THE REPENTANT FUNDAMENALIST

On Obama, Islam, and Right Wing Rage

2010-08-25T08:40:00.000-07:00

Mystified. Plain mystified. That is the only way I can describe my take on the political scene in the US these days. I have seen the country polarized before. I recall Vietnam days. Folks were polarized then. Much of it was generational. As a teenager in the late 60's and early 70's, I felt a million miles distant from my dad. What to do about the problem? My mom told me that Dad thought the problems would all go away if I was forced to get a haircut. As if the cause of the polarization in our country about the war, about civil rights, about worldview could be boiled down to hair.

That's the nature of extreme polarization. It comes down to simple solutions. The notion is one that spells out solutions to complicated problems as simple and easily implemented. Another thought associated with extreme polarization is demonization. Make a devil of those who disagree. This is common among fundamentalists. Fundamentalism thrives on the view of "us vs. them."

Hence the polarization. Currently it is fueled by the "rage in the right." We see it most clearly in the belief, supposedly held by a third of Republicans, that Obama is a Muslim. Never mind that he has a long public history as a member of a Christian denomination. Never mind that he has publicly stated that he is a Christian. Never mind his escalation of the war in Afghanistan-- a war that is clearly about killing Muslims. A war that kills both the radical and the innocent. So here I am, mystified by the crazy rhetoric.

This rage, and these accusations, demonstrate several characteristics of the fundamentalist mindset. First, there is an appeal to emotion over facts. Second, there is a xenophobia run completely amok. Finally, we can see the demonization that fuels it all. When you consider how all of this adds to the entire notion of "them vs. us" and contributes to the sense of being a righteous, picked-on remnant of the brave and true, it is easy to see how the right wing rage makes common cause with its fundamentalist cousins.

And the rest of us? Those not in the "Holy Club?" I think we watch it all and continue to be mystified. How did it all get this way?

Breaking a CHild's Will?

2010-08-14T17:18:00.000-07:00

It has been a very long time since I have had a post on this blog. I don't completely know why. I can't say, either, that I am turning over a new leaf and will be back to making regular posts. Still, this one seems to be calling for expression, so here it is.

As I have described before, on this forum and elsewhere, I am of the opinion that Christian fundamentalism tends toward family violence. I have written about the relationship between fundamentalism and intimate partner violence (spousal abuse). In fact, I have conducted a statistical study of the phenomenon. I have also written concerning fundamentalism and child abuse. What I want to discuss here is a common notion that many evangelicals and fundamentalists take as a credo when it comes to raising children: A child's will must be broken.

The notion here is that children are willful and that that willfulness is sin and tends toward more sin. It must be removed. A child's willfulness is overcome by requiring that a child ABSOLUTELY comply with the wishes of the parent. In short, the parent must win all showdowns. When I was a fundamentalist, I was also told to "tell em' once." I was to tell my kids what to do one time. If their willfulness came into play and they refused to obey, I was to "break their wills."

Breaking their wills meant much more than just delivering consequences for misbehavior. It meant that my children had to do exactly what I said. Say my child misbehaved in some way. It was not considered enough to warn my child of the consequences of misbehavior and, if he continued to misbehave, deliver the consequences and get on with life.

In contrast to facing the consequences and then defusing the situation by moving on, the situation had to be revisited until my child did EXACTLY as told. If it took 40 spankings (so I was told), so be it. The important thing is that the will is broken.

Bad choice! You see, all my children will ever have (they are now adults and it is all they still have) is their wills. How can they learn to stand strong in life when they have been cowered into submitting to everything someone else demands? I'm not saying there should be no consequences for misbehavior (no physical violence, of course), but a child's will should never be forced. S/he must understand that s/he has a choice. S/he can obey or accept the consequences. When a child is forced to bend to the will of another, the element of choice is taken away. With no choice, there can be no real moral growth. All that remains is a pathological brainwashing, perpetrated by an irresistible power.

What is worse, it is not forgotten. It all returns sooner or later. All of the anger, brokenness and fear.

So, the point of all this is simple, my friend. Don't attempt to break, or demolish the will of a child. In the end, the child will suffer and you will be the one who knows true brokenness.

Is Vermont Destined to "Turn Evangelical" After All?

2009-06-30T10:19:00.000-07:00

I came across an interesting little report in the Baptist Press written by Terry Dorsett, Director of the Green Mountain Baptist Association. Mr. Dorsett first went to Vermont as sort of a "missionary" to the heathen, or at least the unenlightened. He's a Southern Baptist. Very evangelical and all of that. He reports no SBC presence in Vermont until 1963. In the past 8 years, the number of congregations has grown from 17 to 37. In 1999, there were less than 600 Southern Baptist worshippers. In 2008? Nearly 1900.

In fact, Dorsett reports that the SBC is one of the fastest growing evangelical churches in Vermont. The E Free, Assemblies of God, and Christian and Missionary Alliance are also on top of the game. In fact, one Alliance congregation sports an average attendance of 1,ooo+ every Sunday. All of this in the state that Gallup dubbed "the least religious state in America."

Even Dorsett admits that Vermonters don't find religion particularly important in their lives. Remember, this is the place that allowed the first same-sex unions. That is a battle that Mr. Dorsett seems particularly distressed to be losing. He writes how he has personally seen several homosexuals in Vermont find freedom from that detestable sin.

One has to wonder if he has read Mel White's Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America . Many gay folks "fought that battle" with "sin" as Dorsett would call it. They fought it valiantly. In the end, however, they decided that they loved Jesus but that the Church-- always accusing and condemning-- had little to do with him.

He wraps up his "Baptist orgy" with a prediction of eventual victory for evangelical forces in Vermont. After all, he promises, "we offer them the only Hope that can change their lives." What unabashed evangelical claptrap and hubris! To think that ONLY evangelicals have hope to offer and not Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, United Church of Ch...... Oh brother! Get real!

Seems South African Reformed Church Still Can't Decide About Apartheid

2009-06-28T09:56:00.000-07:00

In 1982 the World Alliance of Reformed Churches suspended the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa (NHKA) from the global alliance for its biblical and theological support of apartheid. Of course, come might ask why it took until 1982 for that action to occur, but that is beside the point here. Now, NHKA has applied for readmission to the WARC and they have been denied.

The WARC committee dealing with such matters has stated that first NHKA must deny apartheid "fully and completely." It seems, referring to the report of the WARC visiting team, that there are "deep division[s] in the church about moving beyond apartheid."

Some NHKA theologians have expressed frustration that the church will not officially identify apartheid as "unevangelical" and "evil." The topic was on the agenda of the NHKA 2007 General Synod for discussion, but it was too much of a hot potato to make it to the floor.

Now, we could be quick to condemn all of this. We surely could. And maybe rightly so. But, is it much different than the disenfranchisement of gay folks or folks who seem to come from the theological "left field" that cannot get a hearing in our churches? Perhaps NHKA is afraid of the skeletons of racism that still festers in its ranks. Perhaps we are xenophobic and homophobic. One thing is certain. You can't heal hate and fear by sweeping them under the carpet. They are only healed by bringing them out in the light of day.

Why did it take the WARC ( a body to which my denomination belongs) until 1982 to censor a member communion for hate? Is right, right, only when it is popular and politically correct and expedient?

PCUSA Still Trying to Find a Way to Gain Acceptance for Gay Clergy

2009-06-22T09:31:00.000-07:00

As a long time member of the denominational church scene, I have observed two trends that are true-- at least in the world(s) I move (have moved) in. These trends are as follows:

Clergy are generally more theologically progressive than the laity (I speak as one of the club-- the progressive clergy club).
Church judicatories (i.e. general assemblies, synods, presbyteries, and church boards/sessions) follow a declining line of "liberal thought and practice"-- generally in the order listed.

All of this brings me to the third attempt in the last 12 years to see the PSUSA's position concerning "fidelity and chastity," a position that explicitly bars gay clergy, or at least gay clergy engaging in homosexual practice, from ordination and ordained ministry.

The move to rescind the church directive passed the PCUSA General Assembly, but required a vote of at least 87 of its 173 presbyteries to become policy. The move garnered only 69 presbyterial votes.

Terry Schlossberg of the conservative Presbyterian Coalition hailed the vote as a victory for Mom, apple pie, and God Almighty. He states: "It is well past time to acknowledge that the church today, as through history, knows her mind on this matter, and that is the mind of Christ."

But, hold on Terry! I'm not so sure. Twenty-eight presbyteries changed their vote from "no" to "yes" since the 2001 vote, while only 2 presbyteries seem to have caught the "mind of Christ on this one," going from "yes" to "no" (strangely including San Francisco Presbytery).

So, what will happen in the continuing saga of the PCUSA and gay clergy? Stalemate? Will all the anti gay folks just leave (they are hemorrhaging members)? Will the "pro gay folks get fed up and leave?" Or will they all find some common ground? Time will tell.

Why Big Folks Have Trouble Remembering Stuff About Being Little Folks (But Why it Still Causes Them Problems)

2009-06-10T16:41:00.000-07:00

What do you recall about your childhood? I don’t remember much about mine. Snatches of this, hints of that. I am fifty-two. My sister is a year and a half older. When we talk about “those magical childhood days,” we often find that we remember them quite differently (including who was Mom’s favorite). Who’s right? Seems to me that I am. She always pulls the “age card.” “You’re too young to remember.” It can really make me angry. Problem is, she is probably right—at least in some cases. Childhood memory is a bit of a mystery, or maybe I should say, forgetting of childhood events is the real mystery.

There is a name for this forgetting phenomenon. It is usually termed childhood amnesia. It appears to be a robust effect that is well established [J.M. Fitzgerald, A Developmental Account of Early Childhood Amnesia. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152(2)]. It appears that the period of childhood amnesia extends from birth to age three or four—sometimes its can even extend to age 6 or 7. Referring to that time period at a later age, children and adults do show the “snatches” of memory that I have experienced, but they seem to take all of the “snatches” and “snippets” and form a “conglomerate memory” blending many things together and embellishing and subtracting from actual events— as adults present at the time of the original event occurrence can attest.

Newcombe et al [Remembering Early Childhood: How Much, How, and Why or (Why Not). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(2)] affirm that the phenomenon of Childhood amnesia is real, but that people continue to be able to recall parts of their lives from age two to five, however in much less detail and accuracy than from later periods. Implicit memories may be present, even if explicit ones are not. As we shall see, this may have some relevance for emotional content of memory, even if facts are sketchy. Lastly, Newcombe et al conclude that the autobiographical content of early memories may be missing. I would add that, even if they seem to be present, they might not be veridical.

Now, in the midst of this, I must hasten to say that research has continued to strengthen the case for a reasonably robust memory in toddlers. It seems to persist for days or weeks. So, that being the case, and taking, say age five as the “memory pick up point,” we are left with a mystery attested to by Eacott [Memory for the Events of Early Childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(2)]. There have been many answers proposed from many theoretical perspectives to explain the “great forgetting.” Nevertheless, as of yet, no truly satisfactory consensus has been reached. One might say it is a mystery.

