"What matters is not spirituality, not religion, not perfection, not success or failure at this or that, but simply God and freedom in God's Spirit. All the rest it pure stupidity" - Thomas Merton
This quote is part of the signature line of my emails. I have always liked this quote - actually there is very little of or from Thomas Merton that I don't like - but only recently have I understood the truth of it. You see, my body is failing me - not in a way that will kill me quickly, but in a way that is increasingly more debilitating from month to month. Merton had a similar experience when he was about the age that I am right now. He finally came to the conclusion that his body wasn't telling him it was about to die, but rather that he should slow down. Mine isn't giving me the choice. Maybe that's the wisdom of the body. My body knows I wouldn't listen if it just told me to slow down (in fact, it probably has been telling me to slow down for years and I haven't heard it), and so it is forcing me to do so! I mention this not to generate pity - this will happen to each and every person reading this message sooner or later - but rather because I am amazed at the epiphany I have had.
Merton was absolutely right.
As Presiding Bishop of the Universal Anglican Church, I have fought the good fight. We have, both in the birthing of this Church and in the time since, examined the issues that confront spirituality in general and Christianity in particular. We have engaged in discussion and debate, and we have learned valuable lessons through both our successes and our failures. And now, lo these many, many (6.5) years later I look around at the debates that go on both inside and outside the Church and have to agree with Merton. The vast majority of it is stupidity.
Every now and then I am approached by some well meaning dignitary from some denomination or organization who wants me to unite with them to fight this or that point of polity, or band together to take on the Roman Catholic Church, or purge the Universal Church of left handed dwarf clergy, or some other pressing (in their mind) matter that simply must be addressed. It's all stupidity.
It's all stupidity because it isn't about God and freedom in God's Spirit (you can substitute any word for God that works for you and the statement remains the same). In fact, it's all a massive distraction from God. If every Ecclesial Pomposity who had a bug crawl us his (and it's always his) butt would just stop and spend 45 minutes in sincere prayer around that bug, the vast majority of Church-initiated stupidity would cease - including in Rome!
Now to Christmas, or Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa, or Festivus, or Yule, or whatever you celebrate or fail to celebrate I urge you to apply the same principal. When you gather with friends and/or family please ask yourself, "Does the argument I am about to have have anything to do with God or freedom in God's Spirit?" In other words, is it about Love and Freedom, or is it about something else? When you see the argument coming, go to the prayer chamber (bathroom) and sit on the prayer throne (toilet) for five minutes pondering that question. If it isn't about Love and Freedom it is stupid, and why in the world would you want to argue about stupidity? I realize, sometimes the other person is very interested in arguing about stupidity but it truly does take two to tango. You will find that when you look at another and realize they are interested in debating stupidity that it becomes very easy to choose not to engage! I'm not suggesting we exclaim, "Moron!" as we disengage, but rather that we do so compassionately. It is not easy to be caught up in things that are inconsequential, and we all get caught there from time to time. That's why it's so critical to disengage compassionately, having compassion for those who are still caught in the cycle of (stupidity) being entangled in things that are not about God and freedom in God's Spirit.
If I may be so bold as to suggest a New Year's resolution, it would be the same thing! In the coming year, no more stupidity. If it doesn't make you or somebody else more whole, more complete, or more loved - forget about it, it's just stupidity. I recommend that in those cases you simply smile, nod, and move on. You will be surprised how transformative that is, what a positive effect it will have on your stress level, and how it will free you to pay attention to the things that really matter - like Freedom and Love!
Merry Christmas!
+Craig
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Why the Church is Irrelevant to Young People
I just got an email fr0m the Wisconsin Council of Churches about their big annual meeting on Washington Island, and in the email - in the description of one of the sessions at the summer gathering - is all you want to know about why young people, and why m0re and more older people like myself, are turned off by institutional religion. Some of the sessions at this meeting are designed to discover why young people don't want anything to do with the Church. They have dubbed the younger generation the "OMG Generation." In their explanation of the meaning of OMG lies the problem: They say it means "Oh my gosh," when in fact it means, "Oh My God." Even 49 year old me knows that.
You see, young people are turned off by the institutional Church because the Church can't handle the truth, and so they lie in an attempt to be perceived as in touch with young people. The very Church that claims to speak for God apparently can't handle saying God's name for fear of offending some right wing nut job who doesn't understand that the command against taking God's name in vain has to do with oaths - like the ones we make in court rooms all the time in the west. Even if it were a prohibition against profanity, I would need a lot of help in seeing how the expression, "Oh my God" is profane. If you're going to try to convince me you have never said it, then I guess you are admitting you have never had an orgasm - and you have my sympathy. All that notwithstanding, I find it more than a little sad that the very people who are rejecting institutional religion feel much more comfortable calling on God than the institution itself does - or maybe they have found a new God whose name is gosh?
