Reflections on Bonhoeffer

For the writing I have been doing on the Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes for Lenten Sundays, I have been reading the biography of him by Eric Metaxas. I am learning stuff I never knew about the 1930s in Germany and re-learning things I had long ago forgotten. Three issues have struck me.

1. Size of Germany- and how quickly Hitler took over. Literally a few months and he already had his storm troopers (SA and SS) ready to take over for the regular army. He was elected on January 31. Less than a month later, February 27 the Reichstag (Parliament) was destroyed in a fire, most likely instigated by the Nazis, though blamed on the communists. Within months of his election Hitler had managed to intimidate, legislate, and coerce the end of democracy in Germany with little to no opposition. We forget that Germany is about the size of our states of Montana or New Mexico. Consolidation of power was easier than say it would be in a country as spread out and diverse as the United States. Fortunately!

2. Taking over the church was part of the plan. It was already a state church when Hitler came to power. He hated the church and religion and was determined to co-opt and destroy it. The Deutsche Kristens (German Christians) movement sought to make it a Reichskirche, a Nazi religion. The almost succeeded but the Nazis were too open about their "theology" and its Nazi ideology. Instead, the overall German Evangelical Church (Lutheran) continued as the state church and was marginalized.

3. The ineffectiveness of the church in being the church. As a Christian, former pastor, religious individual, this was one more bit of data to add to what I have often seen. In general, the church as we know it has very little effect against such powerful odds. One reason is that it is easy to co-opt the church. One does not have to live in Nazi Germany to see this. Church historian Martin Marty named it "Civil Religion" in the United States. We see it every time we say or believe that we as a nation have a special place in God's favor. It is a mixing of patriotism, nationalism, and Christianity. It easily divides Christians along political and ideological lines and shoehorns theology into whatever we want it to say.

People like Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoeller worked at resistance and changing the way things were going. They did not succeed. They were steamrollered out of the way, co-opted by the Nazis and their supporters in the church. They became the "heretics" while those who were twisting Christian theology into Nazi propaganda were the official guardians of "correct theology." They were marginalized by laws making it illegal to be anything but a member of the official state church.

I am glad we have never had a state church in the United States. The general term "Christian" has often been seen unofficially as that. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have acted that way. I hope we can manage to keep from allowing religion and state to become mixed up.

But there will be more thoughts on that in some of the upcoming Lenten Sunday posts. Back to my reading. I'll keep you informed.

Pictures of a Great Country

These two pictures describe the kind of country I am proud to live in. They are from a hospital that is part of the Catholic Healthcare System.

The first celebrates the holiday season.

Wishing "Happy Holidays" does not 

constitute a war on Christmas.

The second expands on religious tolerance as a core value 

and being considerate of our neighbors.

Being Picky

As I have admitted before, I can be quite picky and "snarky" about things that don't make sense to me, especially when those things are posted in a public place for others to see. Sadly, these things are usually put up to be "cute" or "funny" or "attention getting." Many of these, because of my own predilection toward things religious, are found on church outdoor signs.

It happened again last week. Driving along, minding my own business, a church sign told me that

Food for the soul doesn't use any calories.

First reaction: Silly.
Second reaction: There's something wrong with that.

It was a few days later that I realized what I felt was "wrong" about that. I am assuming that the quote was meant to imply that partaking of "food for the soul" was safe for those watching their weight. There are no calories there. So, come on in and have some "food for the soul." [I noted that they did not use "soul food", so I won't either.]

Well, right there was the misquote of the sign- food doesn't USE calories, it provides them!

What the sign was saying is that "food for the soul" uses no calories- it isn't work and takes no energy to accomplish.

Maybe "food for the soul" provides calories for the soul.
Maybe "food for the soul" gives us spiritual energy.
Maybe "food for the soul" offers nutrition we need to grow in our spirit.

But now I'm being as "cutesy" as the sign was.

But, again, the sign worked. It got my attention.

Why am I so gullible?  :)

Yes, This Can Be Persecution

We hear it regularly on the conservative news and religious shows. Christians in the US are being persecuted. Things like the War on Christmas prove it. I have often said that we are cheapening the real suffering of Christians who are being persecuted around the world when we liken what is often called persecution here with what they are going through. Freedom of religion is not persecution, it is allowing each religion to stand on its own.