At any rate, I have been pondering a few real (shall we say “cult??”) classics from the late 60’s and early 70’s, namely Berne’s, Games People Play, Harris’, I’m OK- You’re OK, and Steiner’s, Scripts People Live. As I’m sure the fifty-ish+ crowd will recall, these are all classics of transactional analysis. Harris offered the most “pop view.” The others were more serious attempts. Of course, TA didn’t just “die out” in 1972 or so (just search the web!). It has long ago outgrown its moniker as a “pop psychology”—see for example TA for Today: A New Introduction to Transactional Analysis by Stewart and Joines, 1987, Lifespace Publishing. I think TA offers some useful insights here.
The basic notion is that we all have an inner Parent, Child, and Adult. The Parent sounds and does just like our parents. And it offers the same injunctions—don’t’s, but of course we are offered plenty of do’s as well. The Parent includes other parenting figures as well. Of course the Parent isn’t necessarily BAD. If that were the case, there would be little hope of socialization, and we might all be a bunch of criminals. However, the Parent can offer up a hefty dose of guilt and pain and leave us feeling not “good enough.” The Adult in each of us takes in the data from our world, the data from the Parent, and the data from our either quilt ridden or more free wheeling Child and tries to make sense of the world—deciding which data is correct and which is unhelpful or simply wrong.

As Steiner points out, we use all of this and, either in early childhood, or at least by early adolescence, form a script for our lives. It may be one that tells us we are successful. It may be the script of “The Lonely Loser.” It may be a helpful script, or a harmful one; the point is that we will ever try to live it out, because it helps us make sense of our world (unless there is a conscious effort to change it and a bunch of work to do so—TA teaches that we can always change our script).

We also choose some basic life position, such as “I’m OK and You’re OK.” Harris, borrowing Adler’s notion of a universal inferiority complex feels that, no matter how “good” our parenting, we all emerge from early childhood with a life position of “I’m NOT OK and You’re OK.” I believe that Berne and Steiner might argue that one. The gist of it all, however, is that we have “an inner voice” that we may not identify as the Parent or the Child, a position, perhaps I’m NOT OK, and a life script with a beginning, middle and ending, written long ago to make sense out of life. It is doubtful that we recognize these things unless they are pointed out to us and we think about them.

Cowan and Davidson in Salient Childhood Memories [Journal of Genetic Psychology (145) First Half] point out that when adults are asked to produce their earliest memory, the memories tend to be largely unhappy ones. Not all researchers have found this effect, however the study appears to be well done and carefully analyzed. Acklin et al [Predicting Depression Using Earliest Childhood Memories. Journal of Personality Assessment (53(1)], report that adults recounting earliest memories involving deprivation, loss of control, poor human interactions—just plain negative stuff—were more likely to be depressed as adults.
You may wonder why a writer about fundamentalism is interested in all of this. As a child I attended a Child Evangelism Fellowship Bible Club. It was full of five to nine- year olds. Every week, we sang songs, did crafts, all kinds of fun stuff. Then they got out the heavy guns. We were sinners and God had a place for sinners. We were all going to hell. If we didn’t know what that was, well they made sure they told us. What impact does it have on a six- year old to be told that s/he is so bad s/he is worthy of hell? A five- year old? If fundamentalist big people told this to five and six- year olds, do you think they did any less with four- year olds? You see, now we are somewhere in that zone of childhood amnesia. At this age the Adult within the child does not have the cognitive capacity to sort through the input they are receiving.

I think of the writings of James Dobson in the 1970’s and 80’s (before he toned it down a bit for his newspaper column). I recall Larry Christensen’s, The Christian Family, published in the early 1970’s—the child raising bible when I was a fundamentalist. I well remember their advice about spanking and “breaking the will of the child.” In fact, I often reflect on all of the hierarchal authoritarian parenting/family schemes set forth by fundamentalist Christians and all of the books on Child rearing in fundamentalist/evangelical bookstores, and I am concerned. I remember being a Jesus Freak in the early 1970’s (as part of the Jesus Movement) and seeing two and three- year olds spanked. I recall one father who, as part of the ritual, even made his two- year old bring him the paddle. When the boy was two, every night, the parents would tell him a bedtime story about “going to hell.” Finally, one night, the child came “unglued” and began screaming that he didn’t want to go to hell. His dad said, “The good news, Bobby, is that you don’t have to, if you accept Jesus.” The church was all-abuzz! “Bobby got saved that night!” It became a real model and point of celebration for the church. What a clever and loving father and mother! After all, the boy was saved and only two- years old!

The TA folks say that the basic life position and script are pretty well written by five, six, seven or so. The childhood amnesia folks tell us that we can’t recall why we wrote it. The personality researchers remind us that we hang on to the “bad memories”—even if we don’t have them quite right and they cause us problems later—depression, anxiety, and (from a TA perspective) a likelihood of defeatist scripts. And the fundamentalist “child development experts?” Well, they help ensure our kids will write dysfunctional scripts through “hellfire,” beatings, and confused love. There must be a better way.

My Friend Got Upset

2009-06-07T09:17:00.000-07:00

Have a good (correct that, GREAT) old friend. We go back to the days of Jesus Freakdom, Christian communes, and being "dyed-in-the-wool" Charismaniacs. We sort of parted theological company about 30 years ago. Don't get me wrong. His theology hasn't been exactly "static." Nope. He has shifted around a bit. If we were both level 8 literalists "back in the day," he's probably a 5.67 now. We ARE still great friends. Only problem, and this rarely comes out, is that I now cruse at about a level 2.17. That means I'm about 38% lower on the absolutism scale than my friend. As I said, it rarely comes out, but....

Read the last post. When I called him and told him that I was doing a statistical study of fundamentalism and domestic violence and that involved classifying denominations as evangelical/fundamentalist or mainline/liberal, it really seemed to irritate my old buddy. I was rather surprised. I guess fundamentalism is a rather "dirty" word, and nobody in the "evangelical camp" much wants to own it. Yet, the web site of the National Association of Evangelicals reads like an updated version of the 1909 "name-maker" and "movement-maker," The Fundamentals.

Sad thing about it all is that statistical studies usually can't address individual cases (they cannot implicate any particular member of any particular church). If a movement such as evangelicalism/fundamentalism is certain that the fruit it has to offer is good and can only better others, why worry about a scientific investigation of the situation? After all, Barna Group has been using stats to "dig up dirt" on liberals for years. If the research is fair, honest, and scientific and ethical, I say, study what you will, and let the chips fall where they may. The only thing we all really MUST fear is ignorance.

It's Been Awhile!

2009-06-04T08:58:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know, I've been gone for 16 days. So, exactly what have I been up to lately? Well... where to begin. As you know from earlier postings, I am very interested in statistical studies centering around the question of fundamentalism and domestic violence. A few months back, I decided that most of the evidence that we had regarding this was anecdotal. There was, in fact, plenty of that kind of stuff. Further, about everyone and their mother knows that male dominated, far out, weirdo religious cults have there share of domestic violence going on. A good account of that kind of stuff is Under the Banner of Heaven. It will blow your mind. But I got to wonderin', What about the regular ol' fundies in the ol' US of A? Any relationship there?

There have been a few investigations, but I was looking for something on a larger scale. So... I talked with the dean at the college where I teach, and, lo and behold, she agreed to pay a Fellow of the College (a type of really "good student" scholarship) and offer me 200 hours worth of research assistance. Hot dog! We were in the money now!

Anyway, that is what I have been up to. Busy as a beaver. It involves data (literally) from about 150,000,000 folks. Just been doing some initial crunching. Have I found anything? Well... I am hoping for publication of this one. Have I found anything yet? No! I'm not telling! Not yet anyway.

So, it's back to "statistical salt-mines." I'll try to do better about keeping something going here.

Christian Enclaves-- Places One Can Run and Hide

2009-05-18T10:43:00.000-07:00

There were a couple of interesting articles in our local paper a week or so ago, both sent out by the AP. In a way, they both dealt with education and the attempt to create "Christian enclaves"-- protected places where Christians can run and hide.

The first that caught my eye dealt with Domino's Pizza founder, Thomas Monahan. Monahan is a Roman Catholic. He has started a project in the Naples area of Florida that is a bit reminiscent of the religious utopian experiments of the early 19th. century. He is creating a town, centered around a college that he foresees as being a distinctively "Catholic" experiment. At first, he proclaimed that no store would sell contraceptives or pornography. The Cable T.V. would carry no adult content. Due to complaints by civil rights activists, he has since backed-down on these proscriptions, but such guidelines are still highly encouraged.

At the center of Monohan's town is Ava Maria University, a quite conservative Catholic school. In the article in question, reporter Mitch Stacy quoted one student speaking about the benefits of the school. The young woman commented, "It's just nice to go to a school where you don't feel challenged in your faith."

A second article described how Falwell's Liberty University was "infiltrated" by a senior from Brown University who enrolled as a student while secretly planning to write a book about the experience. He expected a lot of mindless fundamentalism. He found it, to be sure. He also found students trying to make romantic "hook-ups" in Bible class, dorms full of gossip, hip-hop music, and secret viewing of R-rated movies.

I imagine these things are at Ava Maria as well. After all, even many priests are far from sainthood. The world is a funny thing. You can run, but you can't hide. And there is always the problem of the second generation that may not be as "enthusiastic" as the first. It will be interesting to watch the progress of both Ava Maria and Liberty over the years. The 19th century utopians could not sustain their ardor. Can the Falwellians and the Monohanians?

Christians Support Torture

2009-05-16T18:18:00.000-07:00

A recent op ed piece by Lenoard Pitts discussed the results of a recent Pew opinion poll dealing with American's views of torture. Pitts makes several excellent points that bear restating here:

Between 1933 and 1945 the Nazi regime systematically slaughtered six million Jews. Yet, for the most part, the Christian church said nothing. This is especially true of the German church-- although the criticism can be extended well beyond the borders of Germany. (I have written about the history of the German church during the days of Nazi Germany and the opposition, if you are unfamiliar with the history, you might want to read about it.)
Between 1955 and 1968, the US was awash in violence as forces of "US apartheid" attempted to keep an entire race (all citizens of our nation) in abject poverty and subjection. The church largely said nothing. Still, often in the face of continuing racism, the church refuses to speak out.
Beginning in the 1980's, folks with AIDS became modern day pariahs in our society. The church did not, for the most part, speak out for justice and mercy. The church largely said nothing. In the mid 1980's, I was completing a unit of Clinical Pastoral Education. My placement was at a psychiatric institution. The other student chaplain found out that several of the residents had HIV/AIDS. After that, he refused to be around, or (especially) touch those patients. I kept wondering how he could ever be their chaplain.

Now, a recent Pew poll has found that almost 50% of Americans support torture in some cases. That's pretty sad. Even sadder is that the least likely to support torture are the secular folks. The most likely are White, evangelical, protestants (62%).