You see, young people are turned off by the institutional Church because the Church can't handle the truth, and so they lie in an attempt to be perceived as in touch with young people. The very Church that claims to speak for God apparently can't handle saying God's name for fear of offending some right wing nut job who doesn't understand that the command against taking God's name in vain has to do with oaths - like the ones we make in court rooms all the time in the west. Even if it were a prohibition against profanity, I would need a lot of help in seeing how the expression, "Oh my God" is profane. If you're going to try to convince me you have never said it, then I guess you are admitting you have never had an orgasm - and you have my sympathy. All that notwithstanding, I find it more than a little sad that the very people who are rejecting institutional religion feel much more comfortable calling on God than the institution itself does - or maybe they have found a new God whose name is gosh?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
True Diversity
I saw dethroned beauty queen Carrie Prejean on The View this morning. Yes, I do occasionally watch The View and I am not ashamed. It actually is a very good program. I only recently started watching it, having seen it in its early years and not liked it at all. The cast has changed somewhat, and I find that they interview folks very well. This morning it was Carrie Prejean who, to be quite honest with you, I have paid not a bit of attention to until now. I was aware of her now infamous answer to the gay marriage question, and had heard the latest gossip about her allegedly having a sex tape floating around out there. Many thoughts rush to my mind, the biggest of which is, "Who cares?"
She does, most likely inadvertently, bring up an important issue. That issue, she might be surprised to learn, is diversity. You see, I don't agree with her answer to the gay marriage question, I don't agree with beauty pageants, and I don't know what misguided soul would actually want their child to grow up emulating a beauty pageant contestant. I don't think we should scrutinize beauty pageant contestants' backgrounds or get all shook up if they posed nude or semi nude or made a sex tape. We are not judging potential moral leaders, we are judging (forgive me) bimbos. That having been said, they asked her a question and she answered it. So what's the problem?
They started asking questions in beauty pageants some years ago in an attempt to prove that they were not just flesh parades. I guess it's better if you have a flesh parade with a question or two in it, although I'm not quite sure why. I'm not quite sure why a person of faith, and faith, would feel it necessary to enter a flesh parade - not because there is anything morally objectionable in flesh parades, but rather because I would hope they would have enough self esteem to realize they were of much more value than the sum of their admittedly shapely parts.
But I digress. The last time I checked this was America. There are Constitutional protections for free speech. The government is also prohibited from establishing an official State religion, and so we have freedom of religion. Carrie Prejean can believe whatever she wants, and she can talk about it. I don't agree with much of what she believes, and I can talk about it as well. That's one of the beautiful things about this country. That is true diversity.
Apparently, a good number of us don't like true diversity. It doesn't seem to matter whether we are conservative, progressive, or somewhere in between. We seem to want our beauty pageant contestants to answer questions the way we would answer them. When they don't comply, we would rather they be dethroned. True diversity only exists when we are willing to accept that there are legitimate differences of opinion among human beings. We all need to stop attempting to silence each other so that we can sit down and dialogue together. It's the only way we are going to be able to get along and address the real issues in society.
She does, most likely inadvertently, bring up an important issue. That issue, she might be surprised to learn, is diversity. You see, I don't agree with her answer to the gay marriage question, I don't agree with beauty pageants, and I don't know what misguided soul would actually want their child to grow up emulating a beauty pageant contestant. I don't think we should scrutinize beauty pageant contestants' backgrounds or get all shook up if they posed nude or semi nude or made a sex tape. We are not judging potential moral leaders, we are judging (forgive me) bimbos. That having been said, they asked her a question and she answered it. So what's the problem?
They started asking questions in beauty pageants some years ago in an attempt to prove that they were not just flesh parades. I guess it's better if you have a flesh parade with a question or two in it, although I'm not quite sure why. I'm not quite sure why a person of faith, and faith, would feel it necessary to enter a flesh parade - not because there is anything morally objectionable in flesh parades, but rather because I would hope they would have enough self esteem to realize they were of much more value than the sum of their admittedly shapely parts.
But I digress. The last time I checked this was America. There are Constitutional protections for free speech. The government is also prohibited from establishing an official State religion, and so we have freedom of religion. Carrie Prejean can believe whatever she wants, and she can talk about it. I don't agree with much of what she believes, and I can talk about it as well. That's one of the beautiful things about this country. That is true diversity.