Well, I came across an article the other day that puts it from the liberal Christian perspective, arguing that the persecution is really against the liberal or progressive Christian viewpoint. (Link.) Here is what I call the "money quote" explaining the situation.

there are two different types of Christianity. One is a movement of people who want to live and be like Jesus. The other (and far more common, far more powerful) is a civil and political religion that is simply named Christianity.
--link

I don't know whether persecution is the word for what he is describing, but it sure is a reflection on reality. The idea of a "civil religion" is not new. Theologian and historian Martin Marty has been describing this for years. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called at least part of it "cheap grace" during World War II.We might call it the "marriage of church and state" or "Imperial Christianity."

Whatever it is, it boils down to the reduction of Christian discipleship to being a "Good and Patriotic Citizen." It happens when we equate any human nation with God's Kingdom. (Even Israel! Don't forget that the prophets could be as critical of their nation as anyone!) Civil religion is not comfortable with dissent although democracy allows for it. Civil religion often demonizes the opposition since only demonic forces would dare to dissent from God's way, (i.e. "my" way!)

I believe as firmly today as I did 40 years ago (probably more so) that the People of God will never be comfortable to any human state. We will often if not always challenge the nation to be more faithful knowing that the nation-state is not God. We will always be calling ourselves, our fellow Christians, our country and all people to be followers of the Prince of Peace.

When the Religion Ruled the Land

Sitting and pondering ideas the other day I came across one of those intriguing trivial items. On on HistoryOrb's This date page for February 28, I saw this:

1646 - Roger Scott was tried in Mass for sleeping in church

Needless to say that piqued my imagination so I went digging and found an article, Colonial Crimes and Punishment at History.org that looks at some of the colonial era laws. To think of this as early democracy is an interesting exercise in stretching ones imagination.

The English-American colonies were autocratic and theocratic, with a patriarchal system of justice: magistrates and religious leaders, sometimes one and the same, made the laws, and the burden of obeying them fell on the less exalted—the tradesmen, soldiers, farmers, servants, slaves, and the young. That burden could be weighty.

Sometimes, as we look at our American history through the rose-colored glasses of the ideals of the revolutionary era leaders, we forget that democracy is not as we think it was. The early settlers for the most part were not looking to set up freedom for all. They just wanted THEIR freedom and limiting other people who disagreed with them. Many of the laws were theologically based- and often discriminatory and harsh, especially on those of the lower classes.

In the Puritan north a religious message leaps out from almost every page of the early criminal codes. Sin, of course, existed in the eyes of the beholders, and the eyes were everywhere—as you might expect in small, inbred communities. Consider the scrutiny given to observance of the Sabbath. The law usually required churchgoing, and someone was always checking attendance. In early Virginia, every minister was entitled to appoint four men in his fort or settlement to inform on religious scofflaws.

I caught that little phrase above about "small, inbred communities." We forget that these early colonial towns and villages were closed. What we call the great American ideals were not even part of the picture. This was a primitive civilization living on the frontier. That's where the following can happen:

In the early seventeenth century, Boston's Roger Scott was picked up for "repeated sleeping on the Lord's Day" and sentenced to be severely whipped for "striking the person who waked him from his godless slumber."

Colonial strictures on deportment in the pews long applied, even to children, such as in 1758 when young Abiel Wood of Plymouth was hauled before the court for "irreverently behaving himself by chalking the back of one Hezekiah Purrington, Jr., with Chalk, playing and recreating himself in the time of publick worship."

In l668 in Salem, Massachusetts, John Smith and the wife of John Kitchin were fined "for frequent absenting themselves from the public worship of God on the Lord's days." In l682 in Maine it cost Andrew Searle five shillings merely for "wandering from place to place" instead of "frequenting the publique worship of god."

Oh, for the good old days.

Not.

The churches would be filled on Sunday, but I'm not sure we would be any more faithful to the ways of God. We would just learn how to put on the masks more completely.

Maybe "Free" Speech Isn't "Free?"

I have always been taught that freedom of any kind also brings with it responsibility. The old adage that free speech does not cover yelling fire in a crowded theater. That has naturally come to mind a number of times in the past few weeks with the terrorist attack in Paris and all that occurred after it.

The question really arose most clearly when the first edition of Charlie Hebdo after the attack published another cartoon of Mohammed. I gather there were all kinds of rationalizations and justifications for the publication. Many of those were highly philosophical discussions that make sense in some western thinking process. There is also the very basic of freedom of speech. But the magazine knew that the publication of another cartoon would raise the possibility (and high probability) of problems. They published it anyway.