One would think, as Pitts writes, Christians would be the least likely to support torture. First, by international law, it's illegal. Second, by any fair estimate, it's immoral. Finally, it's a vicious practice that brings Americans "down to the level" of terrorists.

I must say, over the last year, I have written about many things on this blog. There are days it is hard to continue to call myself a Christian.

Does Faith Lead Terminally Ill Patients to Approve Using "all Means Possible" to Preserve Life?

2009-05-14T08:34:00.000-07:00

A recent study in The Journal of the American Medical Association seems to indicate that more religious patients approve of more aggressive means of treating cancer. This seems to be the case even when such treatment only offers a prolongation of suffering. Researchers expressed concerns that not only did such treatment prolong the suffering of the patient, it made coping for the bereaved at an inevitable passing (or so it seemed to be apparent when the patient was living) much more difficult.

Religious patients were also more likely to request "heroic" measures such as being placed on a ventilator, or a stomach tube during their final week of life. It would seem that religion would make death a more "peaceful" occurrence (if that is possible). Why would the faithful choose this path?

Perhaps their faith makes them optimistic, even if the situation seems hopeless. They are holding out a hope that God will yet intervene and "heal" them.
Along that same line, very religious folks may see sickness more as a test of faith than a path terminating in death.
Perhaps the faith the religious hold on to gives them the strength they need to face a dismal quality of life and withstand heroic measures at the end.
Maybe it is fear. We know from studies that much of religion does contain a "fear element." Is it possible that belief in an afterlife inhabited by a stern and exacting judge creates a desire to avoid facing that judge as long as possible?
Is there some fear that they may have been wrong about it all? Being uncertain what the end holds, they wish to remain in the familiar as opposed to the unknown kingdom.
Or... maybe it's all about sanctity of life-- that life must be preserved at all costs. Of course, there may be a fear element here as well.

Dr, Phelps, the author of the study expressed concern about the findings. Quoting Phelps, "We are worried because aggressive care, at least among cancer patients, is a difficult and burdensome treatment that medically doesn't usually provide a whole lot of benefit."

Yet, there is a caveat. We all probably know someone for whom experimental or "last ditch efforts" worked (I have a dear friend in that group-- I'm glad he went through it). Still, I think for all of us there is a basic fear of death-- the unknown. Is it just possible that religious myths added to strong faith does lead to a greater fear than the absence of those factors?

So, what would I do if I had to face that decision at some point in my own life? I really don't know. Not completely anyway. I have a living will. But, if "push came to shove?" What would I choose? What would any of us choose?

The Passion for Truth

2009-05-12T16:52:00.000-07:00

"The passion for truth is silenced by answers which have the weight of undisputed authority"

Paul Tillich

The passion for truth, what is it? Simply put, it is an insatiable, never-ending search for meaning and reality. It is that part of us, each of us, that longs to be more than the sum total of (what I have been told is) a few bucks of chemicals. It is a hunger to know why that particular collection of chemicals has come together as it has-- in short, Why are we? or, more personally, Who am I?

The passion for truth recognizes this search as a work always in progress. It admits to its own ignorance and inadequacy to the task. Those who seek for truth with passion know that the book is never closed, there is always more. Always. Such seekers recognize that there are many "truths" in the world. Our truth is conditioned by our desire, our education, our culture, and our dispositions. A passion for truth demands that we admit the (very high) possibility that it is highly unlikely that on a planet of about six billion folks, we are the only ones to get it right. Passion for truth rightly sees such hubris for the arrogance that it is.

Truth is always viewed from a perspective. My perspective may not match yours. Not even when we are supposedly examining the same truth proposition. We all hear it with slightly different ears. It is doubtful that any of us ever really hears the stories of the Bible in exactly the same way.

That being the case, the greatest disservice a religious institution can perform for an adherent is to "close down" the search. When that happens, where else do we go? We have nowhere to turn. We must believe, even if we cannot. Since faith is a matter of certitude more than certainty (as Gordon Allport might say), when religious leaders stop all debate, they stop spiritual progress as well.

So, don't get boxed in. The truth is a many faceted jewel. Passion for the truth is as precious as the truth itself. Own the passion. Don't buy somebody else's answers.

Gay Marriage Gains Acceptance

2009-05-09T08:12:00.000-07:00

In an earlier post, I discussed the results of a recent survey that showed that the South was the "most religious" region of the US. It also appeared in the survey that New England might be called the "least religious." Of course, the issue is raised, How are "most" and "least" religious defined? and, an associated question, Are the operational definition of the terms framed in such a way that they actually measure religiosity as opposed to something else? I advise the reader to visit the earlier posting and decide for him/herself.

One thing is certain, New England does appear to be more, let us say, "liberal" (another tricky word to operationally define). Currently Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut permit gay marriage. Listening to NPR this week, I have discovered that New Hampshire and Maine may soon join those ranks as well. Certainly, when it comes to the issue of marriage, New England is the most gay friendly place to be.

All of these moves have been applauded, in rather official ways, by the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalists. The ECUSA and the UCC are both more decidedly "Christian" than the UU Church. This raises further issues about the nature of these denominations. Both do have a strong presence in New England-- especially the UCC, being the "church of the Pilgrims," at least after a fashion.

Then there are the Concerned Women for America. They are right on top of the situation stating: "While government officials may change definitions they cannot change nature.... The first human relationship was between one man and one woman, and it became the foundation of all society."

Now, there are two parts to that statement. The first is an appeal to nature. It might be incorrect, but it must carry some weight in considering this matter. The second part is based on a religious myth-- at least to some degree. There are many cultures and many myths in this world. It reminds me of an old Jerry Falwell line (a rather ridiculous one at that, I might add), "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Back to New England.... Does this just prove the stereotype (or research) that folks aren't particularly religious "up there?" Or does it prove that they are strong supporters of justice, equality, and human rights? What do you think?

On Existentialism, Fundamentalism, and What Really Matters

2009-05-06T17:59:00.000-07:00

Existentialism has long proclaimed an oddly unified message. I say oddly unified, because the existentialist movement in philosophy (and somewhat in theology) is anything but a unified movement. By its very nature, it proclaims a message of individualism and personal action. Yet, there are four points upon which the existentialists appear to be largely in agreement. These deal with the dilemma of humans-- the angst of our condition, the source of our anxiety and despair. These four major points, or better, problems, may be summed up as followed:

The problem of meaninglessness-- Human life seems meaningless, really absurd in many ways. Why are we here? Is there any meaning to our existence? Is this all there is?
The problem of isolation-- The bottom line is that we are tragically alone. At the final conclusion, it's just us. There is no one else. How do we deal with the problem (one all of us have felt) of loneliness and isolation?
The problem of freedom-- Humanity is really free. Frighteningly free. We are, in the final analysis actors. We are free actors, though. We usually "make it up as we go along." Since we live in a world devoid of any real meaning and since we are, at our base alone, we must use our freedom to make meaning out of our lives. Of course, with freedom comes responsibility.
The problem of death-- Humans are unique among earth's inhabitants in that we know that we shall die. This life will end, and we shall be no more. How do we live in the face of that awareness?

Death is the capstone. If you follow this line of thinking, life really is "one thing after another, then you die." Yet, if we are honest and brave, death also makes our lives worth living. Knowing that we will not smell a fragrance some day causes us to enjoy spring flowers all the more. Knowing that we may not see tomorrow, causes us to want to live today to its fullest.

I once read that Albert Camus said that sometimes we must give 100% commitment to that for which we have only 51% evidence. The psychologist Gordon Allport has written that religious folks are well aware that they cannot know their position with absolute certainty. Still they hold to the probability, the likelihood that God is there. Probability+faith+love is good enough to provide the certitude they need to have faith.

Life can seem pretty meaningless. Maybe, though Camus and Allport are on to something. Fundamentalist certainty notwithstanding (it is an illusion after all), true faith may trump it all.

The Catholic Church Was Well Aware of Pedophillia Years Before "it" All Went Public

2009-05-04T09:21:00.000-07:00

The letter of Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald was recently published in the National Catholic Reporter. Fitzgerald is a priest who specializes in the treatment of sexually abusive priests. He warned leaders, after becoming aware of the prevalence of the problem, that sexually abusive priests should be defrocked. In fact, he felt they were rather "beyond the point of redemption"-- at least in this matter-- and should perhaps be exiled to a Caribbean island. He wrote the pope (Paul VI) of priests addicted to sexually abnormal practices, the dangers they posed to youth, and the urgency of action called for by the situation. He wrote repeatedly to Catholic bishops in the 1950's and 1960's and personally to the pope in 1963.

As is apparent, his concerns went largely unheeded. Bishops merely "moved" offending priests around. Victims were often made to feel like they were victimizers. It is difficult to understand the status that priests occupy in the eyes of the Catholic faithful (less today). In many ways, it seemed to me as if they were (are?) held in an almost divine status.

But, then again, it makes some sense. The Catholic Church is an authoritarian hierarchy that claims to hold the "keys to the Kingdom." It is a dangerous thing to risk dissent when the priests and bishops have the power to forgive sin, and the whole system is lead by an individual claiming infallibility derived from God Almighty.

In the recent book, Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America-and Found Unexpected Peace, Former LA Times Religion writer William Lobdell recounts how his investigative reporting of the clergy sex abuse scandal became one of the main influences in his abandoning religion (certainly not the only factor). At the time when he began investigating, he was deeply involved in RCIA(the adult initiation right of the Catholic Church. Yet, he knew it just wouldn't work. He simply could not, in good conscience, unite himself with those making high moral claims nor accept the moral superiority of Christians making those claims when such little evidence of moral superiority existed.

This sort of situation (the sex scandal) is not unique to Catholicism. Witness evangelicals Swaggart, Bakker, and, more recently, Haggard. We could also write volumes about more flamboyant figures as Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton and others mostly interested in money. Or what of the political powerbrokers in ecclesiastical trappings (Robertson, Dobson, etc.)? Whenever people have almost near absolute control over the thinking of others-- usually willingly granted them by those very folks wanting some other person or organization to think for them-- Watch out! Danger is not far away.

Faith Must Make Room for Doubt

2009-04-30T08:22:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago, I was preaching on the morning gospel text taken from John. In the text, Jesus appears for the first time to the disciples after his resurrection. First, they think they are seeing a ghost. They are scared, indeed terrified. It's not every day that a dead guy comes by to visit. They really don't know what to make of it all.

This may seem a bit surprising. All the more so, since, according to the gospel account, Jesus had told them that he would die, be dead three days, and rise again. Then there was Mary-- the first evangelist of the resurrection. She had told the disciples that she had seen the Lord. Peter and John had "checked out" her story and found an empty tomb. Cleopas and his traveling companion had seen Jesus-- who even provided dinner for them. They told the disciples as well.

Now, the disciples see. But, they can't believe their eyes. Jesus meets them where they are. He offers his hands and feet for inspection. Eventually, he eats a little snack in front of them. This is no ghost. He was offering the disciples all kinds of proof that he was really alive.