Apparently, a good number of us don't like true diversity. It doesn't seem to matter whether we are conservative, progressive, or somewhere in between. We seem to want our beauty pageant contestants to answer questions the way we would answer them. When they don't comply, we would rather they be dethroned. True diversity only exists when we are willing to accept that there are legitimate differences of opinion among human beings. We all need to stop attempting to silence each other so that we can sit down and dialogue together. It's the only way we are going to be able to get along and address the real issues in society.
Friday, November 6, 2009
What I Believe
I recently wrote a letter in response to an inquiry about what I believe. It occurs to me that this would make a pretty good blog, so after removing anything that would identify the recipient, here it is:
As you may know, one of the unique - and I think important - characteristics of historic Anglicanism is that we exist living in the (hopefully creative) tension created by diversity of views. I say that because my views are not the official views of this Church nor are they the views of every member whether clergy or laity. That having been said, here are some of my views:
Personally, I would never have an abortion - and not just because I don't have a uterus. I am very pleased that my daughter, who became pregnant at 20, chose to have her baby. My granddaughter is the light of my life. That having been said, I am pro-choice. There are many reasons for this, chief among them that I find the so-called pro-life movement to be in fact only pro-fetus. To be truly pro-life, I believe one would also have to be opposed to the death penalty, in favor of universal health care including pre- and post- natal care, in favor of fully funding education, in favor of fully funding feeding programs, and work wholeheartedly to end poverty. I am sickened every time I see anti-abortion groups picketing on busy intersections holding pornographic pictures of aborted fetuses. When they do so they traumatize young children and others who pass by in their cars without warning or opportunity to divert. My wife, who has never had an abortion, is traumatized by those images.
Regarding the historic creeds, I do hold to them while at the same time believing that they have become a rather esoteric statement of faith. Unless one is raised in the church - and a growing percentage of folks today were not raised in the church - the language can be very difficult to penetrate. I am fully an advocate of using affirmations of faith in worship that state the faith in language that is easier to understand. At our cathedral we use either the Apostle's or Nicene Creed once a month, and other affirmations on the other Sundays. People cannot believe in what they do not understand. That having been said, our parishes have autonomy to construct worship as they see fit, with the caveat that it be liturgical and that Eucharist is available every week. Our parish in Buffalo is and Eastern Rite Anglican parish, for example.
I would agree completely with what you believe about Christianity being a faith of service, and that our job is to carry our cross - which quite often is more than one cross in a lifetime. I believe wholeheartedly in the Great Commandment to love God and love neighbor. I believe that, as Jesus said, all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments. That is a truth that I believe many churches have lost sight of - to their detriment and to the detriment of their members.
I am an apophatic theologian and a contemplative with active tendencies. I believe that God is infinitely vast and the more we learn about God the more we realize how little we know. I am also a process theologian. I believe that God is constantly offering us opportunity and that we have the freedom to choose which of those opportunities to take advantage of. After we choose one, more opportunities are constantly offered, and so whether we succeed or fail, God is always present and in relationship with us. I am a Marian, but am steadfastly opposed to the notion of Mary as co-redemptrix.
I am also something of a Christian Universalist. I do believe that, in the end, God wins. I don't believe that we all go straight to heaven, but I do believe we all get there eventually. I think it is very instructive that the word "hell" does not appear in the original language of the New Testament. What is translated "hell" is most often "Gehenna", the garbage dump outside the city walls in Jerusalem, where the fires did never go out. I think hell has been used and abused by the Church to frighten people into belief and to empty their wallets into the collection plate.
Adlof Hitler burned six million Jews until they died and we consider him to be one of the greatest despots in history. The Church would have us believe God is burning billions and trillions of people for all eternity. I cannot believe that God is a bigger despot than Hitler. Are there consequences for sin? Absolutely. I also believe we created our own hells right here on earth through our sinful actions and just plain poor choices. I do not believe in a personal devil who is some sort of anti-God. I do believe, as 1 John tells us, that Jesus came to reconcile us to God and save us from our sins - and not just ours, but the sins of the whole world. I do not believe Jesus was a failure in that venture or in any other.
Does that mean Hitler went to heaven? Certainly not right away - but I leave to God how that works that out, whether through purgatory or some other means I do not know. That is a mystery I cannot penetrate. I do know God has all eternity to work on old Adolf, and I believe in a God who is strong enough to work anything out.
After having said all that, not all of our clergy would agree with me - and that is just fine. It is the beauty of Anglicanism. I know that when I stand before God I feel much better about God saying to me. "You believed in me but not in hell" than, "You believed in hell more than you believed in my saving power."