Is this the same as yelling fire? Were the editors being irresponsible and putting innocent lives in jeopardy? Sure it is part of our western ethos (though not always practiced) that freedom of speech is important, but at what cost?

When we are dealing with a different cultural understanding in a time and place of war and danger is it a good idea to inflame the situation putting our values on a people who don't share those values?

They are not easily answered questions, I know, but as our world gets smaller and the great diversity more easily accessed, we need to be looking at them as important questions. We Westerners have often been guilty of cultural imperialism, ignoring and even denigrating other cultures. A certain humility needs to be at work here.

Yes, I know this can feel like censorship. Is it censorship, though, when I decide that I don't need to be as inflammatory as I can because I can care about others? Is it censorship when I find better and less inflammatory ways to say what I want to say?

Those, too, are important questions that can make the difference between life and death for innocent people.

Third Sunday in Advent: Believing While Waiting and Not Knowing You're Waiting

In a discussion about faith, religion, spirituality and the like the other evening a moment of insight came to me.

I have never been an agnostic.

Even when I didn't know what I believed, or how it all fit together; even when I was unchurched, semi-churched, irreligious or non-religious, I never doubted the existence of "God." My understanding of "God" has undergone more than my share of transitions, revisions, revolutions and revelations. The breadth and depth of my understanding of God has changed drastically over the years and I know far, far, FAR less about God today than when I was younger. At the same time I am far, far, FAR more convinced of God's presence, grace, love and all those other words I have been posting daily in my picture devotional.

What I came to think about in that discussion on Friday evening was "waiting," which is what Advent is all about. Waiting- and being accepting of where I am at in any given moment of my faith journey. Pilgrimage is how I name it- my movement through my days seeking, in each day, the signs and grace of God. Waiting is not "inaction," which is how we often think of it. Waiting is actively moving forward in the direction of grace. Waiting is knowing that if I am honest I can admit that I don't know all that I need to know.

Waiting is finally realizing that if I ever get to the point where I really, totally, completely understand and can explain God- I have gone off the path- or I have died. Even then I have a hunch that I won't know it all or have all the answers- they just won't  matter any more.

So perhaps I should stop worrying about finding "the answers" now and instead learn to live in the presence and the grace. Yes, we are in the Advent season when waiting is uplifted. But in the waiting, we are still active in God's world. The pictures I have been posting at times have attempted to illustrate that.

The Holy Spirit is still hovering over the depths of the earth whether those are the depths of the oceans or the depths of our human souls. The Holy Spirit continues to inform our waiting and perhaps even illuminate us more deeply.

It was in God's time (Greek- kairos) that Jesus came. It is always in God's kairos, far different from our chronological time, that God gives us the next part of our understanding.

So let's wait and watch and live what we already know.

Grace.

Completely Orthodox

She's a "company person." She gives the free food with no strings attached and then has the prayer service. She is part of the church alive in St. Paul. Here's a report from Religion and Ethics Newsweekly:

5 1/2 Objects

Just finished an interesting book- A History of Religion in 5½ Objects: Bringing the Spiritual to Its Senses by S. Brent Plate. It is a look at five "material" objects that can, in some ways, mirror the growth of religion in humans. The five are:

• stones
• incense
• drums
• crosses
• bread

From the description on the publisher, Beacon Press's website:

We learn why incense is used by Hindus at a celebration of the goddess Durga in Banaras, by Muslims at a wedding ceremony in West Africa, and by Roman Catholics at a Mass in upstate New York. Crosses are key not only to Christianity but to many Native American traditions; in the symbolic mythology of Peru’s Misminay community, cruciform imagery stands for the general outlay of the cosmos. And stones, in the form of cairns, grave markers, and monuments, are connected with places of memory across the world.

A History of Religion in 5 1/2 Objects is a celebration of the materiality of religious life. Plate moves our understanding of religion away from the current obsessions with God, fundamentalism, and science—and toward the rich depths of this world, this body, these things. Religion, it turns out, has as much to do with our bodies as our beliefs. Maybe even more.

I found it an intriguing and more than interesting read. The author is a professor of religious studies but has aimed at ways religion is also expressed in material ways. It is not a far-fetched premise. These five material objects have had many religious uses, but, at heart they are ways we make our faith real, tangible, touchable, and present in and around us. It is not a popularizing of the history of religion, but it is readable.