The disciples? The account says that that they were filled with joy. But, it says they were also "disbelieving and wondering." How can this be? It's all faith. Or is it doubt? You see, faith walks a fine line. True faith is about belief, certainly. But it also makes room for doubt. In fact, as Paul Tillich insists, faith includes doubt.

Those with true faith must always come praying the prayer of the pleading parent seeking Jesus' help. "I do believe! Help my unbelief!

Why What Happens to the Baha'is Matters So Much

2009-04-27T10:04:00.000-07:00

There seems to be no end to the evil towards which absolutism tends. How can there be? When one is right in the eyes of God Almighty, all else seems to vanish in insignificance. So it seems with right-wing Christian fundamentalists. Witness their ridiculous tirades against such "forces of evil" as insuring adequate health care availability for all Americans. Or ponder their war on humanity and our very survival as they grapple for yet more control of the GOP and attempts to stymie efforts to stop a global climate catastrophe. Like all fundamentalists conceptions-- it's all pretty nuts. (Remember how they supported George in the killing of WHO KNOWS HOW MANY Iraqis.)

Lately, my posts have dealt with fundamentalism from the atheist side. Just as dangerous. Read a few of the posts beginning with the 4/6 posting until this one. The "new atheists" (also fundamentalists) have much violence to promote and much hatred to spew. It seems like it just comes with the territory of absolutism-- a phenomenon which certainly, at some point, begins to incorporate religious and/or political authoritarianism.

The "or" of the "and/or" is bad news, but pity the one under the tyranny of the "and." And that is the case in Iran. Of course, every authoritarian regime must have it's "whipping boy." For the Nazis it was the Jews. For the Iranian Islamic crazies, it's the Baha'is.

The Baha'i Faith began in Persia in the mid nineteenth century. It no doubt had it's roots in messianic shi'a Islam, but it soon transcended those roots to become a tolerant faith, embracing the prophets of all the major religions. Baha'is eschew partisan politics and work for global understanding and world peace. Yet, their openness and tolerance, they hardly fits in with the fundamentalist Islamic state, which has legally ruled that they are not a religion, deserve no protections, and have engaged in a policy of killing, arresting, confiscating of Bahai's property, and incarceration.

There current tack is to label Baha'is spies for Israel-- a completely ludicrous charge. Why not, when they have been labeled spies and executed as spies for about every other nation as well? This is religious hate-- pure and simple.

As Roya Hakakian points out, this should carry special concerns for Jews, who have first hand knowledge of such treatment at the hands of their countrymen. The situation has not escaped the noticed of US lawmakers. HR Resolution 175 was proposed in February, but never made it out of committee. Is that because Baha'is represent only a small portion of the American electorate and therefore can be summarily dismissed? I invite all readers to read Representative Kirk's official posting on the situation. He far outdoes me in eloquence. I don't know if he is a liberal, conservative, Republican, or Democrat, but you need to read it. The Resolution likely is more symbolic than effectual. Still, what if masses of Americans raised an outcry-- an opportunity offered by the Resolution? Doesn't morality at times call for moral outrage?

So why does all of this matter to you and me? I could mention that I have a good friend who is a Baha'i, a fellow spiritual traveler, one who challenges my thinking, and is one of the most fair- minded individuals I know. That's all true. Still, it is not, ultimately, my rationale for deciding why this matters. It plays a role, because it tells me something about Baha'is. Still, there are larger concerns. Really, it's simple. Absolutism of all stripes is on the rise. It offers simplistic answers to complex questions. "Just check your brains at the the door, and let BIG DADDY [whoever that may be in any given case-- whether Bush, Dobson and Robertson, or Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris, or worse (to a degree anyway) hatemongers like bin Laden or Ahmadinejad] do the driving." Only in isn't so simple. And as anyone can see, it is a tree with rotten fruit. No. We must reject the way of the absolutist religious and political zealot and demand a different way. How much more such "religion" can the world endure?

What will you do? Maybe a good place to start is by contacting your US representative.

Where is the Self? Who Are You (Really)?

2009-04-23T18:44:00.000-07:00

Final Chapter: "The Illusive Self"

Strange that I happened to be finishing this Hedges' book at the exact same time that I was finishing Fuller's Psychology and Religion. Of course, as advertised, these postings are my attempt at an interaction with Hedges' book. They are sort of a commentary/dialogue. We've looked at the book a chapter at a time, and I don't want the reader to think that this has all been some blog version of a "book report." There is way too much James Alexander and far to little Chris Hedges here for that conclusion. Hedges' book is quite a worthy read. As always, he is brilliant, engaging, and provocative.

But, as a bit of an aside, Fuller's book fits right in here. It is look at eight classical positions coming from psychology relative to religion. It begins, as one might expect, with William James, then Freud, on to Jung, Allport, and so on. One thing is pretty apparent, Most of the classic voices of psychology are not hostile to religion (exception being, perhaps, Freud). Also, many of them agree that humanity's problems are largely spiritual in nature. They may not agree about who or what God is-- the eight theorists offer a range of opinions ranging from our own subconscious to an actual Supreme Being to uncertainty concerning the whole question. But, they all deal with Hedges' topic of the illusive self.

We really don't know the self. We may know the ego, the "I" that the knower within us observes. We may identify ourselves as the knower. But, we fail to know who we really are. As such, we are easily taken in and easily bedazzled by fast-talking car salesmen, TV preachers, and popular atheists.

The real essence is captured by Albert Camus as quoted by Hedges, "On the whole, men are more good than bad; that however isn't the real point. They are more or less ignorant...." It is here that the danger lies. Being convinced that we can "fix ourselves up" with a bit of effort, we let our guard down. Our ignorance kicks in, and we underestimate our potential for choosing the wrong.

Religion can guide folks here. Not the institutional stuff. That is something that all eight of the psychological gurus Fuller reviews are clear on. Folks know that. As Hedges points out, people all pick and choose, they choose the parts of the religious tradition that helps and ignore the crazy, unhelpful parts. Religion, as Allport and James so clearly point out, is a living changing endeavor. This is as true for Christians as for Muslims-- and everyone else.

But, the "new atheists" come along and, since we are ignorant of our true nature, offer a short cut: Just let them do the driving. They will show us the path to Nirvana. And more of us are being suckered in to absolutist unthinking religion or absolutist unthinking atheism all of the time. We want an easy way out of the confusion of this so confusing world. We simply don't want to do the "work" of life. All of the fundamentalists-- religious and atheists make it seem so easy. It really is the opiate of the masses, you know.

Humiliation and Terrorism

2009-04-20T10:52:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been reading Chris Hedges book I Don't Believe in Atheists. Hedges has already distinguished himself by writing several brilliant books. He is especially adept at taking on fundamentalism (see esp. American Fascists). Hedges has produced an insightful look at the craziness and scariness of Christian fundamentalism. Now he sets his sights on atheist fundamentalism. This short series will take a chapter by chapter look and offer some commentary on I Don't Believe in Atheism.

Chapter 6: "Humiliation and Revenge"

Hedges begins Chapter Six with a discussion of Harris' The End of Faith. Harris does not see Islam as being legitimate or peaceful in any reasonable manner. He does not view Islam as a large faith that is being hijacked by a minority of extremists. He believes that Islamic terrorism is the only logical conclusion to Islam as a whole. It is the logical conclusion of the Koran and the literature of the hadith.

Of course, as Hedges points out, none of the "new atheists" are students of Islam, neither Harris nor Dawkins; Dennett nor Hitchens. From the perspective of Hedges (one time middle east bureau chief for the New York Times), they write out of their ignorance, but there is more.

In their confident assertions concerning Islam, they completely ignore the role that humiliation and historical forces (much bound up with US policy and hubris) have had in fermenting anger. Humiliation is a strong force in extracting revenge. The Serbs justified ethic cleansing of Muslim populations on former humiliations. Israel justifies repression of the Palestinian populations as it recalls the Holocaust-- an atrocity with which no connection can be claimed. Yet, Arabs are equated with Nazis. Americans, at least under the Bush administration, were taught to equate Iraqis with al-Qaeda, yet no credible connection was ever established. In each case, national humiliation has been used to justify revenge.

We now have ( I hope this will decrease) a situation, where many Americans were taught an apocalyptic view, as were many Islamists. Both believe they are morally right and beyond the possibility of error. It has become a battle, for both sides, of good vs. evil, God vs. Satan. The new atheists, being overwhelmingly right-wing neo-cons offer a secular version of all of this-- but the same old absolutist story.

Yet, the longer the US maintains an occupational war on and in Islamic nations, the more the humiliation will grow. As it grows, more terrorists will be recruited to the cause. Bush announced a war without limits. I hope Obama is not so foolish. An endless war is every bit as apocalyptic and crazy as any idea that al-Qaeda's leaders have suggested. Isolation and containment of extremists within their own societies and nations has been judged by many strategists as much more effective than occupations and further marginalization of whole populations and associated humiliation: The breeding ground for more terrorists.

The Nature of Human Nature

2009-04-15T12:23:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been reading Chris Hedges book I Don't Believe in Atheists. Hedges has already distinguished himself by writing several brilliant books. He is especially adept at taking on fundamentalism (see esp. American Fascists). Hedges has produced an insightful look at the craziness and scariness of Christian fundamentalism. Now he sets his sights on atheist fundamentalism. This short series will take a chapter by chapter look and offer some commentary on I Don't Believe in Atheism.

Chapter 5: "The Myth of Moral Progress"

Hedges prefaces this chapter with a quote from Reinhold Niebuhr. Embedded within that quote, one finds the words, "The idea of progress is only possible upon the ground of a Christian Culture." Of course, non-absolutist that I am, I'd have to argue with Reinhold on that one. But, Hedges isn't quoting it to assert the absolute superiority of the Christian religion. He, too, rejects absolutism. What is a most positive aspect about the Judeo/Christian epistemology is that it takes "human fallen-ness" (human "flawen-ness") so seriously.

The Enlightenment changed everything about western culture-- even that of those who claim to be Enlightenment rejectors. At the heart of the Enlightenment was a positivism that was (almost?) cocky. The certainty flowed out of Enlightenment faith that science would solve our problems and make our twisted world turn round right. In short, it was a utopianism that was, in some manner, replacing the millenarian views of religion. Yet, at the end of the Enlightenment road that Europe traveled was WWI which killed eight and half million soldiers, ten million civilians, and wounded millions upon millions more.

As the belief in the perfectibility of humanity marched on, WWII killed some sixty millions-- well over half civilians. Behind it all stood a maniac with plans of making a thousand year empire, populated by perfected, master-race people. Utopia. Since that time, at least fifty million more have been slaughtered by various other wars and ethnic cleansings.

In War a Force that Gives Us Meaning, Hedges discussed at length how killing and, perhaps, ultimately killing ourselves-- everything even-- is our collective human neurosis. Freud, certainly no religionist, made a case for a deep struggle of the life force, Eros, forever engaged in battle with a death instinct, Thanatos, in the innermost being of all people. Freud sounded a warning that something like WWII was surely in store for a world that saw itself as the current pinnacle of the path to perfectibility as opposed to product, and part (and an active part at that) of the flawed nature of humanity's past that will ever live on.

