Church Escape

It has come to my attention that there is, apparently, a new reason to stay with a church that doesn’t fulfill any real need in your spiritual, emotional, religious, psychological, of family life, and that may even harm those by staying on: guilt-psychology.

One thing that churches have always made a special mission of is assistance to parishioners and community members in need. I myself have benefited from this in the past; many churches have special funds for this, or collect “deacon’s offerings” specifically for helping out families in financial trouble, and so on. It’s commendable, and biblical besides.

But the church is not a bank, and neither is it a “social service agency,” although there’s nothing wrong with it filling those roles. And the church MUST KNOW that it absolutely cannot expect anything in return when it dispenses this kind of assistance to anyone, whether they attend the church or not. When the church fails to realize this, there’s trouble. When the church expects certain things from you in return, it is no longer a church.

Admittedly, it’s natural to feel some sense of obligation to a church or anyone else who helps you out when you’re hard up. But when a church fails to meet spiritual and emotional and religious needs, one should not feel obligated to “stick it out” simply because it gave you some help at some point. And just as importantly, the church should understand that, for any number of reasons, as people grow and mature in their spirituality, in their religious needs, in Scripture, in Christ, and so on, many will find that the church they go to (and received help from) no longer meets the needs of their spirit. It goes without saying here that not all churches recognize this last observation, believing themselves to be either just as good as anyone else on the one hand, or among those churches (usually fundamentalist in some way, shape, or form) who believe that if your needs are not being met, the fault lies with YOU, and not with them.  To prevent people from leaving, these kinds of churches will go on the power/authority trip and lay on a thick layer of guilt about “everything we’ve done for you, and this is how you show your gratitude, by leaving us.”  There’s no chance to even discuss the real issues when this kind of crap comes out.

As I see it, there are two options. The first is the easiest; just say “screw it,” wash your hands of the place, and move on, no matter how many phone calls you get or requests for a “meeting.”

The second option is the more difficult, and that’s to actually try to address all the reasons why you are in the process of leaving the parish you’ve been going to. It is difficult because it requires honest introspection on your part about all the reasons why you leave a place, and you may find that some of those reasons may not be very good. It is also difficult because you are putting yourself at risk of being taken advantage of by an “expert” (like the bent-out-of-shape pastor of the church) who is trained to make people feel guilty as part of his theological and psychological vocation. He’ll have an answer for every legitimate point you make about why you are leaving, and not many of us will be able to rebut him (or her), and even if we could, they would not take the rebuttals seriously because “they KNOW they know more” than you do. Big on theology, big on doctrine, small on sense, small on sensitivity, understanding, and compassion.

It’s a sad situation. But it’s time to go for sure. And hopefully the reasons for it are clear.

Fundamentals, Conversion, and Kingdom Work

So the question is put to me, what’s so wrong with a denomination establishing criteria of doctrinal consent that are required for official ordained ministry within the denomination? It came up during a documentary that included discussion of the 5 fundamentals of early 20^th century Presbyterianism and the resulting division in the church (and which paved the way for mid-twentieth century evangelical-liberal fear of each other in general).

My answer is that there’s basically nothing wrong with doing this, so long as it is recognized that this is not a universal absolute that has to be adhered to by everyone. In other words, if the denomination recognizes that this is essentially the “membership standard” in order to be part of the club of Denomination X and not membership requirements for determining who is “Christian” and who isn’t, fine.

More specifically, some denominations (such as the PCUSA) have historically been at the forefront of “updating” the Christian mission to reflect the needs of the age it finds itself in. 100 years ago, it was science and modernity, and the 5 fundamentals reflect the issues the church was faced with in how to do Christian work. In particular, colonialism, Darwinism, historical criticism, “progress,” scientific and psychoanalytic analysis, and so on, all hallmarks of modernity, were the major issues confronting the churches, and the Fundamentals themselves were completely modernist answers to a very modernist slate of issues. Absolute certainty in religion was the mirror image of absolute certainty in science and historical factuality.

As seminaries now are very clear that their mission is no longer “conversion” to Christianity, many conservatives and fundamentalists, I think, misunderstand what is going on with current Christian training. If it is truly Christian, as I’ve written on this blog in the past, there is but one essential, and that is the confession of Christ as Lord and Master. If a church’s work and mission stems from this, it is doing Christian work, Kingdom work, as I call it. Conversion may or may not be a part of this. What is happening with Seminaries and Churches and other institutions that are in the field of Christian vocations is they are cognizant of the fact that “conversion” is virtually synonymous with Colonialism, and specifically western colonialism. It recognizes that doing Kingdom work does not mean “making everyone a Christian.” But many conservatives and fundamentalists think this is exactly what it means to save the world: convert every last person to Christianity.

God save us, no!