For me the chapters on drums and bread were the most intriguing but I discovered how rich in material- and sensuousness- religion truly is.

Oh, yes, the 1/2 object is the one that fulfills and ties these together- the soul.

The Real Issue with the Hobby Lobby Decision

As usual details get in the way. We get mixed up on the highly visible and miss out on the crux of the matter.

Reading Facebook and many other first reaction posts to the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision you would think that the decision was about abortion. Many people on the pro-Hobby Lobby side made the very good breakdown that Hobby Lobby was not, for whatever reasons, NOT unwilling to pay for birth control, per se. It was not wanting to support certain contraceptive methods that many feel are abortion-related. So, in essence, that makes it sound like abortion is the issue.

On the other side many took issue with the supposed right of a company to a) be treated like a person with freedom of religion rights and/or b) have the right to make medical decisions based on these religious freedoms for others, specifically, women.

These, too have valid points.

But lost in the abortion/contraceptive frenzy was perhaps the most dangerous part of the decision. It is one of basing many kinds of decisions on religious grounds and whether these are good things. The list of "what-ifs" and hypothetical situations could fill up many blog posts. Does this mean, for example:

• Now Christian Scientist parents can legally refuse, on religious grounds, medical treatment for their children, even if it means saving their lives.
• Now the right of religious parents to refuse vaccinations for their children and the public schools may not be able to keep those children from attending.
• And of course, now, small, closely-held family-owned companies can refuse to pay for vaccinations or even medical treatment itself, on sincere religiously held beliefs.

I will admit that I raise these without deeply studying the decision and its broad and narrow interpretations. They are simply the places we might find ourselves on an always slippery slope.

I also will readily admit that there are many slippery slopes on both sides of the argument. That is the problem with any such controversial decision. If there were not a myriad of possible dangers the decisions wouldn't be controversial. The question underlying some of this is, as I discussed a few weeks ago, the issue of conscientious objection. In this case, objecting to being required to do something that goes against your principles.

I continue to be a supporter of the ideal and philosophy of conscientious objection. But, there may be times when

• saving or promoting life legally trumps such conscientious objection or
• you must be willing to pay the consequences if such objection is not upheld.

There is also the other issue- having a corporation, even a closely-held, family-owned corporation- be able to impose a religious belief on its employees. Sure there are extremes that are always possible- making an employee attend a church or prayer meeting or something clearly coercive. While someone may try that (there are enough kooks in the world!) it won't go very far. (I hope.)

Add to that what amounts to the personification of organizations that has been going on for a period of time. Is it really true that corporations have the same rights as people? Is it really the case that corporations can be treated like individuals? That makes no sense to me. Even with a closely held company like Hobby Lobby it is not- and cannot be held in many ways to the same standards as we hold individuals. Yet they have increasingly been getting the same rights.

Finally, and here for me may be the most blinded-by-privilege understanding:

Would we agree with this decision if it had been brought by a Muslim-owned firm?

Many would be screaming persecution and prejudice at a moment's notice. In spite of what some may believe, the freedom of religion DOES apply to Muslims and Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.

Back when the Supreme Court outlawed sanctioned prayer in the public schools, I believe it was someone like Martin Marty, professor and wise man of the history of religion in America, who wondered aloud what might happen if a Christian child living in an area where some non-traditional religion was in political control, were forced to pray a different kind of prayer? "Whose prayer?" was the question he asked.

In any case, I am not attempting to answer these questions. They are simply a few of the thoughts that the Hobby Lobby case brought to mind. One of the real difficulties of freedom of religion (and religious conscience) is that we all have a different interpretation of what that might mean. As long as the decision is one that agrees with OUR beliefs, we support it. But religious conscience is tricky- since it is based on "theology" of some kind that is, believe it or not, ever changing.

Membership... More Privileges

I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.
--C S Lewis

After writing an earlier post on membership and the church, I came across the above quote from C. S. Lewis. It sure sums up the gist of that post.

At least about the church.

Which brings up, again and again the way we all as Christ-followers are selective in our understanding of what it all means. It should come as no surprise that I lean strongly toward the "social Gospel." I believe Jesus was as much a political revolutionary as he was a spiritual one. In fact, considering his time, place, and culture, for him to be anything BUT politically revolutionary would have been a surprise.

