining characteristic of God is love and that by its very nature love is never immiscible.  Indeed, that is the very message of the incarnation.  In my theology, God's love requires forgiveness and reconciliation not punishment.  The cross is not punishment for human sin but the example of human sin and the example of love that goes so far as even to suffer.  It is God reaching out to us no matter the cost.

Just like the other local megachurch we attended a few years ago, I found myself wondering why the folk are there.  This one did feel authentic... at least it has that going for it and it is possible that much of the congregation actually agree with the theology that came from the pulpit this morning.  On the other hand, if they do not believe that message... you can draw your own conclusions.

Eternal Punishment and the local Megachurch

Two pieces came together for me this week that led to this post.  I'm working on a new website for our church, Cambridge Drive Community Church, and a female friend of mine informed me that she and her husband are now attending one of the nearby megachurches with a typical evangelical theology.

I went to that megachurch's website to check it out and found the ubiquitous "We Believe" page.  Included on that page was a statement that all non-believers are going to eternal punishment in hell.  I have to say that multiple times someone has said to me about that church, "I go there... but I don't believe what they believe."  I'm pretty sure that virtually nobody who attends there really believes what the statement of faith says they believe from the pastors and elders down to the newest members.   I know that is true of my friend and her husband.  Let me explain.

If one truly believes that all of their unsaved neighbors, friends, and family members are going to suffer eternal punishment, then their behavior better change.  They literally better be out there doing everything they can possibly be doing, 24 hours a day, to get those folk saved.  There is simply no activity more important than that.  The church ought to have no activities that are not aimed either at direct evangelism or at training their members to evangelize.  Anything else is a betrayal of the billions of people who are not saved.  Telling your members how to have a better marriage is a waste of time when other folk (or some of them) are facing eternal punishment.  Worrying about responsible financial stewardship is irresponsible when something so big is at stake.  If they really believe what they say they believe, then that would define their sole agenda in ministry and in the life of their members.  When your neighbor's house is burning down, you don't teach a lesson about how to have a better sex life, you dial 911.  When your neighbor is facing eternal punishment... you get it.

Or of course, they could actually believe that and not care... but that is not my experience of the folk who attend that church who I have met.  They are good people with compassion and commitment.  They care about the people in their lives and they care about their community.  They think they're supposed to believe their neighbors are going to hell so they pay lip service, but they really don't believe it or they would do something about it.

I guess there is a third possibility... they believe some people have done things that are so terrible that they deserve eternal punishment and they're willing to allow for some collateral damage.  Some relatively good folk will end up burning forever so the really bad ones get their just deserts.  This time they may say that is the case, but again, I don't really believe it.  To make John Doe burn in hell forever just so Hitler can be punished too seems a bit extreme and again, out of character for the folk I know.

Now there is an alternative.  I am a universalist.  Simply put, I believe everyone gets saved.  That is another discussion and it obviously raises some serious questions, but I will point to a short piece quoted from William Barclay's autobiography where he gives his reasons for being a "convinced universalist."   Likewise, I hold those views based on both theology and scripture and believe they are the proper understanding of salvation. 

We won't have a "We believe" page on our website, but if we did, it would say that we believe that God's love and grace ultimately overcome all and all people are welcomed into God's arms.  They'd never say so, but I think that is what the folk at my local megachurch think too.

Mutiny! Why We Love Pirates and How They Can Save Us

first two disclaimers and an apology...

I received this book for free in return for writing this review.  Second, I have met the author.  A few years ago we met at an event called Soliton and had a few beers together.  I found Kester to be delightful and very bright.  Neither issue will impact any opinions I have regarding the book.   And the apology, I promised to write this review by September 30.  I didn't.  I'm sorry.  Here it is.

The other day I was sitting in front of the television watching a rented movie.  Before the film began there was the typical announcement that "piracy is not a victimless crime."  Of course it is not... we've all imagined the violence of Somali pirates taking hostages of the coast of Africa, families terrified, life disrupted, and on rare occasions, people dying.   But how is that the same as copying a DVD or CD?  And is the situation in Somalia really what we've imagined?

I knew next to nothing about pirates before reading Mutiny.  I do have a friend who is doing her doctoral dissertation on pirates so I've heard a little bit about the way that they were used by the powers that were in the political machinations of the 1600's.  Still, I knew very little more than the cartoonish pictures so prevalent in pop culture.