The UAC is a radically inclusive Church. All people, including women, are welcome to participate fully in the life of the Church - including ordination. I find in the gospel that men were Apostles. I also find a large group of women following and financially supporting them. I find a woman to be the first person to whom the Risen Jesus appeared. I believe it was only patriarchal convention that refused to see her as an Apostle - after all, St. Paul is considered an Apostle based on Christ's appearance to him on the road to Damascus. Mary Magdalen has the same resume.
I also find that Jesus did not use his genitals to do his work. Therefore, his maleness was not a requirement for his mission. I am unpersuaded that a group of celibate males prefers to keep the priesthood a good old boys club. I have seen female priest do amazing work, in some cases things that male priests would struggle to accomplish. We need both, just as we need priests from every ethnic group, short and tall, thin and fat - I don't believe that a penis is the measure of whether or not God is calling you. After all, God doesn't have a penis. Would we exclude God from priesthood?
In line with that radical inclusion, we also ordain gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. In truth, I must say that we have not to date ordained any transgendered people - but they would not be excluded based on their sexuality. I am not convinced by the seven or eight scriptures that are routinely used in the argument against homosexuality. I find there to be no evidence in the Bible or in other writings of the time that the notion of sexual orientation existed. What they wrote of were things they perceived to be "unnatural" - a heterosexual man sleeping with another heterosexual man. They wrote of cultic prostitution, in which those who believed in fertility gods went to the temple prostitutes, male and female, and had sex with them in hopes the fertility god and goddess would see, become aroused, and have sex themselves and so ensure a good harvest. I agree with the biblical writers about both of those things.
What I don't see addressed is human sexuality - I do see a whole lot about sexual behavior. Seven or eight verses - as opposed to over 3000 about poverty. No verses about abortion. Where have our priorities gone? If we had spent the money that has been spent on protesting LGBT folks and abortion on poverty and hunger, just imagine what we could have done!
I believe the current focus on human sexuality and abortion in the Church is the direct result of male dominance in the hierarchy of the Church. If I am a married, or celibate, male then clearly I have never had an abortion and I am not gay. I have taken all the focus off of me and put it on someone else - and so I never have to confront that I beat my wife, sexually abuse my children, cheat on my taxes, steal from my employer, or anything else because every one's attention is on those two issues - and I feel so good and holy.
And yet Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, was very clear that we were not to do these things. We were not to judge others, but rather to get our own house in order. Clearly, we have lost the vision. I believe that the mission of the UAC is to restore that vision. I have a program in development called Christ Enlight that is designed to do just that - return the focus to the Sermon on the Mount and how Jesus instructed us to treat ourselves and one another. All the rest is just distraction and ego - certainly not God.
By now I may have scared you off! I hope not. I hope you will hang in there. Know that what makes us strong as a denomination is that we have people of differing beliefs. It helps us to offer a church where all people are welcome, and where all people can feel comfortable as they ask the difficult questions that a faith journey requires!
As you may know, one of the unique - and I think important - characteristics of historic Anglicanism is that we exist living in the (hopefully creative) tension created by diversity of views. I say that because my views are not the official views of this Church nor are they the views of every member whether clergy or laity. That having been said, here are some of my views:
Personally, I would never have an abortion - and not just because I don't have a uterus. I am very pleased that my daughter, who became pregnant at 20, chose to have her baby. My granddaughter is the light of my life. That having been said, I am pro-choice. There are many reasons for this, chief among them that I find the so-called pro-life movement to be in fact only pro-fetus. To be truly pro-life, I believe one would also have to be opposed to the death penalty, in favor of universal health care including pre- and post- natal care, in favor of fully funding education, in favor of fully funding feeding programs, and work wholeheartedly to end poverty. I am sickened every time I see anti-abortion groups picketing on busy intersections holding pornographic pictures of aborted fetuses. When they do so they traumatize young children and others who pass by in their cars without warning or opportunity to divert. My wife, who has never had an abortion, is traumatized by those images.
Regarding the historic creeds, I do hold to them while at the same time believing that they have become a rather esoteric statement of faith. Unless one is raised in the church - and a growing percentage of folks today were not raised in the church - the language can be very difficult to penetrate. I am fully an advocate of using affirmations of faith in worship that state the faith in language that is easier to understand. At our cathedral we use either the Apostle's or Nicene Creed once a month, and other affirmations on the other Sundays. People cannot believe in what they do not understand. That having been said, our parishes have autonomy to construct worship as they see fit, with the caveat that it be liturgical and that Eucharist is available every week. Our parish in Buffalo is and Eastern Rite Anglican parish, for example.