Hedges points out that the basis of all totalitarian regimes is the idea of the perfected society. This is true in the case of the fascists and the communists. Hedges points out that it was also true of the pacifist movement following WWI. It was based on a utopian belief that humanity could be educated to reject war. He feels that steps certainly could have been taken to stop Nazi Germany, but pacifiers who believed in the innate goodness of humanity often stood in the way.

Of course, one might argue that point a bit. As St. Paul asks, "Shall we do evil that good may come?" As many of the old Mennonite peace folks I deeply respect have said, "Better be wronged than do wrong." Yet, as a national policy, pacifism would hardly stand as a workable plan of deterrence. The issue is this: What do I do when my personal beliefs conflict with my national obligations? I guess, for me, taking the life of another is a solution I would have great trouble accepting. Bonhoeffer struggled with this and finally decided there were times that "doing evil that good may come" was acceptable. Who are we to judge? Have we faced the evil he faced?

Still, Hedges' point is well taken. Both the absolutist Christian and the fundamentalist atheist deny the notion that humans are not inherently perfectible. Many religious pacifists also deny the notion of, let us say, "original sin" and keep hoping for a perfection of the human race they are never going to achieve. The conflict is played out, says Hedges, not between pacifism and militarism but, rather, between accepting the notion of a human utopia or admitting humans will always be limited and flawed.

The perfectionists will tend toward totalitarianism. Sam Harris, one of the "new atheists," believes the salvation of the world lies in a "benign dictatorship" that must be imposed from without via economic sanctions and military options. Hitchens agrees with the idea of endless military occupation to bring about utopia.

All of this sounds as nuts as the the ideas of our former fundamentalist president, "W." He authorized (commanded?) destruction in Iraq that rivals anything that Saddam imposed. In so doing, his stated intent was to bring about US style democracies in Iraq and the rest of the middle east. In true utopian fashion, the ends were believed to justify the means-- even if it means that Americans would lose their political heritage of freedom and rule of law-- their national soul.

Hedges believes that it is impossible to have an ethical/moral stance without the acceptance of human limitations. I would amplify that statement to say, "...human limitations and fallibility, including our own." In fact, in our analysis of the situation, maybe the place to start is within.

Only Fooling Ourselves

2009-04-13T12:33:00.000-07:00

Fundamentalism, Old and New

2009-04-11T14:03:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been reading Chris Hedges book I Don't Believe in Atheists. Hedges has already distinguished himself by writing several brilliant books. He is especially adept at taking on fundamentalism (see esp. American Fascists). Hedges has produced an insightful look at the craziness and scariness of Christian fundamentalism. Now he sets his sights on atheist fundamentalism. This short series will take a chapter by chapter look and offer some commentary on I Don't Believe in Atheism.

Chapter 3: "The New Fundamentalism"

The "new fundamentalism" Hedges speaks of is atheistic fundamentalism. Really, it is not much different from the religious variety. Both are centered in a world view that is absolute in outlook. Both are highly dismissive of alternative viewpoints. Both are, as he states "binary" worlds. In such a world everything can be framed in terms of right and wrong-- or better yet, good and evil.

In the binary world one can find all kinds of fear and intolerance. It would seem as if fundamentalists all share a good measure of xenophobia. Our fundamentalist atheist friends have certainly not escaped this. They make confident statements regarding the evils and naivety of religion, although they are unwilling to look into the matter in any in-depth way. One can find in the fundamentalist atheist world many confident statements made by the progenitors of the "theory", yet they have little knowledge about religion and less inclination to obtain information.

This is why I reviewed the book Godless so highly on this blog. It is a book written by a former evangelical turned atheist that leaves the vitriolic hate behind. Such knowledge and such an even-handed treatment of a view the author no longer accepts (theism) makes the book more rational, measured, and likely to gain a hearing and engender dialog. That approach, however, is sadly missing from the great "high priests" of atheism. You might say that the fundamentalists are giving atheism a bad name.

Earlier, I had written about the need to approach an investigation of religion agnostically (not an original idea, as you can see by the post). Our fundamentalist atheist friends seem incapable of even attempting such a view. Their minds are firmly made up. Don't confuse them with the facts, thank you!

Fundamentalist atheists do not see any "moral worth" in believers. Christian fundamentalists share that belief concerning those "in the world." Even though, as Hedges points out, science cannot form a moral code, as it does not operate in that domain, fundie atheists still keep trying to claim the moral high ground. They see those who disagree as standing in the way of their simplistic scientific utopia. Those who differ may be viewed as "throw away" people.

It seems as if atheist fundamentalists and their religious counterparts share something of "the same religion"-- absolutism.

Atheism, Fundamentalism, and Pseudoscience

2009-04-08T19:23:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been reading Chris Hedges book I Don't Believe in Atheists. Hedges has already distinguished himself by writing several brilliant books. He is especially adept at taking on fundamentalism (see esp. American Fascists). Hedges has produced an insightful look at the craziness and scariness of Christian fundamentalism. Now he sets his sights on atheist fundamentalism. This short series will take a chapter by chapter look and offer some commentary on I Don't Believe in Atheism.

Chapter 2: "Science and Religion"

Darwin changed everything, there is no denying that. Even though fundamentalist Christians may say "the Bible only," they are well aware that in our day, that is not enough. So what do they do? They turn to pseudoscience and "cook-up" theories that sound scientific, but really are not-- theories like intelligent design. It seems that since Darwin, we must all answer to science in one way or another.

The fundamentalist atheists also resort to pseudoscience in setting forth their fundamentalist utopian visions of the world to come. Science is not capable of answering the "real" questions of religion. By this, I don't mean literal creation accounts, flood stories, etc. Here I speak of the existential questions of humanity. Science has no answers for humankind's experience of the transcendent, the mystery of being, or the human search for meaning. These things are not things that can be quantified and empirically dealt with in any meaningful sense.

Still, the new atheism uses pseudoscience to create, prove, and defend a non existent utopia (by the way, the word "utopia" literally means "no thing"-- an appropriate word for what the new atheism proposes). Why pseudoscience? What do I mean?

As Hedges points out, Darwin dealt with biological change over time. The modification and origin of species. He made no claims about applications of the theory to the "way the world should be" in a social/cultural sense. Other associates such as Galton, Wilson, and Spencer saw the theory as somehow, someday arriving at "perfected humanity." This resulted in theories such as eugenics, or biological engineering that fueled the insane theories of Nazism.

Other theories, such as social Darwinism, have been used to justify the oppression of the poor, minorities, and women. Really, it is not so different than religious fundamentalism. An opiate, drugging the proponent so that kindness can be excused in some sort of larger cause. Yet the quest to create a perfected humanity-- something proposed by the new atheism, is based on a myth. The myth of perfected humanity is neither true, humane, nor scientific.

In Dawkins theory of "memes" (sort of a personality/psychosocial version of genes), the goal is to to get rid of the "bad" memes and cultivate the "good" ones. Sound a bit like utopian social engineering of many a despotic regime? Fundamentalism is always a bit nutty, you know.

Is Atheism the Answer?

2009-04-06T17:22:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been reading Chris Hedges book I Don't Believe in Atheists. Hedges has already distinguished himself by writing several brilliant books. He is especially adept at taking on fundamentalism (see esp. American Fascists). Hedges has produced an insightful look at the craziness and scariness of Christian fundamentalism. Now he sets his sights on atheist fundamentalism. This short series will take a chapter by chapter look and offer some commentary on I Don't Believe in Atheism.

Chapter 1: "The God Debate"

There is indeed an atheism that is every bit as fundamentalist and crazy as the Christian or Muslim variety. That can hardly be escaped. It is myopic and sees only its views as right. It is intolerant. And just like the nutty Right Wing Christians, its answer to dissent from the atheist party line is disenfranchisement, isolation, and (strangely enough, as is clearly proposed by Harris in The End of Faith) even physical violence-- and lethal violence at that. Like all true fundamentalists, atheists demonize the "other side" (the religious side) and attempt to make them "less than."

As Hedges points out, the issue isn't really one of whether or not one believes in God. (I've read most of his stuff, and I never have been able to answer that question concerning him.) The issue is whether or not one believes in sin. He makes a good case for the existence of evil in the world (something I would sure not deny) and points out that the world is not getting better. Terrorism, the "War On" not withstanding, is unlikely to cease. Planetary resources are being rapidly spoiled and depleted by human greed. At some time in the not too distance future, one can imagine global violence related to dwindling resources.

The problem with Christian fundamentalism is that it is fully utopian. The notion is that God is going to give the true believers heaven, or a renewed earth, or pie in the sky, by-and-by. Since Christian fundamentalism is basically apocalyptic, the thought is that God will wipe out the enemies of the true believers and their God, and bring back THE GARDEN.

Being fundamentalist as well, the "new atheism," represented by folks such as Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens is also utopian. Science will bring about THE GARDEN (so to speak). The new atheists, however, seem rather "apocalyptic" as well. Science must engineer out, remove, isolate, or, if need be, destroy those obscurantists who get in the way. Just like the Christian version, where the earth is cleansed by fire, the atheist world will be cleansed by the fire of reason and science.

Hedges points out that just as many religious folks are not fundamentalists, neither are all atheists. There are those atheists with much more of a "live and let live" attitude, just as there are Christians willing to accept diversity.

Atheism may be a valid approach to life. Fundamentalist atheism, however, is every bit as obnoxious, insane, and dangerous as the religious variety. Currently, their numbers are much smaller. But as sales of books such as The God Delusion (Dawkins) demonstrates, the influence is growing-- and helping many folks down the path of intolerance and hate.

The Christian Right, Fundamentalists, and Global Warming (destruction!)

2009-04-03T16:38:00.000-07:00

Sometime back, I watched a very interesting DVD documentary entitled Jesus Camp. The movie mostly dealt with how fundamentalists utilized fear, emotionalism, disinformation, and well, what can I say, religion as the opiate of the masses, to indoctrinate their children in the Religious Right thought patterns. Actually, the entire process was quite frightening.

It's been a bit, but I can still remember one incident from the video where a homeschooling parent was teaching her child that global warming was a bunch of crap that just didn't matter. She told her kid that temperatures were rising less than a fraction of a degree each year, and that could hardly be termed a global warming crisis. The main figure in the DVD (the main indoctrinator in general) appeared to be a woman named Pastor Becky. I would liken what she was doing to psychological child abuse. Be that as it may, for all of the Pastor Beckys and fundie homeschooling mammas out there, here are a few facts that I recently gleaned from an AP article by Randolph Schmid that I would like to share.

It appears that the Arctic sea ice is melting at such a rate that it will be mostly gone in 30 years. Why is that important? The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant "air conditioner" for the planet. It is white and shiny (of course, after all, it's ice!) and as such, it reflects huge amounts of the sun's heat back out of the earth's atmosphere. As it becomes melted, it creates darker water. The water absorbs heat. Now the AC unit has become a space heater-- except the space is the whole planet.