Brewin has two themes that are central to his argument, the benefits of the commons are being confiscated by those with power and resources, leaving the common people without, and whenever the commons are blocked, pirates emerge to unblock things.  Indeed, his definition of pirate is "one who emerges to defend the commons wherever homes, cultures or economies become ‘blocked’ by the rich." (Kindle Locations 783-784).   He does push the argument a bit further into metaphor as well and talks about the unblocking of the self as a psychological act of piracy necessary for maturation.

The short review of the book is that I loved it.  Go buy it.  The longer review is a little more nuanced.  Brewin clearly says again and again that the pirates are not out to change the game, they have just refused to play.  At the same time, there is more than a bit of romaticization of the pirates, turning them into counter-culture heroes and heroines.  I asked my dissertation friend about Brewin's picture of freedom and equality loving pirates and she reminded me not to forget that they killed people... lots of people.  Evidently piracy was not a victimless crime... but neither were the situations that led to piracy victimless.  That is the message of the book.

In a world where labor and its rewards are more and more separate, where the commons of creative thought and traditions of music and writing, where the power of religion is used to bind people rather than free them, piracy becomes a naturally occurring response.  The questions are many and the answers not simple, but Brewin argues the spirit of the pirate is needed to fix the problems of the world.  What do I say to that?  Argh!

St Francis of Assisi Day

St. Francis preaching to the birds

In the Roman Catholic Church, each saint has a day assigned to honor them.  Today is St. Francis of Assisi Day.  I thought of him this morning as I fed my cats, as we drove to work and saw three deer feeding beside the road, watched a herd of cattle and then of llamas in the fields along the highway, passed a murder of crows dropping walnuts to the road to break them open, saw a pair of mockingbirds trying to run another crow off that had gotten too close to their nest, listen to the insects and birds sing outside my open office door, listened to the squeals and laughter as children arrived for nursery school...  Francis saw the presence of God in the faces of all of his little brothers and sisters, heard the voice of God in their songs, and preached back to them the good news of God's love.  He calls us to find the very presence of God in the wonders of creation surrounding us.

In yesterday's daily e-mail meditation, Richard Rohr had this to say about Francis

In most paintings of people waiting for the Holy Spirit they are looking upward, with their hands outstretched or raised up, the assumption being that the Holy Spirit will descend from “up” above. In the Great Basilica in Assisi where St. Francis is buried, there’s a bronze statue of him honoring the Holy Spirit. His posture and perspective are completely different from what we have come to expect. He’s looking down into the earth with expectation and desire! This is the change of perspective that became our alternative orthodoxy—although it should have been mainline orthodoxy! He was merely following the movement of the Incarnation, since Christians believe that the Eternal Word became “flesh” (John 1:14), and it is in the material world that God and the holy are to be found.

 Today, I will honor Francis by looking down to find the presence of God.

Healthy Systems and the Downfall of the Church

This morning I was reading a commentary by William Willemon on the recent United Methodist Convention.  There was one concept that really caught my imagination...

My organizational guru Ron Heifetz speaks of the “myth of the broken system.”  Heifetz argues that all systems are “healthy” in that systems produce what those who profit from the system desire.

It makes a lot of sense to me... and to the degree Heifetz is correct,  it really calls into question the future of the Church.

The first important observation is that Heifetz is not saying that all systems have healthy goals.  Indeed, they may be fooling themselves about their goals.  In my 34 years as a pastor and three moves plus a few other times when I've considered moving, I have interviewed with many churches representing a variety of different settings all across the country.  I dare say that every single one of them has said that they wanted to grow.  Almost all of them had a statement regarding growth in their descriptor of hat they were searching for in their next pastor.  I don't doubt they actually believed that they wanted to grow.  When faced with the changes that were required in order to grow, almost all of them declined.  They were committed to maintaining the status quo, not to moving forward.  Those few who actually took steps to change often did so with considerable conflict.  The reality was that the vast majority of folk who were there, were there because their needs were already being met.  They didn't really want change and if that was what growth required... never mind.