I would agree completely with what you believe about Christianity being a faith of service, and that our job is to carry our cross - which quite often is more than one cross in a lifetime. I believe wholeheartedly in the Great Commandment to love God and love neighbor. I believe that, as Jesus said, all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments. That is a truth that I believe many churches have lost sight of - to their detriment and to the detriment of their members.
I am an apophatic theologian and a contemplative with active tendencies
I am also something of a Christian Universalist. I do believe that, in the end, God wins. I don't believe that we all go straight to heaven, but I do believe we all get there eventually. I think it is very instructive that the word "hell" does not appear in the original language of the New Testament. What is translated "hell" is most often "Gehenna", the garbage dump outside the city walls in Jerusalem, where the fires did never go out. I think hell has been used and abused by the Church to frighten people into belief and to empty their wallets into the collection plate.
Adlof Hitler burned six million Jews until they died and we consider him to be one of the greatest despots in history. The Church would have us believe God is burning billions and trillions of people for all eternity. I cannot believe that God is a bigger despot than Hitler. Are there consequences for sin? Absolutely. I also believe we created our own hells right here on earth through our sinful actions and just plain poor choices. I do not believe in a personal devil who is some sort of anti-God. I do believe, as 1 John tells us, that Jesus came to reconcile us to God and save us from our sins - and not just ours, but the sins of the whole world. I do not believe Jesus was a failure in that venture or in any other.
Does that mean Hitler went to heaven? Certainly not right away - but I leave to God how that works that out, whether through purgatory or some other means I do not know. That is a mystery I cannot penetrate. I do know God has all eternity to work on old Adolf, and I believe in a God who is strong enough to work anything out.
After having said all that, not all of our clergy would agree with me - and that is just fine. It is the beauty of Anglicanism. I know that when I stand before God I feel much better about God saying to me. "You believed in me but not in hell" than, "You believed in hell more than you believed in my saving power."
The UAC is a radically inclusive Church. All people, including women, are welcome to participate fully in the life of the Church - including ordination. I find in the gospel that men were Apostles. I also find a large group of women following and financially supporting them. I find a woman to be the first person to whom the Risen Jesus appeared. I believe it was only patriarchal convention that refused to see her as an Apostle - after all, St. Paul is considered an Apostle based on Christ's appearance to him on the road to Damascus. Mary Magdalen has the same resume.
I also find that Jesus did not use his genitals to do his work. Therefore, his maleness was not a requirement for his mission. I am unpersuaded that a group of celibate males prefers to keep the priesthood a good old boys club. I have seen female priest do amazing work, in some cases things that male priests would struggle to accomplish. We need both, just as we need priests from every ethnic group, short and tall, thin and fat - I don't believe that a penis is the measure of whether or not God is calling you. After all, God doesn't have a penis. Would we exclude God from priesthood?
In line with that radical inclusion, we also ordain gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. In truth, I must say that we have not to date ordained any transgendered people - but they would not be excluded based on their sexuality. I am not convinced by the seven or eight scriptures that are routinely used in the argument against homosexuality. I find there to be no evidence in the Bible or in other writings of the time that the notion of sexual orientation existed. What they wrote of were things they perceived to be "unnatural" - a heterosexual man sleeping with another heterosexual man. They wrote of cultic prostitution, in which those who believed in fertility gods went to the temple prostitutes, male and female, and had sex with them in hopes the fertility god and goddess would see, become aroused, and have sex themselves and so ensure a good harvest. I agree with the biblical writers about both of those things.
What I don't see addressed is human sexuality - I do see a whole lot about sexual behavior. Seven or eight verses - as opposed to over 3000 about poverty. No verses about abortion. Where have our priorities gone? If we had spent the money that has been spent on protesting LGBT folks and abortion on poverty and hunger, just imagine what we could have done!
I believe the current focus on human sexuality and abortion in the Church is the direct result of male dominance in the hierarchy of the Church. If I am a married, or celibate, male then clearly I have never had an abortion and I am not gay. I have taken all the focus off of me and put it on someone else - and so I never have to confront that I beat my wife, sexually abuse my children, cheat on my taxes, steal from my employer, or anything else because every one's attention is on those two issues - and I feel so good and holy.
And yet Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, was very clear that we were not to do these things. We were not to judge others, but rather to get our own house in order. Clearly, we have lost the vision. I believe that the mission of the UAC is to restore that vision. I have a program in development called Christ Enlight that is designed to do just that - return the focus to the Sermon on the Mount and how Jesus instructed us to treat ourselves and one another. All the rest is just distraction and ego - certainly not God.