How do we know all of this? Due to the 2005-2008 loss of sea ice, the Arctic air temperature is already nine degrees Fahrenheit above what would be expected. Complex computer models reveal that changes that were already expected by the end of the century are likely to occur much sooner.

The prediction is that summer sea ice will decline from the normal 2.8 million square miles to 620,000 square miles within 30 years. The six lowest minimum records for ice coverage for summer ice have all occurred in the last six years.

The climate is changing. Any scientist worth his/her salt seems to agree that it is a human created phenomenon. Yet, in their religious-blinded arrogance, and perhaps their latent desire to see the world end and Jesus come, along with all of the fatalism that implies, the fundamentalist Religious Right refuses to acknowledges any problem. Further, they consistently stand in the way of those who want to work to, at least, slow down the process. It seems to have passed the tipping point for fixing it.

So, here we are, in the sinking ship. Some of us are bailing water as fast as we can. At the same time, Pastor Becky and the fundie homeschooling mommas of the world are on the the other side of the boat-- filling up buckets and dumping them onto the sinking boat. Strange world, indeed!

Scientist Affirms There Just Might be More to Reality Than Meets the Eye

2009-03-28T17:19:00.000-07:00

To begin this posting, it would be most helpful for the reader to have a bit of knowledge concerning the John Templeton Foundation. The Mission Statement of the Foundation presents its mission in these words:

The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for discovery in areas engaging life’s biggest questions. These questions range from explorations into the laws of nature and the universe to questions on the nature of love, gratitude, forgiveness, and creativity.

Many of these big questions that the Foundation supports investigating cross the line and begin to impinge upon religion. That is certainly the case of the Templeton Prize winner this year. The announcement of the winner took place only a few weeks ago at the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

The winner, Bernard d'Espagnat is one of the formative physicists in the area of Quantum Mechanics. His research lead him to the conclusion that science cannot adequately explain the "nature of being." In a statement, d'Espagnat stated that since science cannot reveal anything with certainty concerning the nature of being, it likewise cannot tell us what is not.

He writes, "Mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated. On the contrary it is one of the most constructive elements of being."

It is extremely rare to find a religious individual that is willing to admit to possible errors and misconceptions in the content of his/her faith. Certainly, it is unheard of in confessional/creedal statements. We have fought to gain the dogmatic high ground. We are not likely to relinquish it any time soon. It is even more rare, strangely enough, to encounter a member of the scientific priesthood who clings to mystery-- even embraces it, admitting science's inability to arrive at all of the answers.

Readers interested in this topic might find my book chapter on myth an interesting read. You can access it here: www.therecoveringfundalmentalist.com .

Is God, Indeed, Love?

2009-03-26T07:59:00.000-07:00

Ah.... Just to know that God is love and to rest in that knowledge. To bask in it. To lose oneself in it. It is an amazing thing. But is it true? Read the Good Book much lately? It has all kinds of little "gems" to ponder:

"Bash Israel's enemies babies' heads against the wall."

Utterly destroy all of the nations of Canaan. This includes the helpless little children and frightened old men and women. All of them.

Since David sinned with Bathsheba, punish him by killing his infant child-- one who had committed neither good nor evil.

Punish the wayward Israelites with such chastisements as famine, and slavery.

Top that off with driving them to cannibalism (it's a heavy load being the "apple of God's eye").

Cause women to have pain in childbirth until this world ends as payment for the primordial sin of one woman.

Wipe out the entire world by flood.

Promise to wipe it out again in war and fire.

Make a place called hell. Determine that hell is a fair penalty for missing the mark.

Of course, one might point to many "love" passages from scripture (there are thousands). I'm not sure that all of the love cancels all of the hate. And, why did God demand a blood sacrifice of God's own son? After all, God is God. Did God really HAVE to do that to forgive? Religions other than Christianity have a concept of forgiveness without a notion of blood sacrifice. It seems very primitive, very cruel.

Is God love? If you read the right parts of the Bible, yes, of course. If you don't? Well, then.... Maybe we would be best to admit that the Bible is a book that conveys very human experiences of God. Some resonant with me. Some really "put me off." The question for us is this: Who is the historical Jesus and can we arrive at any conclusions about his teachings? Much is out there about this topic, if we take the time to look. If we don't, our theology is likely to end up all fragmented and thoroughly confused. For a few chapters about fundamentalism and the confusion it engenders, visit my book web site where you can read three full chapters.( http://www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com/ )

The Problem With the Bible is it Talks Out of Both Sides of its Mouth

2009-03-20T16:39:00.000-07:00

"God is Love." Right? Yes. Of course. Pure, unconditional love. No ifs, ands, or buts. Well... maybe. What I love about the Bible and the God it proclaims is that God loves humanity like a gentle father. God cares for humans like the perfect mother. Nothing can get in the way of God's unconquerable love. It is unflappable. Unquenchable. Unmeasurable. God is the shepherd who leads us besides the still waters and goes with us through the valley of the shadow of death. God holds our hand. God promises that we will have perfect peace as long as our minds are stayed upon God. Just to contemplate God is perfect peace.

"God is Love." Love is described in 1 Corinthians 13:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. (NIV)

Love is all about giving. "God so loved the world God gave...." What did God give? God gave everything. That's God. God is love. Who can help but to love a being such as this? Such great love. It should inspire us to love.

Ah, but there is more. For you see, the Good Book is a little schizophrenic. In the midst of all of this love, where God makes the world and declares it all good, is also a picture of unmitigated wrath. And, I think we must admit that is true of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, at least as we have it. It is full of eternal damnation and pure hate language. Rightly did Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards preach about the character and actions of this God in an attempt to win converts:

So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment. The devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out: and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of, all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliging forbearance of an incensed God.

The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them.

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire....

Surely not! you say. Read much of the book of Revelation lately? Or the "hellfire and brimstone" words of Jesus? What's going on here? Part of me is drawn to this book and this God. Part of me is repulsed. And you cannot chalk it up to justice, as some preachers do. That might work, except the Bible takes it all too far-- too much violence, too much hate. Justice and punishment in the context of love always carries a remedial aspect-- not pure hate and destruction.

So, how do we understand this? It seems as if the Bible writers and redactors were trying to reconcile two images of God that had been handed down to them. Sometimes, they would get lost in the beauty and wonder of the love, sometimes, the hate images would take over. I would say that the preponderance of evidence is that Jesus went the love way (he did NOT, as some evangelicals teach, speak more about hell than heaven). When we attempt to construct the original sayings, as many have, we are left with precious little vengeance. Still, the hateful/violence side of things remains is troubling.

The ELCA and Gay Clergy

2009-03-17T19:27:00.000-07:00

Seems like all of the mainline denominations want to get on the "let's ordain openly gay clergy bandwagon." The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America *ELCA) has been flirting with this one for quite awhile. I hope they know what they are doing (been keeping your eyes on the ECUSA??). I don't claim to have the answer, but I'd like to weigh in a bit on the issues.

It looks as if the ELCA's main legislative body will have the issue (non-celibate gay clergy) up for a vote in August. I don't fully understand ELCA polity, but, as near as I can tell, local congregations and judicatories will have a "final" say in ordination, if the motion is approved. I guess that one could play either way.

Conservative groups in the church are already crying foul. They point out that gay ordination is certainly a departure from the "letter of the law" in the New Testament epistles. Unless one does some pretty "fancy stepping," I don't see how that can be denied. Of course, it is possible that the Bible writers are simply wrong. I'm not above entertaining that possibility. I guess it all depends on how literal one is about it all.

According to Christian Century four areas of agreement would need to be reached for it all to come about:

That the ELCA is willing to recognize committed, lifelong, monogamous, same gender relationships.
There is a commitment that allows such folks to serve in the church.
The ELCA agrees to respect those who disagree with all of this stuff.
Finally, the ELCA removes the ban from partnered gay clergy.

Nice ideas. All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not the one who is going to hold those four deals together without allienating a whole bunch of church members.

Life just ain't so simple any more. No, Toto. I don't think we are still in Kansas.

Yet More Stuff About Religious Monuments on Publiclicly-owned Property

2009-03-14T18:57:00.000-07:00

Here we go again. Seems that the US Supreme Court has ruled that a public park in Pleasant Grove City, Utah doesn't have to put up a monument bearing the "commandments" of "Summum." a small religious sect eager to spread their religious beliefs by means of a monument placed in a tax-funded, public place. In writing the opinion for the court, Judge Alito pointed out that placing such a monument in the park is tantamount to "government speech." That, of course, cannot be allowed.

Now you might think that I would be sending the court a nice note about FINALLY doing something sensible about religion. After all of the Bush appointments and years of confounding church and state, it seems they finally got it right eh...? Well, don't forget the words of former "right winger" and chief justice Rehnquist. To quote: "The 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” As you might imagine, after operating under this premise for the last decade plus, this recent judgement might seem like a breath of common sense.

But, not so fast there, partner! For you see, in that same park, the court saw nothing wrong with a Ten Commandments monument! It was left perfectly intact. Now, seems to me that turn about is fair play. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc.; etc.; etc.;and so on.

The only really fair course is to call all such monument secular and give everybody a "piece of the monument pie," or nix them all. You can't have it both ways. If a monument is government speech for the poor Summumumians, it's no less so for the Christians or Jews. Come on now! Lets play fair!

If You Are Looking for God. Go South!

2009-03-12T08:10:00.000-07:00

I recently came across an interesting item from the Religious News Service. A new Gallop Poll, based on over 350,000 interviews has discovered that Mississippi is the place to be if one is looking for folks who are into religion. In fact, 85% of the residents stated that religion was an important part of their daily lives. Other "high scorers" were also southern states, situated in the Bible Belt. In fact, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas were all "cruizin'" around the 80% level. So, my conclusion? Want religion? Go south!

New England? Forget it! Only 42% of Vermonters found religion to be very important on a daily basis. New Hampshire? 46%. Maine and Massachusetts, both 48%. Some places in the Northwest aren't doing so hot either. Alaska? 51% (Governor Palin, what the hell is going on up there???). Washington state weighs in at about 52%.

Overall, the poll found that 65% of all Americans rated religion as important to their daily lives. Considering other Western industrialized nations, that's really pretty high when you think about it (of course, so is 42%). The poll did seem to indicate that the lack of interest in New England reflected a large drop in the Catholic population. It was noted that this seemed to be a a genuine case of people moving away from the religion not the region.

It is interesting to note that, of course, the Bible Belt states are far more fundamentalist in religious outlook. That might account for some of the difference between regions. At any rate, it is an interesting trend. I hope that such studies might lead to other studies of sociological and demographic trends that might be related to the trends highlighted in this recent poll.

The Double-heart of Fundamentalism

2009-03-09T07:35:00.000-07:00

Fundamentalism has two hearts. These hearts pulsate, and beat, and pound out the rhythm of life of the fundamentalist. Just as it is the heart of a person that circulates the blood, the lymph, the nutrients, the force of life that maintains our one's existence, so fundamentalism has a living center. However, in contrast to human biological life, the center of fundamentalism represents two foci, two hearts, one within and one without. To continue to function as a "living, breathing", and I might add, irritating, entity, fundamentalism requires both hearts.