When I look around, I don't see a lot of hope... (sorry, it could just be that I'm feeling particularly cynical today).  I live in an area of the world where there are lots of megachurches very willing to change style at the drop of a hat to bring in new people.  The problem is that in large degree, I think the UCC folk are correct when they observe the conservative wing of the Church has put a period where God has put a comma.  And they often fight against what seems to me (although obviously not to them) the clear movement of God.  On the other end of the spectrum - very rare in my part of the world - I see more progressive churches who clearly see a comma when it comes to justice issues and theological questions... but when it comes to style, they have a period that was drawn no later than 1950.  In either case, there are large proportions of the population left out... they yearn for a theological openness (which I believe is a yearning of the Spirit) of the more progressive church but chafe at a stilted style... or the resonate with a freer style in the megachurches but cannot abide by what they experience as a simplistic and irrelevant theology.

In either case, there are populations in the Church whose own needs are being met by the status quo... and who see very little need to struggle with the implications of real change.

What DO Progressive Christians Believe?

Often Christians who are labeled as either "progressive" or "liberal" are described as having wishy washy faith systems or theologies that change at a whim.  Try reading most of the professional theologians who represent that side of the spectrum and you're likely to find dense and difficult going, far beyond the commitment of a layperson and even many pastors.  Pastors, if they understood it, have not done a good job of communicating it to their congregations.  As a result many lay folk who fall outside of the conservative camp are not particularly articulate about what they believe.  They are only able to tell you what they do not believe in conservative theologies.

One subset of progressive theology is process theology... a form that I find particularly attractive but also often particularly difficult to understand as it is articulated by many of it's primary thinkers.  More recently there has been a movement to bring process theology into the local churches.  Philip Clayton of the Claremont School of Theology  and his Transforming Theology initiative has been particularly important in that movement.   They describe the mission of the initiative thus:

Our goal is an ambitious one: to rekindle powerful Christian theologies that have a transformative effect on church and society. It is widely believed that only the conservative church knows how to speak in a distinctively Christian voice, that only conservatives are qualified to represent Jesus' message and mission. We believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is far more complex, far more interesting, and far more relevant than what the Religious Right has offered for consumption in recent years.

Amen.

I have found Clayton's book Transforming Christian Theology for Church and Society particularly helpful.

Bruce Epperly is another writer/theologian/pastor/academic who has tried to make process theology accessible to a wider range of folk.   At Cambridge Drive we have used his book Holy Adventure: 41 Days of Audacious Living for a study/devotional series and found it just wonderful and a much, much better fit for us than the other 40 Days books.  One of our lay members was so excited at the end of the 41 days.  He told me that every day he found himself identifying with the book and better able to put words to what he had known in his heart all along.  (I highly recommend this book for a small group study/devotion series)

My friend, Bob Cornwall, just posted a piece by Bruce Epperly on his blog where Epperly gives a short capsulation of process theology. If you have ever looked for a good short explanation of process theology, here it is.  If you haven't, read it anyway.  Take a read and let me know what you think.

worship songs - again

Last November I posted a piece about my struggle with theology in worship songs... that often I cringe at the theological implications or statements in a song but the music or another part of the song really works for me.  I'm facing it again.  In that post, I shared my fear that people get more of their theology from the songs they sing than anywhere else, so my song choices are doubly important.

Next week we're having a missionary - Corenne Smith -  visit us and share her work.  (She and her husband Philip have a wonderful ministry in Brazil. Check it out in the link on her name and the video below.)  So, I asked her for suggestions for songs and she gave me one - God of This City.  I really like the general message of the song - that God is at work and has a vision for what we will become in this local.  Except the first verse really grates on me.  "You're the God in this city."  I don't know what city they're talking about but I've never been in a city without multiple "gods" and certainly have never experienced one where God is truly seen as God.  Still, I could almost let that line slide.  "You're the King of these people."  Same argument, but much stronger.  Again, I might let it slide, thinking that it is referring to the people singing the song.   "You're the Lord of this nation."  That one is just untrue... and as a true believer in separation of church and state, really makes me squirm.  I don't want it to be true.  For a slew of reasons, I just can't sing that or have the members of Cambridge Drive sing that.

On the other hand, I love verse 2

You're the Light in this darkness 
You're the Hope to the hopeless 
You're the Peace to the restless

And I love the chorus...