The Church should have standards for its own governance, and it needs ways and means and an ethic of not being of the world even while it is in it. And those should be determined through much critical thought and excruciating prayer. But our mission is not to make everyone in the world “like us.” Confessing Christ’s lordship means not turning the world into a planet of Christians, let alone Presbyterians or Baptists or Methodists or Adventists or what-have-yous. Our mission is simply to bring the Kingdom of God to places where it is needed most. And these days, I daresay that the places it is most needed is in the institutional churches themselves. Getting all caught up in absolutes and certainties and doctrines and issues of “who’s in and who’s out” distracts us from our real work: to love our neighbors as ourselves, to love God with all our heart, strength, soul, and mind, to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God; and to preach Christ crucified, using words only when necessary.

Separation of voting and communion

And now this. Rev. Jay Scott Newman of Greenville S.C. has told his parishioners that if they voted for Barack Obama, they should not come forward for communion unless they’ve gone to confession first for participating in “intrinsic evil” by voting for a candidate who was pro-choice, “lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.”

Perhaps Rev. Newman didn’t see the debates; both candidates were (are) “pro-choice,” but they also distanced themselves from the old discourse on the issue. What to do? At least here, under Scott’s logic, this was “no-choice.” Communion, or the polls. If you voted for McCain, you also voted for a “pro-choice” candidate.

The fact of the matter is that both Obama and McCain deliberately tried to distance themselves from the issue, mostly because they knew that they were in substantial agreement on it. To wit: both said they won’t use Roe vs. Wade as the yardstick for determining justice appointments. They agreed with each other in that abortions are tragedies that are best dealt with by changing American cultural standards towards sex and pregnancy in general.

Obama: I think that abortion is a very difficult issue, and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on…. This is an issue that — look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to — to reconcile the two views. But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, “We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.” Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that’s where we can find some common ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion. I think it’s always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances.

McCain: We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it’s got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who’s facing this terribly difficult decision. … But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it’s vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we’ll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we’ll help take care of it.

Abortion is a stump topic. In the past, candidates have lived (and died) on this issue with conservatives, especially evangelicals and catholics. But not a single candidate has, after being elected, even attempted to do anything about it. At least this time around it was a lot more marginal and got only about 15 or so minutes of time in one debate. By and large, I think Americans have moved on, because I think we’re coming to the realization that someone who is “pro-choice” is NOT “pro-death” or “anti-life.” I think we’re gradually realizing that the goal should be to reduce it and eliminate the need for it. I think we’re also realizing that “pro-life” ought to be a lot more encompassing than simply abortion. It should include, for example, the gulf war.

Which brings me back to Newman: The Church’s position on the War is as clear as it is on abortion. It is a moral evil and must be ended.

It is obviously difficult to really disentangle the relationship between Religion and State. But how one votes should not be determining church membership, whether one can take communion, or especially whether one will spend the rest of eternity in damnation.

Off the cuff reaction… Te Deum Laudamus!

My first reaction to the announcement that Senator John McCain called Barack Obama with his congratulations and concession was to let out a primal scream of joy. Until I realized that it’s a little after 11 pm here and the wife and kids are sleeping. So I figured I’d do it here.

I have already seen blog posts, facebook status updates, reader comments, and so on that have basically said “to hell with America, it deserves what it gets” or “God will judge us now worse than he did Israel” and the like. I find this abysmally sad. Make no mistake; Obama is not a messiah, nor is he bringing the kingdom of God. For which we can only be thankful. But to a nation that is consumed with fear, Barack Obama provides a beacon of hope. John McCain might have been able to do the same. But his campaign, intimidated by the popularity of Obama’s politics of hope over a Rovian politics of fear, could not answer appropriately.

The age of politics of fear should be over. (If that’s what you want, I refer you to James Dobson and the remnants of the Religions Right.) It may well be that President Obama is unable to deliver all of the goods. I personally feel that it is unreasonable to expect him to. But there is all the difference between “hope” and “expectation.” Obama has consistently delivered hope, not expectation. Indeed, the only expectations have come from his opponents, which is an expecation of worst-case scenarios designed to play on the fears of those who can only see their disagreements with Obama.

I have never been more proud to be an American than I am this night. I have also never been more proud to be a Christian, and an evangelical one at that.

Degrees of separation

While on my friend Pete’s blog, I stumbled across another blog that really is something else. Good stuff; here’s a sample.

Looks like he’s got a new one every day, so now I have something new to check out every morning along with my Daily Dilbert.

Emergent

Last week, while visiting our old church in New Hampshire, I was handed the church’s monthly newsletter. Like most such newsletters, it opens with a letter from the pastor. The rest of it is announcements, calendar of events and birthdays, and other newsy tidbits; I view these parts as the only parts of it that really have any value, more for keeping up with old friends than anything else. Occasionally I find something in the newsletter that needs comment. (The last time this occurred was the “voting scorecard” back in January that I wrote about here.)  This is another one of those times.