But political radicalism of his sort- rooting for the underdogs, the preferential option for the poor (!)- never makes it as an institutional orientation. It will be co-opted as a foundation by the very fact of gaining power. (Power corrupts, etc.)

Back to C. S. Lewis, then.

I’m sure I read all this differently from Lewis, but we seem to come to the same conclusion- as a religion, Christianity is difficult to live with and be comfortable with. From my perspective, Jesus’ call to his followers is one of great responsibility. Not in order to gain salvation, but to make a difference. Grace, at the heart of Christian faith, is tough to accept. It makes us all equal. It says we are all OK in the presence of God because that God simply accepts us as we are.

While that may sound like Good News, we often don’t want to hear that. To find out I’m no better than some common criminal is not offset by the fact that I am no worse than the most righteous saint. If grace is for all, then my efforts are for naught. If grace is easily handed out by this prodigal, wasteful God, then what good is it to be good?

Perhaps in the end we are afraid that if we aren’t scared into good behavior by fear of punishment, we won’t be good. Maybe we are convinced that this great sinner inside each of us (and don’t kid yourself, we all know he or she is there) will one day break loose and wreak havoc on our lives and those around us. Maybe we know we are powerless in the face of the power of God and we just don’t want to admit that.

I know. I am not dealing with the question of the church and church membership. What I am doing so far is tearing apart all the spiritual benefits of church membership. If membership has its privileges, they are not found in some pie in the sky bye and bye nor are they found in being better or more righteous than those outside the church.

In order to get there, however, I have to tear myself away from my myths and wishful dreams and to the heart of the Christian faith, as I understand it. What that has to do or say to the church is still rattling around in my head. It isn’t falling into place yet. I have wrestled so much and so often over the past 40 years with the institution that I really have needed to get down to the basics first.

Which is where I will leave it for today. I have not been able to break away from the church (or The Church.) Both continue to pursue me. The Hound of Heaven in my life is not the Lord, but his Body. It is a magnet with an almost irresistible force pulling at me. I am convinced that the organization we call the church is a very poor representation of The Church. Our human inclination to power and the corrupting use of power has hurt us more than it has helped us.

The church, as we know it, has undergone an almost indescribable transition in the 40 years since my ordination. It is not, on almost any level, the church of my youth or of my early ministry. I am not expecting to get great and wondrous answers from all my ponderings, praying and meditating. All I want to do is remain faithful to my call. No, not the call to the “ordained” pastorate, but the deep and profound call to be a follower of Jesus and engage in his work.

Someday I will expound more on that as it flows from the quote on the right sidebar there:

Some want to live
within the sound
of church or chapel bell;
I want to run
a rescue shop
within a yard of hell.
-- C. T. Studd

But for now, let’s agree to keep praying and being as faithful as we each can be.

THE Quote of the Decade

Nineteen words.

Simplicity in words; simplicity in sentiment.
Simplicity in its down-to-earth colloquialism.

Yet, in that Franciscan simplicity may be a short, sweet start to a seismic shift.

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Pope Francis

It may even be the quote of the 21st Century so far.

Grassroots Religion

Nora Gallagher is a wise and spiritual writer. She has a way of exposing and celebrating the depth of life that is possible with God as part of what you experience every day. In her most recent book, Moonlight Sonata at the Mayo Clinic, she talks about what happened when her alcoholic father got sober. She describes what happened when he and his AA friends would come to their house:

They talked freely and openly about falling down drunk, about lying in the ditch, and about running out of any other option besides this Higher Power. If you had fallen off the edge, I understood finally, you could talk about God. Their stories were "grassroots religion..." (p. 14)

So simple, yet so true. The stories of recovering alcoholics and addicts perhaps come the closest to miracle stories of our day. There's nothing mysterious about them until you try to explain them; there's nothing unusual about them other than their straightforward honesty.

What would happen if we tried this in church. No, really try it, not as an experiment, or a time of witness and testimony in the rest of the ritual. What if this was THE ritual? What if the down-to-earth honesty were the rule and not the exception? What if religion was "grassroots" rooted?

The miracle stories of the Bible might begin to make sense in the 21st Century as reality and truth, rather than challenges to scientific theory. The passion of the early disciples might be the passion we feel within us. The desire to live and share might take on new dimensions in seeing "attraction rather than promotion." Our community of faith might begin to live by "principles rather than personalities."