For greater things have yet to come And greater things are still to be done in this city Greater thing have yet to comeAnd greater things are still to be done in this city  

So... what do I do?  Just delete the first verse?  Maybe.  Or change the words a bit... it is tricky to make them fit but work for my theology.  "You're the God who loves this city" for example...  Still, it feels a bit parochial and requires a few more syllables to get squeezed in...  Maybe, "God is in this city... God loves these people... God loves this nation..." or do I just skip the song?  What do you think?

here's a video, sharing Corenne & Philip's work.

doing the thing I don't want to do

I began this blog as a place to write about topics slightly outside the scope of my normal public presentations - i.e. sermons. Certainly a sermon is a place where I raise the concerns that the culture is impressing on me and my hopes and dreams for the congregation in response to the witness of scripture... but... and it is a big but... sermons walk the fine line of speaking what I see and feel while respecting the views and experiences of the congregation. There are times when I must push this over the line, but I have to be careful there. For example, as I understand the words of Jesus, a Christian must be a pacifist. Members of my congregation have come to different conclusions than I have. So, I can preach about peace without requiring people to become total pacifists and allow them to struggle with what that means when their theology allows for war/violence under some circumstances. So, I envisioned the blog as a place where I could let loose without those constraints. I envisioned most of my topics as being theological or related to my therapy - music and guitars.

It feels as if I write most often about politics. I don't like that. I know that politics, as the way that groups of people make collective decisions, is by definition theological. How we live together says something about what we believe and what we believe says something about the ways we live together. So my understanding of God's yearnings for us is always reflected in my political acts and writings... and that is rarely material that makes it into my sermons because there is considerable diversity even in my little congregation with regards to any of these questions. So, I know where it is coming from... I write it here because I don't feel it is appropriate to say there... And it often comes across as more hard line than I really see myself.

So I'd like to write a bit about something less contentious... and this week I will. In two days I go to NAMM, the biggest trade show for the music industry. I go as a guest of Lowden Guitars, get to see George and some of the other folk from Lowden, connect with my friend Thomas Leeb, get to check out all of the newest doodads available for musicians to purchase, and see some of the bizarreness that is the LA commercial music scene. This year things will be a bit more serious for me as I'll be thinking about equipment etc. for use at the Cambridge Drive Concert Series but it will still be a fun couple of days. And I am soooo looking forward to not thinking about or writing about Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, or any of the rest of that bunch. Instead, I'll get to think about things that are important to me - strings, pickups, guitar builders, microphones, etc. - but which make little difference in the grand scheme of things.

The Word and words

As Americans we denigrate the power of words. We believe actions more than statements and often with good reason. When was the last time you trusted a politician to keep their promises? And if you have, will you do that again? Psychologists tell us that we believe body language more than words. We have sayings like, "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me," as if there is no power in the words. In our culture it is not a surprise that someone can use violent images in rhetoric and be surprised when someone takes those words seriously. That assessment of words is inadequate. Words have power. And there is Biblical basis for that understanding.
The Christian scriptures tells us that "in the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God..." The Hebrew scriptures tell us that all that is comes into being when God speaks a word... And in the other creation narrative, the creatures take on their nature once the man speaks a word and names them. Before that, they are incomplete. The power of the word is more than metaphoric, it gives shape and substance to all that is. It is our language, our words that form the paradigm through and in which we experience and shape the world. If those words are full of hatred and violence and images that separate us from one another, that will be the world we create. If the words are words of respect and community, building up the other, then that will be the kind of world we create. What kind of world do we want? Choose your words carefully...

church music

I've been thinking a lot about church music these days. I'm trained as a classical musician (my undergraduate degree) although "serious" music is rarely my first choice for listening. I'm much more interested and moved by "folk music" as defined as the music of the people. It amazes me how simple words and a simple melody and chord progression can effect a person... which brings me to music in the church.

A person I follow on Twitter tweeted a link the other day to an entry on Adam Young's blog with a recording of a song we do in worship sometimes written by Keith Getty and Stuart Townsend called In Christ Alone. I find the song moving (and I like his version). I love the melody. The chord changes are simple, but just work for me. It picks up a bit of a Celtic flavor, which always hooks me. But... there are bits of the theology that rub me the wrong way. Adam leaves out the second verse which, in the second half, says -

'Til on the cross as Jesus died
the wrath of God was satisfied.
For every sin on Him was laid;
here in the death of Christ I live.