The inward heart is whatever central authority informs the given variety of fundamentalism we might consider. It might be the Koran, the Bible, the imams or mullahs, preacher or popes. In the case of atheistic fundamentalism, it might be the collection of "tried and true" buttons to push, which are known for their shock value. No matter what it might be, as Tillich so clearly pointed out over half a century ago, such rigidity will quarter no doubt. In the vanquishing of doubt, unknowingly, the fundamentalist institution (whether paper or pope one might say) also vanquishes truly mature faith, which always includes an element of doubt.

The outward heart is the "interface" of fundamentalism and the world, i.e. the individual adherent. The key character of the adherent is unapproachability, unreasonableness, and the inability to entertain any notions contrary to "the party line." Fundamentalists are "hardliners" they know what they believe, even if they have lost sight of why they believe it. As the interface, they are cocksure, "signed, sealed, and delivered." Forget about any silly notion of finding middle ground or rapprochement. It ain't gonna happen! End of discussion.

From these two "hearts," absolute infallibility and a mind slammed closed to any other possibility, fundamentalism derives its very life. It needs both "hearts" to live and thrive in our world. The truly sad thing thing is that the world has become such a confusing place that many will sell their very human birthright of asking difficult questions and being willing to live without all the answers-- even when it hurts. That is what maturity is. It means living in the face of mystery without having all of the answers and seeking truth even though we will surely make many false starts and wrong turns. Living that way takes courage. Maybe, reflecting on Tillich again, that is central to faith as well.

Book Review: Godless

2009-03-07T10:46:00.000-08:00

On 2/24/09, I made mention of the book Why I became an Atheist by John Loftus. I pointed out that the book was an okay read, but not particularly outstanding. I did, however, greatly appreciate Loftus' Chapter 4, which I explored at some length in the posting. I do believe that the the book is worth reading, if for no other reason than to read that particular chapter. This isn't to detract from the rest of the text. I found it informative, but not exceptional. It is, however, a good beginning point in examining the issues.

While pursuing the latest in the atheist genre (Is there such a thing? There seems to be a genre developing at any rate!) I came across my FAVORITE atheist presentation to date. I think it is because it resonates so much with me. Anyone reading my book would likely see that we cover much of the same ground and approach it in many similar ways (read 3 chapters from my book at The Recovering Fundamentalist). At any rate, I HIGHLY recommend Dan Barker's book, Godless (2008, Ulysses Press).

Dan was an evangelical preacher with impeccable evangelical credentials. He is now co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, one of the leading atheist, freethought organizations in the US. The book chronicles his days as an evangelist and how, first by small questions, then by large, he felt compelled to abandon Christianity and all religion. The sections of the book where he raises questions and asks religion to respond (well, in an way, you might say) are worthwhile reading. It resonated with me, because it asked questions that I have asked of religion and myself over and over again. My answers are different (I am a believer; Dan is not), but the questions are the same.

It is said "the unexamined life is not worth living." The same may be said of faith. While I disagree that reason and reason alone can arrive at (all?) truth and that myth has nothing to speak in that arena, the questions raised by Barker must be faced head on. Either one must hide his/her head in the sand, play Scarlet talking with Rhett and just wish all of the questions away, find a way to answer them without skirting the issue or calling on pseudo-science, or, follow Dan on a path away from all views of God (AND READ THE BOOK! THE QUESTIONS ARE PRETTY ENGAGING!).

However, my favorite part of the book of the the first section, "Rejecting God." This tells Dan's story and gives the book true legitimacy. This guy is speaking as someone who knows what he is talking about. Many a confused evangelical might just see themselves in Dan's story.

In short, this book is quite well written, non-aggressive, and honest. It is a captivating book-- even if you (like I) disagree with "the conclusion." I highly recommend Godless to add to your reading list.

It's All About How You Read It

2009-03-04T09:40:00.000-08:00

I have two rather distinct "hats" I wear almost everyday. One is my theological, religious, pastoral hat. When I wear this hat, I think about theology. I ponder questions of philosophy, I ask myself and other questions about the basic nature of religion and the roots of religious authority, I serve as bi-vocational pastor of a small congregation and carry out the responsibilities that entails-- visiting the sick, performing more "priestly" functions such as marriages, baptisms, and Eucharistic services, and, of course, I preach. That is one hat I wear. It is supposed to be, in some respects, my more ""part time" hat, but I find myself wearing it quite a bit each day.

My other hat is my college professor hat. When I am wearing this hat, I mostly deal with two areas of knowledge as they relate to preparing pre-service teachers. One of these areas is educational psychology. This subsumes the areas one might typically associate as being included in that rubric. In my case, however, it extends a bit, as I also teach in areas more closely resembling parenting education or family life studies.

My second area of expertise is literacy studies. My primary responsibilities is to train future elementary teachers to be teachers of reading and writing. In this arena, I teach courses in the psychology of reading, reading education methods, and children's literature. It is to this last knowledge domain that I wish to turn.

In some ways, the teaching children's literature is carried out quite differently than teaching in any other literature course offered at the college (actually in most ways). But in some respects, it does share common ground. The main point of commonality is that, to a greater or lesser degree, both my English Department colleagues and I are interested in literary theory. In that arena, there is a figure who emerges as a seminal thinker in both cases: Louise Rosenblatt.

In 1938, Louise Rosenblatt put forth her Readers Response Theory, which those of us in children's literature usually refer to as the Transactive Theory. It works like this:

The author has an intention, a message s/he desires to convey.
The first hurdle to be conquered is the limitation of language. Often, a writer may feel as if words are simply not adequate for what s/he wishes to convey. Still, taking all of the limitations of language into account, the author writes.
The product, from the author's perspective, encapsulates the meaning which s/he intended to convey (at least as closely as possible).
The reader approaches the author's work. There is an unspoken reader/writer contract that states that if the reader reads what the writer has written, it will contain meaning.
The reader approaches the the authors work with a lifetime of experiences. Some of these are experiences with people, places, things, and events. Some are quite emotive and carry much emotional content. All of this shapes the way that a reader frames new events, people, and thoughts and symbolic representations of these things (i.e. language). It may even frame the emotional and cognitive content of language proper-- right down to the very phrase and word level.
The writer writes with intention "A" clearly in mind. The reader brings experiences "B" to the text. Therefore, it is not logical to automatically assume that "A"="A" in the mind of the reader. "A" may reach some close approximation of "A". Still, to the reader, although the writer may have intended "A", in reality (the readers reality) "A"="C"-- some totally new meaning (because "A" is "filtered" through the lenses of "B").
Therefore, when it comes to text and meaning, it is more "created" or "constructed" than understood.

The implications of all of this are, of course, huge. This is especially true about a text already so debated as the Bible. One might almost say that it may well be impossible to ever completely understand what the writer intended. Our homiletical expositions are really only approximations-- what the text says to the preacher. And, even then, the folks in the pew may take away something different still.

So, what are we to do? I see only one logical conclusion: We should avoid fundamentalist dogmatism. Approaching the Bible takes much greater humility than the modern day prophets of the absolute have to offer us. We need to leave room for multiple interpretations and for difference without condemnation.

Literary interpretation is an uncertain science. Religion even more so.

To Search for Truth, it's Best to be a Bit Agnostic

2009-02-24T06:58:00.000-08:00

Recently, I have been reading Why I Became an Atheist by John Loftus. It's not a bad look at the topic, and, if you have never explored the arguments for atheism, it might be a good place to start. Be forewarned, however, that Loftus mostly aims his battles against Christianity as opposed to religion in general. This makes perfect sense, since Loftus was once an evangelical preacher with a ThM, earned under Wm. Lane Craig, at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Most of his arguments are pretty conventional ones, dealing with such issues as the reliability of miracle stories, the resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. As might be expected, he gives considerable space to the issue of theodicy-- as does Erhman in his God's Problem. All in all, the book is pretty conventional, but a good read.

His more original contribution is found in Chapter 4, "The Outsider Test of Faith." Here he makes a very good point, not often "caught" by many. It is simply this: If you are seeking truth in a religion (or better yet, if you are seeking the truth of religion) you need to do so as an "outsider." As Loftus points out, most of us embrace our particular faith by accident of birth. If one were born in Egypt, s/he would likely be a Sunni Muslim. Iran? A Shi'a. Thailand? Likely a Buddhist? The US? Probably a Christian.

All of this is significant because our religio/socio/cultural presuppositions will likely color any investigation we make of religion. In short, we will automatically be biased toward the mode of religion in which we were reared. It is hard to see outside of that "frame of reference."

Loftus points out that the only safe default position from which to investigate the truth claims of any religion is not that of another religion. It is not that of atheism. It is that of agnosticism. I agree. What he doesn't tell us, however, is whether anyone can actually so divest themselves of bias that they can achieve honest agnosticism. I am compelled to say that it takes much work and is only achieved by degrees.

Loftus thinks that anyone who goes down the road of the "outsiders test" will certainly end up an atheist. Although Loftus and I do share some concerns, we end up different places. You may read the first three chapters of my book to get a hint of the approach I take at The Recovering Fundmentalist.

If you have never explored the more traditional arguements for atheism, Loftus might offer a good starting point. However, just now atheism is a "hot topic," and there are many recent works from which to choose.

The Problem with Fundamentalists and Israel

2009-02-21T10:16:00.000-08:00

There is a problem with fundamentalists when it comes to Israel. On the surface, they seem to support all that Israel does without equivocation. The sad part is that it's really all part of the "Israel game." It is the whole "end-times fantasy" that ends with Israel being the focus of all the attentions of the earth (which it certainly is garnering a bunch now), and the "Antichrist" invading Israel. But, even though fundamentalists seem very "pro-Israel," in reality they are quite anti-Semitic. In their scheme all Jews end up as Christians or dead. Point is, in the end, all of the Jews are gone.

It's too bad their interest in Israel is so phony, because Israel really needs some friends just now. Paul Haven of the AP recently wrote of a poll taken in seven European nations. The results were sad. Nearly a third of Europeans think Jews are largely responsible for current financial meltdown. 74% of folk in Spain believed that Jews held too much power over global financial structures. In total, about 40% of those polled felt Jews had too much power in the business world. 44% believed Jews played the "holocaust card" far too much.

On a different note, there is wide anger over Israel's incursion into Gaza. Some Gaza protesters in Europe have began to apply Nazi imagery to ISRAEL. They have equated Israeli troops to German troops and Gaza to Auschwitz. The Star of David has been compared to the Nazi swastika.

Anti-Semitism is old and hard to understand. It is a philosophy of hate. To be completely fair, Israel's actions seem far less than just. And then there are the fundies-- fake friends. Just when Israel could use some real friends to tell her the truth about her own injustice and acts that can appear genocidal to some, the fundamentalists slap Israel on the back and lick their lips in anticipation of the end. Just when Jews need some real defense against growing anti-Semitism, fundamentalists play the "Israel game," not really giving a hoot about Israel but just wanting to hurry Armageddon along. What a mess!