By now I may have scared you off! I hope not. I hope you will hang in there. Know that what makes us strong as a denomination is that we have people of differing beliefs. It helps us to offer a church where all people are welcome, and where all people can feel comfortable as they ask the difficult questions that a faith journey requires!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Is God Running a Protection Racket?
I remember a particularly opinionated 12 year old boy who wrote me a while back after having become enraged when I suggested that God was love and that there isn't any hell. He proclaimed in his email that "If there isn't any hell then there isn't any reason to go to church!".
That's precisely the problem, isn't it? We have so bought into the preachers of hate and fear who misrepresent themselves as Christian preachers that most of those who do still attend churches do so because they have had the hell scared into them. They have bought into the lie that if we aren't good then God will "withdraw his [sic] protective hand" from us and we will be left to fend for ourselves in our never ending war against the devil. Their extortion is very polished and very well presented, but it is extortion nevertheless. The message is that if you keep coming to my church and putting at least 10% of your income in my collection plate then I will tell God to keep the devil from kicking your ass - and you.
How is that any different from a gang led protection racket? You have a shop and I come in and tell you that if you pay me so much money each month then I will protect you from the other gangs in the neighborhood. If you fall behind in your payments, well, even God won't be able to help you. The implication is that the other gangs will get you first, but the truth is that I am the one who is going to will take care of you ourselves.
It isn't any different. It is exactly the same. Your preacher is running a protection racket. The truth is that if you don't pay your preacher then the preacher will beat you up himself. He won't use his fists, he will use social pressure. He will make sure that the rest of the congregation shuns you as one who has gone over to the other side. If he manages to get some of the congregation worked up enough, they may well come beat the devil out of you themselves.
Is God really running a protection racket? NO, of course not - your church is. Not a bit of it is biblical, either - it's all about greed.
When Jesus was asked what the Greatest Commandment was he answered with two commandments - to love God with all you heart, mind, and soul; and to love your neighbor as yourself - and then he added "on these two hang all the Law and the Prophets." In other words, the whole shooting match depends on loving God and neighbor. That means that the lens through which everything we do as Christians must be filtered is love of God and love of neighbor.
If you are a Christian plowing through the Old Testament, for example - as the Christian Extortionists love to do - then you must do so through the lens of loving God and neighbor. Must I really point out to you that extortion is not loving? Apparently I need to do so to much of the Church world, who have completely missed the point of Jesus Christ. God isn't going to withdraw any "hand of protection" - primarily because God is loving, and secondarily because God is spirit and doesn't have any hands to withdraw!
What about the 12 year old's question? Why go to church if not to avoid punishment?
The answer is that we go to church for a number of reasons - all of them life giving. We go because we need community. We go because we hope, together, to create a better world - to work to establish the peaceable, loving kingdom of God on earth. We go to support and encourage one another, and to receive support and encouragement when we need it. In short, we go to love.
If you don't think love is reason enough to go to church, you are forgetting the outrageous things we all do to get the attention of a potential date. If you don't think love is enough reason to go to church, then you have never been lonely. If you don't think love is reason enough to go to church, then you need help - and more than that you need to be loved.
You see church isn't about denominationalism or which religion is best, or any other nonsense that 95% of the so called churches in our society want you to believe it is. It's not about fear, and it's not about appeasing God or humankind - it's about giving life and love indiscriminately, abundantly, wastefully. It's not about who is in or out because everyone is in; it's not about right or wrong because we all are right; it's not about fear, it's about love - because perfect love drives out fear.
If you don't believe me, if you think I am wrong, if you feel compelled to respond to me with anger in defense of your God please allow me to ask you a question. What kind of a god needs human beings to protect or defend it?
If you are tired of all the nonsense that traditional Churchianity is offering you, please contact me. I will help you set up a small group of like minded lovers in your area. Why would I do that? It's all about love!
That's precisely the problem, isn't it? We have so bought into the preachers of hate and fear who misrepresent themselves as Christian preachers that most of those who do still attend churches do so because they have had the hell scared into them. They have bought into the lie that if we aren't good then God will "withdraw his [sic] protective hand" from us and we will be left to fend for ourselves in our never ending war against the devil. Their extortion is very polished and very well presented, but it is extortion nevertheless. The message is that if you keep coming to my church and putting at least 10% of your income in my collection plate then I will tell God to keep the devil from kicking your ass - and you.