I don't worry about the wrath of God. Indeed, I don't believe in the wrath of God, so when we sing it, we substitute "love" for "wrath" although it still has some implications regarding atonement that don't fit my theology. Likewise in the third verse, the last line makes me cringe a bit - "bought with the precious blood of Christ." Yep... we change "blood to "love" also. But the theory of the atonement implied still isn't mine. I understand the crucifixion in a very different way than is implied in these verses. And then the 4th verse, which is the last one in Adam's recording, seems to imply a bit of Calvinism... that God has marked out my destiny and nothing can move me from God's pre-ordained path. Again, this makes me cringe.

But I love the song. And the reality is that there are not that many congregational songs out there that have both good and deep theology. If you're looking for music that moves a person on top of the theology, the choices are many, many fewer.

Add to that - my experience tells me that people are more likely to get their theology from the songs they sing than from the sermons they hear (think about that the next time your kid listens to some gangster rap on his or her Ipod) even if they aren't really paying attention to what is being said/sung. So what do I do? Obviously, from the first sentence in my second paragraph, sometimes I choose songs with which I'm not entirely happy. Sometimes I change a word or two, here or there (in Amazing Grace, we change "wretch" (or worm) to "one.") Sometimes, I just let a beautiful melody catch my heart and take it where it wants to go, hoping that when we sit and talk about things, our theology will straighten things out and we'll enjoy the beauty and throw out the parts that don't fit.

How about you? Do you sing or play songs that, if you think about them, really don't measure up to your theology? to your experience of God? Do you lean towards getting the theology right or having music that causes your heart to soar? And how do those two pieces influence one another?

Firing Squad

Early last Friday morning, Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad in Utah. Evidently Utah was the last state to do away with firing squads as a means of execution, going back to a Mormon theological idea that sin requires "blood atonement" for forgiveness to take place.

This is a perfect example of theology influencing behavior and even public policy. And it goes back to the earlier discussion regarding atonement, specifically penal substitutionary atonement. It is much easier to argue for such barbaric practices when one believes that God requires them.

Why Theology Is Important

One of my favorite children's books is Fables by Arnold Lobel. It is full of wonderful stories but one of my favorites is The Bad Kangaroo. In it, the child's teacher is visiting the bad kangaroo's parent to talk with them regarding the unruly behavior of their child. The teacher quickly learns that all of the child's behaviors were learned from watching the parents. While many of us would bristle at the thought, our behaviors are deeply influenced by our families of origin, sometimes because we don't want to be like them, but more often, and usually unconsciously, because we fall into long established patterns that we learned from them.

A few weeks ago, my friend Jon put a post u on his blog - Substitutionary Atonement - It's Just a Theory. I commented and said that our theory of the atonement is important because of the ways it effects our behaviors... our thoughts about discipline, child rearing, even crime and punishment. Jon asked me to follow up on that so here were are...

Let me propose that our views of and relationship to God are critical in shaping the way we live. If God is vengeful, then there is always a justification for vengeance. If God's love is always unconditional, then ours must be as well. And the list goes on. The crucifixion of Jesus is at the very center of the Christian story and how we interpret that event tells a tremendous amount regarding our image of God which, in turn, will influence the way we live our lives.

The most popular understanding among right of center American Christians is that of "substitutionary atonement," the idea that there must be a punishment for our sin and the only punishment adequate is death. So, in order that we don't have to suffer eternal death, Jesus who is without sin, dies a brutal and painful death in our place. He substitutes himself for our punishment. So what does this imply about God? God's forgiveness is overcome by the need for vengeance. God's love is never unconditional. It is OK when the innocent suffer for the guilty and that somebody has to suffer. We even have a strong argument for "the end justifies the means."

If that is our understanding of God and we learn how to behave by "watching" our heavenly Father, the results are obvious in every issue from corporal punishment of children to the death penalty to collateral damage in warfare.

But that is not my experience of God and indeed, it is not my experience either as a child or as a father. I would never makes such requirements of my children and my father never made them of me. If I truly believe, as I do, that God is a better parent than I am, that God is all loving, all forgiving, and as Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor said in A Heretics Guide to Eternity, that there are free floaties for all, then I must find a different way to understand that central event in the Christian story. If Jesus did not die as a substitute for me required by God, then why did he die?