Sure I'm an idealist. But without such a vision and hope we won't get anywhere.

Grassroots religion for the 21st Century.

Looking for News In All the Wrong Places?

I went looking for "religious" news on Yahoo! this morning. There were a lot of little things about what Pope Francis did or said. There were some analysis pieces about the waning impact of the Catholic Church in state legislatures on the issue of gay marriage.

I decided to do some more surfing and was able to find the average and the not so average. I discovered that the news is pretty much the same in religion as  in politics. The stories can be irrelevant outside of a small circle of friends or potentially dramatic. Sometimes it may even be in the same story.

Over at the Huffington Post there were some opinion pieces and such. One headline was both a surprise and an "Of Course!"

Muslim and Jewish Leaders Unite to Combat Hatred

Religion New Service had it's headline story:

Cancer diagnosis gives second life to Carman’s music career
(RNS)-Once one of the biggest names in Christian music, Carman had been rejected by every Christian music label in the last 12 or 13 years. It was only after he went public about his terminal illness that the 57-year-old singer-songwriter discovered he still had an audience.

Worldwide Religious News had the following headline links on their homepage. They are perhaps the best example of the important, the disturbing and the "who cares!":

• Americans see religion in decline yet want more of it. What's up with that?
• Southern Baptists Move To Cut Ties With Boy Scouts Of America Over Inclusion Of Gay Scouts
• Myanmar Mosque, Muslim Orphanage Burned After Alleged Immolation Of Buddhist Woman
• 'Japanese Jesus' Legend: Christ Escaped Jerusalem, Lived In Japan With Family As Rice Farmer
• Italian professor says has found world’s oldest complete Torah in Bologna

A number of places, of course, had the news of author Fr. Andrew Greeley's death.

But arguably the biggest piece I found anywhere was this one:

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America [ELCA] elected its first openly gay bishop to a six-year term on Friday at an annual assembly in Southern California, officials said.

The election of Rev. Dr. R. Guy Erwin comes after the church's controversial rule change in 2009 that allowed gays and lesbians to be ordained in the nation's largest Lutheran denomination.

From a very basic, cultural perspective this barely ranks a note when compared to state legislatures (Way to go, Minnesota!) and their advancement of Gay marriage. It will be ten years next week since the Episcopal Church elected Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. As most religion news headlines show, the "news" of religion is not all that high on the exciting scale. This one seems like news that only the family would care about.

While I don't think it is earth-shattering, I do believe it shows the direction of our society toward more openness and a shift among at least some religiously-inclined individuals in the same direction.

My small denomination is wrestling with the ordination of gay individuals prior to the next national meetings in a year. The connection with this story is also that my denomination has "full communion" with both the Episcopal Church and the ELCA. So for our leadership the question is on the agenda: What if a "legally" ordained gay person from either of these other churches wanted to become a pastor in our denomination?

[Side note disclaimer: In retirement my wife and I are now members of an Episcopal Church.]

No, that is not tsunami-generating movement, either. But I think it illustrates how some of these issues move forward like they do- a little bit at a time- with a lot more connections than we realize. In the great scheme of the Christian timeline the approval of the ordination of women is more like a few moments ago- the early- to mid-70s in the mainline denominations. I graduated with, and was ordained only a few months before our first ordained woman pastor. Forty years is only 2% of Christian history. Yet it was in that movement that the movement to accept and ordain Gay individuals took root.

Each start as small movements. Not the kind that at first make news. But that is how change works. While there re the "black swans" that shatter all preconceptions and make us shift, long-term social change works much more slowly than that. Christianity itself was not a legal religion for 300 years. That's 15% of its history. But it was the slow movement, the incrementally small changes that brought about significant, cultural shifts.

That's why it is important not to be blinded by the big stories. They may tell us a lot about where we are, but it isn't very often they can tell us with any certainty about where we are going.

You Can't be Both?

I vaguely remember seeing this bumper sticker before, but today, for some reason, it struck a chord:

You Can't Be Both Christian and pro-Choice.

I beg to differ, of course, or I wouldn't be writing about it. I am not sure that the bumper sticker represents a good, solid biblical view.