Pastor wrote this:

“As your Pastor, I am concerned with the movement called the Emergent Church. this movement is beginnign to sweep across America and its influences are beginning to seep into Christian colleges, denominations and especially church growth seminars. One idea that they promote is unity and inclusiveness matters more than anything. This is not right! Unity and inclusiveness at the expense of truth, moves you away from God. This kind of thinking is infiltrating our churches and even our denomination. We should never compromise the truth of God’s Word. The Emergent Church is bad news and many of its doctrines are pure heresy.”

He then quotes 2 Timothy to show that his spin on Emergent is actually predicted in the New Testament:

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4.3-4).

Gotta have a prooftext.

Anyhow. I might as well be blunt. Pastor’s commentary here is WAY off-base. But it is not unique; I’m sure that similar comments have been said from pulpit and in church newsletters in conservative, traditional evangelical churches nation/world-wide. And I know for a fact that these types of comments are all over Christian radio, and I actually suspect that this is the ultimate source of Pastor’s information. Certainly if he has read anything from writers or heard anything from speakers who are usually associated with Emergent, these comments could never have been said. Among critics, D. A. Carson and Chuck Colson have been the most vociferous. In this case, Pastor’s comment about Emergent’s “doctrines” verges on the ridiculous; Emergent really doesn’t have any doctrines per se beyond “Jesus Christ is Lord.” Which, as I’ve written in other posts, I think is the absolute “least-common denominator” for Christians of just about every stripe and which is justified more by our actions, behavior, and life than any belief, magic prayer, or doctrinal/credal assent or formulation. The only heresy in the doctrine that “Jesus is Lord” is in the failure to live like you mean it.

The statement that Emergent values unity and inclusiveness more than “the truth” is likewise erroneous. What Emergent recognizes is that the Gospel is to all and for all and that no one is ever excluded from the love and grace of God and Christ. And so what Emergent does is challenge those institutions, structures, and so on within the church and society that make Jesus more “in the way” than “the way.” I actually do not know exactly what Pastor means by “unity” and “inclusiveness” here. Emergent believes that diversity is a strength; we all have different gifts, we all think in different ways, and we all recognize that we bring so much of our own life histories, emotional and psychological experiences, everything in our lives that make us uniquely who we are to the church. This is an inclusive position, of course, consistent with the one “doctrine” I referred to above. Pastor’s accusation of Emergent has nothing to do with Emergent; in fact, it’s really just the old complaint of traditional evangelicalism against more liberal churches. If we don’t understand it, might as well just call it “liberal” and drag out the main complaint evangelicals have had about liberals for 60 years or more.

What Pastor is really concerned about, even though he may not realize it, is that the form of Christianity he represents and cut his teeth on and has spent a lifetime defending – traditional, 1950s style Evangelicalism – is fast disappearing and has little to offer to the 15-30 year old age bracket. And Emergent, with its challenging of structure and institutions and belief systems that are demonstrably un-Christian and un-Biblical but which have been part of institutional Christianity for decades and centuries, has to be one of the scarier things out there. But rather than categorically reject Emergent, we would like to see our evangelical brethren at least extend the hand of friendship to us, who in reality are the next (or more specifically, the fourth) generaion of Evangelicals.

The next logical step for homeschool families

Those of us who homeschool our kids through various conservative and evangelical organizations, curricula, worldview, and social networks know that we can’t be letting the liberal elite and the secular state determine our kids’ education and resulting secular enculturation. But what happens when we see those selfsame forces at work in our church? Why, homechurching of course!

Report: More Kids Being Home-Churched

Politics and Biblical Faith

Well, the time has come. I haven’t done a seriously political piece since my inaugural post. I was asked today why I support the Democratic Party and not the Republican one, and the question was basically qualified with the suggestion that “when you don’t like either candidate, vote for the Republican one” because that’s the more Christian and trustworthy party.

No. No no no no no no no no no no! I understand the sentiment; I was myself seduced by the 2000 Bush campaign’s “compassioniate conservatism” and voted for a regime that year that has proven to be anything but. I see very little that is Christian coming from the Republican party. Taken collectively as a whole, I don’t really see much of it coming from the Democratic side either.

But I do see it from individual candidates, and when the candidate in question is running for president, I am willing to take him or her as representative of their particular party. And of the two candidates remaining, I am convinced that Senator Obama exemplifies a far more biblical position on ethics, religion, and public policy than any candidate in the 2008 campaign. For me, that is why I support the Democratic party. I believe the overarching rule that guides Obama’s position on policies and issues (to the extent we’ve seen from previous writing, speeches he’s given over the last four years, and current campagining so far) is more biblical than any Republican campaign in recent memory, perhaps since Abraham Lincoln.