As I said in my comments, I much prefer the moral influence and expiation theories. The moral influence theory is just that, Jesus death is a way of influencing humankind to live more closely to God. He gave himself so we might learn how far God will go to show us what we can be... and so we will give ourselves. Expiation is a term used in the Orthodox churches. In it, the act of Jesus is not a legal act but a transformative one... we are changed because he gave himself.

Now, I think we can argue backwards here and ask first, who is God and how do I understand and experience the Holy One? Then, go from there and ask, what would this lead me to think about the death of Jesus? Whatever answer we come up with, theology matters because it gives us a foundation upon which we live.

theology matters

I've been watching the developments between Israel and the Palestinians with deep pain and grief. While it is clear that Israel certainly has the right to defend itself, it is equally clear that the actions of both sides - Hamas and Israel - have been profoundly immoral and counter-productive to the ends either is supposedly seeking. The violence doesn't work and this situation is a prime example of that fact. It has been going on for decades and nothing is solved nor will it be until someone has the courage to stand and say, "Enough!"

That said, I want to address the issue of theology as we watch this. People often act as if theology is just a mind game that doesn't impact the real world except when talking about radical Islamists. I would say that theology - the way we understand God - is central to the way we behave and is critical in all of our interactions.

Regarding Israel, I have heard many Christians completely support their actions for one of two reasons - either saying that Israel is "The Chosen People" and basically can do whatever they want on "their land." Or... coming from some kind of dispensationalist stand that sees this all as a part of God's plan as revealed in prophecy and that peace in the Middle East is a bad thing.

Both are bad theology and result in the support of policies that are, let me say it flat out, sinful, immoral, and counter to the yearnings of God. Other theologies that we sometimes see at play are a deist view that God is in reality absent so our faith need not inform our actions at all or a theology commonly known as atheism which likewise allows for a variety of other kinds of moral structures for evaluating actions. Some have a theology that sees God as vengeful and concerned primarily about retribution. Finally there is a theology that sees mercy, justice, love, and community as the primary yearnings of God. Each would result in very different ways of evaluating the situation and in very different resulting actions.

For too long the church has neglected its role in teaching good, critical theology to church members, instead allowing them to be spoon fed garbage from popular authors with sensational visions of the future or allowed them to embrace some cultural theology that just reinforces whatever culture they happen to live in.

If the churches did and taught good, critical theology, we'd be standing up shouting for Israel and Hamas to stand down and to seriously work towards a permanent solution to the conflict and we would be using all of the leverage we have to that end.

Last Lecture

The web is a wondrous place filled with heart-touching stories, smut, and incredible information. A few days ago I came across what is evidently a lecture series at Carnegie Mellon University called “The Last Lecture.” In it, professors are invited to give an open lecture, imagining that it was the last chance they would ever get to talk to the students of the university. It became a way to talk about what the professors see as really important.

For one of the professors, Randy Pausch, it was more than just an exercise. One month before his lecture, he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer with a prognosis of just a few months to live. His topic is achieving one’s childhood dreams. You can watch it here.

Since seeing his video, I’ve been thinking a lot about what I would say in a final sermon. At this point, I have to admit that my final sermon would not be very original. The title would likely be "Free Floaties for All" and would come from Spencer Burke’s book, The Heretic’s Guide to Eternity. He tells a story of standing on the beach one day with his 5 year old son watching huge waves roll in. The son turned to him and said something to the effect of, “Dad, I love you. I love you so much that if we were out there in the ocean and we knew that we were going to drown and we had one floatie… I’d give it to you.” That story forms the foundation of his theology… and it is a good one. He says that the basic premise of Christianity is that God gives us all free floaties. Period. There is nothing we can do to deserve God’s love and nothing we can do to separate ourselves from that love. That would pretty much be the content of my “last” sermon, the one that included everything that I wanted to be sure I said before it was too late.

So, if you had one final opportunity to tell the folk around you, the folk whom you love the one thing you think is most important, what would it be?

Favorite words

Once a month I have breakfast with a good friend who is on a spiritual search. She struggles with some of the traditional doctrines of the Christian Church, can't completely abandon her upbringing in the Christian Science Church, is both attracted to and repelled by tradition, and just can't ignore Jesus.