So, first with tongue in cheek, I will think about some of the things that the Bible would tell us we can't be (or have) and still be followers of Jesus. How about:
You can't be both Christian and

• have tattoos
• wear cotton/wool/polyester blends
• swear falsely
• want what others have
• play/watch sports on the Sabbath
• work on Saturday (the real Sabbath)
• be a women with your head uncovered in church
• be divorced

Or perhaps a cultural one from some branches of the Lutheran Church and others,

• You can't be a Christian and worship with others who are not Christian or are not the same brand of Christian as you are.

But instead of being only snarky in this post how about some of the ideas I would add to the list from my reading of the Bible:

You can't be a Christian and

• be for capital punishment
• think war is a good idea
• be willing to let children live in poverty
• ignore your neighbor in need
• believe the rich deserve special treatment
• believe the poor don't deserve special treatment.

Well, obviously many Christians (and other religious people) can and do believe these things, even the ones I listed that are MY beliefs. For any one branch of Christianity to believe that they have THE answer is a hubris beyond imagination and a grandiosity that begs for forgiveness. None of us has the answers. Yes, being a Christian is about a lifestyle and not a set of doctrines. As far as I can tell it in my own imperfect way, the only thing we can probably truly say with any human certainty is

You can't be a Christian and NOT believe that Jesus is Lord.

All else is interpretation.

The Positives of Religion

Surprisingly about 10 days ago LiveScience.com had a post entitled: 8 Ways Religion Impacts You Life. (Link.) It starts out at # 8 with

• Helps You Resist Junk Food

then goes on to #7

• ...But could make you fat.

It then can

• Put a smile on your face
• Raise your self-esteem if you live in the right place
• Soothes anxiety
• Protects against depressive symptoms
• Motivates Doctor visits

and #1

• Lowers Your Blood Pressure

The comments then go on to disagree, be surprised at the fact that a science site was posting this, commenting on how depressing and depressed many religious people are, etc. Atheists comment that they have positive self-esteem, etc. One particular comment noted that most of what these "positives" are is being part of a supportive social network or community. None of them sound like anything that "religion" has that you can't find elsewhere.

Naturally, a science site wouldn't be able to point to the non-scientific ideas, like connecting us with a "Higher Power", being part of something meaningful and hopeful, or motivating us to help others and give back to our communities and world. Those would be harder to prove scientifically, BUT, they could also accomplish the positive "symptoms" listed above.

Religion as such, I don't believe, gives us those things. Nor does being non-religious keep us from those things. We are talking deeper, more profound than junk food and healthy blood pressure. We're talking about living a meaning filled life.

That is hard to place on a scientific scale.

Absolutely Uncertain

For lots of reasons I have spent time recently thinking about "absolutes" in faith and religion. Some, of course, is the ongoing insanity I see in the conservative -vs- liberal views of things. Some has to do with people I meet, see, or read about who are so fanatically certain that their way is THE WAY. I have to admit that I have trouble with that and don't completely understand these absolute positions.

Especially the smaller the group size and the more rigid they become in absolute stands. Pick your group, but when a single church in a single town believes it has the only right answer that everyone else everywhere is missing out on, I cringe. It makes no sense. Absolutely. When they begin to think that "No one, NO ONE EVER in all of history, has ever had the correct insight that I have now been uniquely given," I want to run the other way.

That is not as extreme as it sounds. Listen to some of the preachers of all different religious persuasions. Listen to religious-based politicians (and others). Listen to any ideologue. It is a natural extreme of their position.

What happens is they pick and choose a particular set of interpretations of belief and then they place all eternal and universal authority on that opinion. Is it that we have this human nature that has to believe that MY WAY is the ONLY WAY and if we are not 100% right on all aspects of what we say and believe then everything falls apart? We have an inability, I am afraid, to accept paradox. We have an inability to be open to the possibility that we may have only a part of the picture. We have a need to universalize our experiences and cultural norms.

I just needed to get that out of the way this early in the 2012 election cycle. I know I don't have all the answers. I know my interpretations are not the final word. All I do know is that this has been my experience. Maybe if we can continue to work on opening ourselves to greater experiences, things might begin to go better for more in our world.

And if you don't agree with me, you are obviously wrong.

From Both Sides

I noticed earlier last week that a You Tube video had gone viral and was getting linked by people on both the liberal and conservative side of the faith. It is this rap poetry smackdown of the church titled, Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus:



Well, there must be something right about it, I thought, if both sides are linking to it.Or something wrong. So I did some thinking and digging.

When I was done watching it I first sat there and scratched my head. I sort of agreed, and I sort of disagreed- and then I wondered what all the fuss was about. In one way or another I have been hearing these same thoughts for most of the nearly 50 years I have been a Christian.