I do not say “more Christian.” That is deliberate. It is my studied opinion that, at least in politics, this label is more divisive than unifying. (See yesterday’s post for an example.) “Biblical” may not be any better, but this is at least something I’m willing to take a chance on.

Recently I watched the film Amazing Grace, which is the story of William Wilberforce’s career in the English parliament and in particular his crusade to end the slave trade in the British Empire. Gifted with oratory and strength of will, we see Wilberforce at the beginning of the film struggling with the decision to enter a career in politics or the ministry. Wilberforce’s erstwhile friend and future prime minister of England, William Pitt, convinces him that he can serve both God and the state by using his gifts to challenge the ethics of the empire with the ethics of the kingdom of God.

I see the Republican party as being rich in moralistic ideology, but ethically bankrupt. There is no William Wilberforce in the Republican party, or if there is, he or she has yet to reveal him or herself. Yet I do see a lot of Wilberforce in Senator Obama. While I have no idea if Obama has ever held any dreams of ordained ministry. his faith clearly informs both is private life and his public politics. I believe Senator Obama to be a model for how prophetic faith can speak to political influence, and in how political attentiveness to the Biblical tradition, shared to varying degrees by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, can help the state do a better job of aligning itself with the Kingdom of God, even though it cannot – and will never be – the Kingdom.

I contend that Obama knows this. Read his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention in Boston. Read his 2006 Call to Renewal Speech. To accuse Obama of having a distorted view of the Bible, as James Dobson does, or to outright accuse him of not being a “real” Christian, as Alan Keyes did in 2004, is to reveal how shallow the conservative understanding of Christian faith is on the one hand and knowledge of the Bible is on the other. There is more to Christian faith than simply being “born again” (which Obama is, in the authentic experience of a life-changing conversion), and there is far more than abortion or gay marriage in the Bible (in fact, the Bible is completely silent on both issues).

So, using Obama’s own 2006 speech as a basis for how his faith and how his deep understanding of biblical ethics informs and influences his life and career, what do we see? (I’m not going to single out issues; I trust you to do your own homework…) IHow about these:

“The majority of great reformers in American history were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

“And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope” (A Call to Renewal).

“But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

“If we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to “the judgments of the Lord.” Or King’s I Have a Dream speech without references to “all of God’s children.” Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.”

Finally, in my conversation earlier, it came up that the Democrats place no value in the family, and that Obama hasn’t done anything to change that perception. This is simply not true; Obama has two young children himself and supports a traditional one-parent-staying-at-home environment, as well as families having the final right to determine what is best for their children. But more than that, Obama is on record in his support of the family as the fundamental social unit that will ever be the strength of the nation, and it is one that is similarly grounded in the biblical family ethic.

“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation… But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it” — Father’s Day Speech, Apostolic Church.

I confess that I have been a fan of Obama since his Boston speech in July of 2004. I distinctly remember saying to myself “if this is what the Democratic party is about now, I’m in.” Not to say that I agree with all of Obama’s policies or even that i think he interprets individual details of the Bible the same way I do. But I do believe that his vision, like that of William Wilberforce 180 years ago, is more consistent with Biblical ethics and the Kingdom of God than the competition’s. Should the Republican party be able to trot out a Wilberforce or an Obama or another Abraham Lincoln, I will be more than willing to give the party a fair hearing. Until then, for this blogger faith and understanding lead me to break ranks with my evangelical brethren and cast my vote for the Democratic candidate for President. Barack Obama in 08.

Bonhoeffer and the Weakness of God

I’m supposed to be working on the dissertation, but I’ve gotten bogged down in some nasty German linguistics. Last night I was doing some reading designed to kind of “wind me down” and came across what I see as a prophetic comment from Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his Letters and Papers from Prison. So much for winding down. I’d love to hear some thoughts on the implications of this for the church today. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

“And we cannot be honest unless we recognise that we have to live in the world etsi deus non daretur [even if there were no God]. And this is just what we do recognise – before God! God himself compels us to recognise it. So our coming of age leads us to a true recognition of our situation before God. God would have us know that we must live as men who manage our lives without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34). The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God and with God we live without God. God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us. Matt. 8.17 makes it quite clear that Christ helps us, not by virtue of his omnipotence, but by virtue of his weakness and suffering”.

PS – Thanks Jack.

Metaphorphosis

Just came across this, in the latest Orion Magazine:

Doctrine

I love the church
of the osprey, simple
adoration, no haggling
over the body, the blood,
whether water sprinkled
from talons or immersed
in the river saves us,
whether ascension
is metaphor or literal,
because, of course,
it’s both: wings crooked,
all the angels crying out,
rising up from nests
made of sticks
and sunlight.

- Todd Davis

Indeed. It sounds like it could have come right out of Aldo Leopold or something.