As we eat, we usually talk politics, gender issues, and it always come to questions about faith. I think I puzzle her when I don't embrace all of the doctrines that she thinks a good Christian is supposed to believe. I find myself coming back again and again to my two favorite words in my theological construct - paradox and contextualization.

She asked me about the trinity the other day. I'm not sure that I believe it in a way that would make most fundamentalists happy but I do believe in that doctrine. I haven't a clue as to how to conceptualize it though. I fall back on the first word - it is a paradox. Some might say that is a cop out but, I believe that paradox is central to faith. As I understand it, Christianity is full of paradoxes. I believe Jesus is the only way to God... but I don't believe everyone else is going to hell and I believe God is revealed to one degree or another in virtually all faith systems. I believe that Jesus is fully human ad fully God at the same time... make sense of that one. I believe God is all powerful and all loving and is personally concerned with individuals but I also see the problem of evil in the world. The list could go on. Bottom line is that God is too big for my understanding. The universe is too complicated for me to hold it in my mind. The result is paradox.

I love when my friend says that she cannot ignore Jesus. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus is the primary self-revelation of God to humankind. But he was clearly a male, first century Jew living in a remote corner of the Roman Empire. His experience of life was about as culturally different from mine as it could possibly be. Here's the rub... You can't have incarnation with contextualization. For Jesus to identify with all of us, he had first to identify with a specific group of us. To be human is to live in a cultural context that shapes everything for us from the way we experience God even to the way we count (heard that on NPR the other day... a language that is disappearing that counts both in base 12 and base 20!) Had Jesus been above his context, he would not have been able to identify with us or we with him and he would be meaningless. God speaks to us and encounters us in the context in which we live. It is a paradox that the most personal is also the most universal. Without a specific context, there is no universality.

And this concept of contextualization/incarnation is the pretty unique in Christianity from what I know. Sure other religions have gods that put on flesh and walk the earth but they always stand above the realities of life. Jesus becomes one of us. And he continues to become one of us in our various contexts. Christianity is the only major religion in which we do not speak the name of God in the language of the founder of the religion and in which the scriptures are read in indigenous languages rather than the language of the founder. This serious stuff as language represents the way a people conceptualize the universe. In Christianity, God comes to us, where we are.

So paradox... and contextualization... love those words! What do you think? And do you have any favorite theological words?

theology

another little test...

What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. Emergent/Postmodern 86% Neo orthodox 68% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 61% Classical Liberal 50% Modern Liberal 46% Charismatic/Pentecostal 39% Roman Catholic 25% Reformed Evangelical 14% Fundamentalist 4%

I guess it isn't likely that I'll fall into fundamentalism.

these and these

I don't know very much about the tradition of wisdom from the Rabbis, but the little I've read is extremely attractive to me. One of the speakers at the Spirit and Nature conference I mentioned in an earlier blog was Rabbi Rami Shapiro. He was inspiring and challenging and was very conversant with Christianity.

At one point during his presentation he quoted his tradition... "Elu v'elu d'vrei Elohim Chayyim" which he said basically translates as "these and these are all the words of the Living God." The interpretation of the saying is that if God is truly infinite, then ideas about God must be plentiful and even paradoxical. Just because two ideas contradict one another does not mean that one must be wrong. It is necessary to hold the two contradicting ideas and find truth in both of them if we are to begin to truly encounter God.

As a Baptist, that doesn't feel like a foreign idea to me. As I understand my tradition, there was always room left for the conflicting opinion because there was always the possibility that God was, indeed, speaking through it. It is built into the very fabric of Christian theology. We begin with a paradox... Jesus is fully human and fully God. How can that be? And we go on from there.

At the same time, it is not a comfortable position for many Christians who see the world in a very mechanistic terms. It certainly is not a popular way of thinking among Baptists even if it is central to our tradition. No, many Christians have a theology of syllogisms: If A is true and B contradicts A, B must be not true. It makes for a predictable and comfortable god, but as the Rabbis would remind us, a god too small to be God. Paul reminded us that "now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known." Our ideas about God must always be couched in humility. We do not know everything about God, what we do know may be contradictory, and what we think we know may in fact be distorted... So for now, we look for the words of the Living God in these... and in these.