(I also realized that these same words, perhaps in a different eloquence, were also posted on the church door by Luther, and preached by Hus, and, well, you get the point.)

Usually when these words are spoken it is to clearly aim the criticism at THEM. You know who THEY are. THEY are the ones who put Church ahead of Jesus. THEM. Not US. Usually, in my awareness of these past 50 years , this critique came from the evangelicals aimed at Roman Catholics and Episcopalians and the historic mainline Protestants. You know- THEM. The ones who value the church and tradition above Jesus.

Unlike US.

I did some more surfing and found some expected push back on the Internet from different positions but basically taking issue with
1) The smackdown of the church and
2) The ending with the same old, same old evangelical line.

In other words, perhaps, there is nothing new under the sun, even if it is found on You Tube.

My reaction went back to where I started- in spite of its seeming newness it is nothing but a reinvention of the wheel. It is a re-channeling of the old criticism against the "establishment"-type churches ending with the "party line" that in the end what counts is not the Church but me and Jesus.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that we in the church have far too often spent far too much time and money and energy on The Institution. We have defined ministry as what is done BY US, FOR US. We have, as the rant points out wanted to be a hospital for the sick. But all we have done is foster dependence on the hospital which has turned into a hospice or, at best, a nursing home. We never seem to get better- until we leave the hospital.

Thirty years ago some of us were involved in a valuable and deeply spiritual successful renewal movement. Like most renewal movements, however, it became an institution and lost the sharpness, the excitement. One of my friends who was involved in our initial founding of our local group, developed some exciting spirituality and ministry. He began to get interested and involved in some distant (i.e. non-local) work. The more my friend gave in time and energy, the more excited became his faith. The more excited about his faith, the more ministry became important. Happiness increased. A sense of fulfillment grew. And the less involvement there was with the activities of the local movement. You know, things like Bible study, worship, fellowship activities. Things were too exciting.

Which is exactly what we all saw as the purpose of the renewal movement: to GO and BE disciples.

But many in the local movement group began to make snide remarks about my friend's decreased participation in the local activities. When someone, like me, would try to justify my friend's ministry involvement, others would smile and agree with a gentle, "Yes, but they are needed here to keep the movement strong."

So I do see the point of the beginning of the You Tube video. But the simplistic approach seen in the whole video, the way too easy US vs THEM attitude hurts more than it helps. It takes the faith to a place it cannot survive. Alone. Just me and Jesus together forever. While I am not sure that The Church is doing such a great job of its task, I also know that the individualism approach won't get very far either.

Which in the end is what disappointed me most about the video. It only brought us back to our human failing and that, I am convinced, will never get us anywhere either.

A 50-Year Memory: Coming of Age

Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are Jewish coming of age rituals. According to Jewish law, when Jewish children reach 13 years of age. ...In addition to being considered responsible for their actions from a religious perspective, B'nai mitzvah may be counted towards a prayer quorum (Hebrew: Minyan) and may lead prayer and other religious services for the community. The age of B'nai Mitzvah was selected because it roughly coincides with physical puberty. Prior to a child reaching Bar or Bat Mitzvah, the child's parents hold the responsibility for the child's adherence to Jewish law and tradition. After this age, children bear their own responsibility for Jewish ritual law, tradition, and ethics and are privileged to participate in all areas of Jewish community life.

The Bar Mitzvah ceremony involves the young man or woman being called to read the Torah, a Haftarah portion, or both at a Shabbat or other service (Thursday morning, Monday morning or a festival) when the Torah is read, and it may also involve giving a d'var Torah, a discussion of that week's Torah portion.
--Wikipedia

Now It's Scary...

Herman Cain: Communities have right to ban mosques

A presidential candidate who has the chutzpah to even think this let alone say it is scary. But that is what he said.

Why can communities do this?

Because Islam is a set of laws as well as a religion.

So is Judaism.

And to listen to many fundamentalist Christians, so is Christianity.

Can you imagine the outcry if any candidate would say that a community has the right to ban a church for these kind of reasons?

What about Freedom of Religion is lost in this?

Which brings to mind a quote (emphasis added!):

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.


Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.


Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.


Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
--Pastor Martin Niemoeller
Wiki Link

Frightening may be a better word than scary. Potentially horrific for who we claim to be as Americans.