How is that any different from a gang led protection racket? You have a shop and I come in and tell you that if you pay me so much money each month then I will protect you from the other gangs in the neighborhood. If you fall behind in your payments, well, even God won't be able to help you. The implication is that the other gangs will get you first, but the truth is that I am the one who is going to will take care of you ourselves.
It isn't any different. It is exactly the same. Your preacher is running a protection racket. The truth is that if you don't pay your preacher then the preacher will beat you up himself. He won't use his fists, he will use social pressure. He will make sure that the rest of the congregation shuns you as one who has gone over to the other side. If he manages to get some of the congregation worked up enough, they may well come beat the devil out of you themselves.
Is God really running a protection racket? NO, of course not - your church is. Not a bit of it is biblical, either - it's all about greed.
When Jesus was asked what the Greatest Commandment was he answered with two commandments - to love God with all you heart, mind, and soul; and to love your neighbor as yourself - and then he added "on these two hang all the Law and the Prophets." In other words, the whole shooting match depends on loving God and neighbor. That means that the lens through which everything we do as Christians must be filtered is love of God and love of neighbor.
If you are a Christian plowing through the Old Testament, for example - as the Christian Extortionists love to do - then you must do so through the lens of loving God and neighbor. Must I really point out to you that extortion is not loving? Apparently I need to do so to much of the Church world, who have completely missed the point of Jesus Christ. God isn't going to withdraw any "hand of protection" - primarily because God is loving, and secondarily because God is spirit and doesn't have any hands to withdraw!
What about the 12 year old's question? Why go to church if not to avoid punishment?
The answer is that we go to church for a number of reasons - all of them life giving. We go because we need community. We go because we hope, together, to create a better world - to work to establish the peaceable, loving kingdom of God on earth. We go to support and encourage one another, and to receive support and encouragement when we need it. In short, we go to love.
If you don't think love is reason enough to go to church, you are forgetting the outrageous things we all do to get the attention of a potential date. If you don't think love is enough reason to go to church, then you have never been lonely. If you don't think love is reason enough to go to church, then you need help - and more than that you need to be loved.
You see church isn't about denominationalism or which religion is best, or any other nonsense that 95% of the so called churches in our society want you to believe it is. It's not about fear, and it's not about appeasing God or humankind - it's about giving life and love indiscriminately, abundantly, wastefully. It's not about who is in or out because everyone is in; it's not about right or wrong because we all are right; it's not about fear, it's about love - because perfect love drives out fear.
If you don't believe me, if you think I am wrong, if you feel compelled to respond to me with anger in defense of your God please allow me to ask you a question. What kind of a god needs human beings to protect or defend it?
If you are tired of all the nonsense that traditional Churchianity is offering you, please contact me. I will help you set up a small group of like minded lovers in your area. Why would I do that? It's all about love!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Christian Violence in Language
Do you think we might stop the violence that we use in languaging the Christian experience. This morning on facebook I saw a prime example:
"Once God’s DOMINION has been established by the Spirit in any human heart, the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven is accomplished in that life."
I don't mean to single this person out, and I certainly don't intend to mention their name. This kind of language is all over Christianity and it does not belong there. Let's look at what this really says, getting away from all of the jargon, to a person who is not part of the Christian experience. It says God, through the Holy Spirit, is going to spiritually rape my heart, move on in, and take over. It's a war, and whether I want to or not, a violent religious experience is about to occur within me.
Who in the world would want that to happen to them?
This kind of violent language pervades the evangelical corner of Christianity, and it needs to stop. The extension of it contributes to acts of violence by Christians everywhere. It implies that we are at war, at war with the devil, and we don't know who the devil has on his team, but we have to defeat them. We need to let the Holy Spirit in, into our hearts (how much repressed sexuality is in that statement?), so that he might rule our lives, so we can do battle for God. Can you see that is but a small jump from there to acting out violently?
The funny thing is that none of this is consistent with language that Jesus used. This kind of language is rooted in Paul, and in defense of Paul is a great distortion of what he said. We aren't at war - God isn't a God of war, not is God a God of dominance/dominion. God is a God of peace.
Put down your swords and your sword metaphors. This kind of talk isn't Christianity, it's combat. Let it go and discover the God of peace and love before we all kill each other.
"Once God’s DOMINION has been established by the Spirit in any human heart, the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven is accomplished in that life."
I don't mean to single this person out, and I certainly don't intend to mention their name. This kind of language is all over Christianity and it does not belong there. Let's look at what this really says, getting away from all of the jargon, to a person who is not part of the Christian experience. It says God, through the Holy Spirit, is going to spiritually rape my heart, move on in, and take over. It's a war, and whether I want to or not, a violent religious experience is about to occur within me.
