Quandries, Questions and Qualifications About the Church

Today, our pastor had a sermon about "the spirit" and the scripture. His thrust was that by believing that god speaks through human words, we can be spiritually formed. He said that this formation was more important than the news in the newpaper, as the "old wisdom" is a higher form of "wisdom" than the "Hip" one. This is the spritualized "gospel" separated from reason that supposedly appeals to those "in need". If this spiritualized gospel is rejected, then it is asserted that those who reject it are reprobate, doomed to destruction in eternal hell fire. This attitude is not very becoming of the Church.

Tradition, reason and faith intersect in the person's experience. It is a hard row to maintain a relevant message when one's belief in a personal god, becomes impossible to believe, yet, tradition demands the obedience "of faith". Those who have sought to literalize the text, so that they can demand obedience of some standard of behavior that is socially convenient and create destruction to others in their struggles of life. If ones is struggling and does not obey these "demands" according to Scripture, then they are disobeying god, are rebellious, and need discipline and correction. Correction, inevitably means conformity to the shape of the "standard" and however that standard is understood. This is horrendously oppressive to the individual as an individual.

Yet, my pastor said that we first must learn to obey, and then seek to understand. This is the irrational faith of a leap into the dark.....because of a belief in a personal interventional god...it is the same that Job's comforters tried to have him do. While Job did not do anything wrong, as he was blameless, the comforters sought to give the reason for his suffering which pinned the guilt upon him. Job did need to learn that mystery is not found within "right behavior" and recieving "just desserts", but in life itself. As life is given and gifted.

Today's sermon left me cold, just as spirituality does. I don't want spirituality, but I do want to be human. That is what life should be about, seeking the good, as defined and lived by one's own conscience and allowing freedom of conscience to others, while allowing open doors in relationship.

I don't believe in imposing "bibilical reconstruction", or "dominion theology", as that becomes a way for the Church to dominate the discoursein the public square , and not listening to other opinions and viewpoints. Academic freedom should be what the church is about, because who should be afraid of any truth seeking endeavor? And truth should be applauded wherever it is found. The Church has not been known for this attitude historically. They have wanted to maintain the social order and control, so that society would "not fall apart". Much has to do with how one views "what god's plan is" and IF god has a plan, which is doubtful. Christians have pinned their hope on an ancient text, church tradition, and dogma. That does not bring about constructive change, if it is not relativized.

Those who adhere to this mentality do so because they feel that the Church should have power and control over others, instead of living in such a way that they are alluring. All the Church has to do is "preach the cross" and people flee, why? Because what was used in Scripture pertained to persecuted times, is used today to justify a "sectarian attitude" that ultimately does bring about persecution. And then, the Church acts smugly as if Scripture has been fulfilled and "proven" and those who have fled are deserving of the "just punishment' that God will give them in the afterlife. This is apocalyptic thinking and it is not appealing to civilized people. I don't see where the Church has done anything to add to her appeal in a free and open society and this is her demise.

A Critique of "Evil" in a Sermon

It is Easter. Many find this the time to celebrate "hope", but the pastor's sermon was on "the cross", dying, and fruitfulness. Several times he referred to "except a grain of wheat fall in the ground and die, it remains alone"....I imagine his intent was to encourage those who face "evil" that this was a way to produce fruti in one's life.

A grain falling in the ground to die is an agricultrual way to say that our lives are meant to be "given away", which is a fact of anyone's life. It is just "what is the "end" to be for one's life. That is a personal choice. But, he had ominous tones of life being taken, as Jesus' life was. Remember last Sunday's sermon was on "Stolen Identity". He encouraged us to see evil in 'spiritualized terms" of "satan" or the "devil", while suggesting that we were responsible for our sin and must not define it any other way. Nor should we rationalize what we do wrong. This was confusing to me.

I sat there thinking to myself that blaming "satan" was not "taking responsibility(as if any rational person really believes in a "real" person named Satan. I thought the Church had criticized the view of holding two equal powers as heresy, anyway.) I thought that possibly this was a way to dispel responsibility for actions that are no more than horrendously offensive. He attempted to describe war escalation. "Satan" was the way of "scape-goating" evil, and producing "solidarity" with one's "enemy, the one responsible for the "sin". It was a confusing message to me. And it sounded as if he was trying to convince himself that this all was true.

I find that whenever we set out to pre-determine another's action, response, or choice, then we are headed for disaster. And pre-determination is highly problematic morally. I was just reading "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls today. He argues that there must be a equal liberty for justice to prevail. This is what our Constitution is based upon. We value the individual's right of self-determination. "We hold these truths, to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights...." Justice and fairness is ruling by "consent of the governed". I guess these rules don't apply when it comes to 'religion"....

A Follow-up on the Cross

In conventional conservative terms of discipleship, a life "well lived" would be modeled on Jesus of Nazareth. Christians can have no other way of living, thinking or being, if they are "committed believers". What would this mean to a life based on Jesus as "moral model"?

On the "bright side", charitable service and humble submission to death itself is the standard, as his was a life lived for others. This is a good moral model, but consider this for a moment....

If one's life was gifted for leadership, would Jesus life be the moral model best suited to follow? How would it be gauged that a life was meant to be modelled after Jesus? I have seen too many intelligent, gifted people sell themselves short because of the religious conviction that Jesus was the absolute model and standard for gauging humility, service, love, faith, etc....

I believe that the scholarly debate on whether Jesus existed or not is an important one. One bases their understanding on history, and the other bases their understanding of myth. History is the area of the real world, where myth is the arena of "representations" and "ideals". Leadership is the area of historical influence and important impact for change, whereas, representations are the people who represent the ideals in character and do these historical works to bringing change in the world.

The Cross, which has represented the sacrifice of Christ, has been a universal symbol for Christians. The cross in its representative form symbolizes the costs of developing the gifts that are necessary for becoming who we are meant to be and what we are meant to do. That cannot be determined by another, but ourselves alone.