Who in the world would want that to happen to them?
This kind of violent language pervades the evangelical corner of Christianity, and it needs to stop. The extension of it contributes to acts of violence by Christians everywhere. It implies that we are at war, at war with the devil, and we don't know who the devil has on his team, but we have to defeat them. We need to let the Holy Spirit in, into our hearts (how much repressed sexuality is in that statement?), so that he might rule our lives, so we can do battle for God. Can you see that is but a small jump from there to acting out violently?
The funny thing is that none of this is consistent with language that Jesus used. This kind of language is rooted in Paul, and in defense of Paul is a great distortion of what he said. We aren't at war - God isn't a God of war, not is God a God of dominance/dominion. God is a God of peace.
Put down your swords and your sword metaphors. This kind of talk isn't Christianity, it's combat. Let it go and discover the God of peace and love before we all kill each other.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Roman Polanski
It boggles my mind that it is necessary to write about this, but I feel I must: Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl 31 years ago and has been avoiding prosecution by hiding in France ever since. Recently he was arrested while attending a film festival in Switzerland. Several celebrities are pleading their case for Polanski's release because, after all, it happened so long ago - and, after all, he is a celebrity.
I suppose it's good that he is a celebrity because he certainly is no man. A man doesn't have sex with 13 year old girls. A man doesn't rape women - statutory or otherwise. Finally, a man takes responsibility for his actions and when there are consequences for those actions, a man accepts them. A man doesn't run from the consequences of his actions.
What's more, the impact on a 13 year old girl who is raped by an adult male cannot be underestimated. Who is standing up for the rights of this girl? Furthermore, this was not the only inappropriate relationship Polanski had with underage women. He had a fondness for little girls, and he acted on it repeatedly. Letting him get away with his crime would send the wrong message to a large number of people - including all the 13 year old girls who hear about is and all of Polanski's fellow pedophiles.
Surely these celebrities aren't serious?
This is just another consequence of the way we treat celebrities in this country. The next time you are at the grocery store, look at the magazines that adorn the checkout lanes and notice how many of them have to do with celebrities. Unless you are in a very strange grocery store indeed, the majority of them will be about celebrities and their lives. I believe this is a direct symptom of the loss of spirituality in America.
The failure of the institutional Church to meet the needs of the vast majority of Americans has led them to leave that Church and to look for other ways to meet their spiritual needs, chief among them the need for transcendence. Rather than do the hard work required by authentic spirituality, our lack of tolerance for delayed gratification has led us instead to escapism as a spiritual narcotic. We escape into the lives of celebrities so that we might forget about how unhappy we are in our own lives. It's a fix with a very short half life, but worse than that it is a fix that causes us to fashion our lives after folks with some very questionable judgment.
Unless of course, you have a 13 year old daughter and would be willing to invite Roman Polanski to stay at your home with her while you go on vacation...
I suppose it's good that he is a celebrity because he certainly is no man. A man doesn't have sex with 13 year old girls. A man doesn't rape women - statutory or otherwise. Finally, a man takes responsibility for his actions and when there are consequences for those actions, a man accepts them. A man doesn't run from the consequences of his actions.
What's more, the impact on a 13 year old girl who is raped by an adult male cannot be underestimated. Who is standing up for the rights of this girl? Furthermore, this was not the only inappropriate relationship Polanski had with underage women. He had a fondness for little girls, and he acted on it repeatedly. Letting him get away with his crime would send the wrong message to a large number of people - including all the 13 year old girls who hear about is and all of Polanski's fellow pedophiles.
Surely these celebrities aren't serious?
This is just another consequence of the way we treat celebrities in this country. The next time you are at the grocery store, look at the magazines that adorn the checkout lanes and notice how many of them have to do with celebrities. Unless you are in a very strange grocery store indeed, the majority of them will be about celebrities and their lives. I believe this is a direct symptom of the loss of spirituality in America.
The failure of the institutional Church to meet the needs of the vast majority of Americans has led them to leave that Church and to look for other ways to meet their spiritual needs, chief among them the need for transcendence. Rather than do the hard work required by authentic spirituality, our lack of tolerance for delayed gratification has led us instead to escapism as a spiritual narcotic. We escape into the lives of celebrities so that we might forget about how unhappy we are in our own lives. It's a fix with a very short half life, but worse than that it is a fix that causes us to fashion our lives after folks with some very questionable judgment.
Unless of course, you have a 13 year old daughter and would be willing to invite Roman Polanski to stay at your home with her while you go on vacation...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