The Government, Faith-based Initiatives, and the Obama Administration

2009-02-19T06:59:00.000-08:00

One thing is clear, Obama is NOT planning to get rid of the government's associations with faith-based initiatives. That's a good thing. Such initiatives have much to offer. But, THANK GOD, unlike the Bush administration, the Obama seems to be reticent to provide government funded evangelization. The director of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives under Obama is a former Pentecostal preacher. According to an article by AP's Eric Gorski, where much of the info for this post comes from, the administration wants to find ways to work with the faith community without blurring the line between church and state.

One stated goal of this administration as opposed to former Democratic administrations is to abortion reduction. As someone opposed to abortion and wishing to see much less abortions in our country, I find this much more realistic than the absolutist's attempts to outright ban abortion. As a member of the Office's Advisory Council frames it (former Southern Baptist Convention President, Frank Page), he will still still work to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, Page realized he "has to be a realist." He recognizes the reality is that abortions are legal and he "certainly desire[s] to see a reduction." This a policy that I think many can work with-- a place to start.

Activist Fred Davie, a representative of the gay community with a Yale divinity degree also sits on the Council. Noting that, in some respects, Obama is expanding the faith-based office, Davie noted the reality that many on the left "are realistic enough to know religion is... integral to American life." He feels that many on the left have come to see that religious institution have much help to offer to a needy country.

All-in-all, James Dunn, former head of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, an organization advocating church- state separation, believes that Obama is trying to find the "elusive" middle ground. As Joshua DuBois, the Pentecostal preacher leading Obama's faith based office put it, "We understand it is a fine line. But it's a line were comfortable walking." As an observer of the religious "nuttiness" of the former administration, I certainly hope that president Obama can indeed walk that line. It is about time that someone walked it and walked it well.

How I Became a Fundamentalist and How I Quit Being One

2009-02-17T16:29:00.000-08:00

The following is the introduction to my book. Be sure and see the links at the conclusion of this post to read more chapters. JCA

(By the way, I invite and encourage comments related to your analysis and opinion of this story.)

=====================================================================

I was once a Christian absolutist. Sometimes, on lonely and hard days, I still feel the pull of certainty. You may wonder what I mean by the term “Christian absolutist.” Some might use the term “fundamentalist.” I do not really like that term because it carries with it quite a bit of baggage. Words evoke meanings and thoughts. I think Americans have many feelings, some of them pent-up anger, when they hear the word fundamentalist. Those so identified as fundamentalists in the Christian world once wore this label with a kind of militant pride at times.

Actually, the word has been through several incarnations in American history. It is of fairly recent usage. In the sense used here, it derives from a twelve-volume work commissioned in 1909 to combat the emergent voices of theological modernism. Its composers included a wide range of writers, including some that came from denominations now recognized as being rather liberal. The work, The Fundamentals, was a battle cry, a throwing down of the gauntlet in the face of higher criticism and modern scholarship. Still, in many circles, the work went largely unnoticed.

The name “fundamentalist” grew to be associated with many churches of the early twentieth century. Many were of the holiness tradition. It would be safe to say that few of these early fundamentalists had much direct knowledge of the original literature that lent its name to the movement.

Fundamentalism came to national attention largely through the Scopes Monkey Trial, which took place on July 10-25, 1925, in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial dealt with the teaching of evolution in Tennessee schools, which was illegal at the time. John Scopes, a substitute teacher was charged with violating the Butler Act. The prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan was a nationally known politician, local hero, and prominent fundamentalist. The trial made national headlines, but largely through Bryan’s own testimony (he ended up in the witness chair himself), the nation arrived at a view of fundamentalists as ignorant, intolerant, and fanatical. Fundamentalists more or less went into seclusion, avoiding contamination from the world as much as possible.

Several decades passed, and then rehabilitation of the title came through the emerging involvement of fundamentalists in politics, beginning in earnest in the 1970’s. To them, the world was “going to hell in a hand basket” and the time was ripe to begin the push to put “godly men” in positions of power. The term became a badge of honor for some, a source of irritation to many, part of an electoral strategy for more than a few, and the sound of political careers ending for yet others. Then came September 11, 2001, and the name acquired yet a different connotation.

Now, when some hear it, they think of planes flying into the World Trade Center on that fateful September day. Many folks associate the word fundamentalist with that event and pair it with the word “Islamic.” They see fundamentalism as something dealing with “them” and not “us.”
Of course, if one really thinks about it, s/he will soon recognize this is a misnomer. We face an equally extreme Christian or quasi-Christian variety of fundamentalism every bit a crazy as the Islamic variety. All we must do to see the truth of this statement is to activate recent memory. Remember the Branch Davidians? Recall the shootings and attempted shootings and bombings of abortion clinics and doctors? Remember the protests against gays carried out at the funerals of dead soldiers? The problem with many Americans is they will readily see the danger of the other person’s absolutism, but are slow to recognize the danger of their own. It is easy to say, “But my absolutism is based in the real truth. It is different from the garden variety of narrow-minded absolutism.” Fundamentalism carries with it the connotation of violence and hate-mongering. No one wants to own up to that. In addition, to be perfectly honest, I am not at all certain it applies to most varieties of American fundamentalism. As William James so long ago pointed out, there are many varieties of religious experience (James 2007). Likewise, there are many shades and varieties of Christian fundamentalism. I am leery of using the word fundamentalism as one point on the spectrum of Christian literalism to describe the common variety of absolute truth claims we encounter day-to day among our friends and neighbors.

There is a side to fundamentalism I prefer to call “absolutism.” Many of the comments referred to in this book refer to fundamentalism. That is because, in the minds of most researchers, the absolutist belief side of fundamentalism is inseparable from the more violence-approving, militant side of the movement. That is why I prefer the word absolutist. However, faithfulness to the language of many of the sources used will necessitate using the terms interchangeably at times. However, in general this text deals with the absolutist side of the fundamentalist milieu.
So… what do I mean by absolutism? By the term absolutism, I refer to the belief that certain individuals possess absolute, undeniable, indisputable truth. That truth is a court from which there is no appeal. It knows with complete certainty. Of course, technically speaking, absolutism is definitely part of the larger phenomenon of fundamentalism. In fact, it arguably forms the basis for the more brazen acts of fundamentalism. This conclusion appears inescapable. For that reason, it has been necessary in researching this book to make rather heavy use of literature dealing with fundamentalism.

That being said, I return to my earlier statement. I was a Christian absolutist. As a child, my parents made little provision for my religious training. I tended to be a rather unhappy child. I was overweight, not very sharp academically, and had many irritating mannerisms. I did not discover until I was nearly twenty-three that I suffered from Tourette’s Syndrome (I am fifty-one at this writing). My diagnosis was as if a miracle somehow occurred in my life. Medication all but cured me—at least if you do not count the rather annoying and frightening side effects.
However, as a kid, no one knew anything about Tourette’s Syndrome. I was just the fat kid who was always jerking his body and making all the weird noises. Being the poorest child in my class did not help much either. My parents tried; they really did. Life seemed to have kicked them—especially Dad—in the teeth, and we just could not seem to make any headway. Mom stayed home, and Dad seemed to go from dead-end job to dead-end job, until his physical disabilities ended his working career when I was around twelve years old. Then our economic lot in life, already dismal, deteriorated significantly.

A woman in our neighborhood ran a children’s Bible Club associated with Child Evangelism Fellowship. Going to Bible Club was the high point of my week. We heard Bible stories, sang songs, played games, and did crafts. However, there was a darker side to the Bible Club as well. It was a part that terrified me and gave me bad dreams at night—at least after I finally swallowed my fear enough to get to sleep. Each week I endured the evangelistic appeal with all of the hellfire and brimstone the Bible Club Lady could muster, and she could muster plenty!
As time went on, I found myself more and more in need of the friendship and acceptance the Bible Club and the Bible Club Lady offered and, yet, I grew more and more terrified of this God of rage. The message was simple enough, though I think, even as a child, it did not make much sense to me. God loved me. I had sinned. I had made God very angry. Because of my sin and God’s anger, I was going to hell to burn forever.

But wait! God still loved me! Yet, God had made up these rules, and the rules said I had to pay in eternal hell for every little wrong of which I was guilty. What could God do? Those were the rules. God thought about it and decided God’s son, Jesus, would take care of things. Jesus would come to earth, never sin, and die and suffer hell for me. He would take the rap. I would get off the hook if I would just agree to the whole deal and ask Jesus for his help. I knew this was true because the Bible Club Lady said she could show me the verses in the Bible, and God never lied.

As I stated, the story sounded convoluted, even to my little nine-year-old mind, but I was so scared of going to hell, I “worked at it” until it began to make sense. Later, my thoughts about the system I knew as a child were to change as the message became increasingly untenable and the old doubts returned. (I have written about my views of the atonement in an article entitled, “The Nonviolent Atonement and the Centrality of the Cross.” See Alexander 2005, 57-66.) Nevertheless, as a child, all I could see was a way out of eternal hell. When the Bible Club Lady made her altar call one day, I went up to “get saved.” “Just believe,” was all she said.
Then the Bible Club Lady took me to her church. I grew up in the poor part of Kansas City; this church was definitely in the high rent district. What a change in communities! This was a Regular Baptist Church. In those days, they readily and proudly identified themselves as fundamentalists. They lived up to it. They especially emphasized eternal damnation and the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. From Genesis to Revelation, it was all true.

When I hit my teen years, I found these people to be quite square and out-of-touch. The hippy movement was just making the scene in Kansas City. It appealed to me. At around age thirteen, I began to experiment with marijuana and LSD. I quit the entire church scene. Anyway, if they happened to be right, I was saved after all. I heard repeatedly that, once I had it, I could never lose it. It seemed as if I would be a winner either way. I began quitting school. In 9th grade, I only attended forty-seven days. At age fifteen, I had a terrible argument with my father and moved out of the house. I began to live by staying with friends and panhandling.

I have discovered absolutism dies a difficult death. Almost as soon as I met the hippies, I met the ex-hippy Jesus Freaks. Something began to call me back. They were every bit as absolutist as the Baptist Church, but they were more free-spirited and countercultural. Over the years, I began to sense I had found my way back home; yet, I did not have to go back to the old square ways I had rejected. They were lighter on the hell business and heavier on the “Jesus loves you” business. This led to my “second” conversion. I moved into the Christian commune right after I turned sixteen.

Now my days consisted of street witnessing and Bible reading. As our leaders explained the Bible to me, I found fewer objections. By pure power of choice, I became an absolutist. The Bible was right from cover to cover, and I was sure I had an inside track to understanding it.
The Jesus Freaks did help. They got me back in school (for which I am eternally grateful). They helped me grow up, saw to it I got a job, and sent me off to do the Lord’s work with their blessing.

I ended up in college of all places! Little did I know that, before all was said and done, I would earn graduate degrees in theology and reading education and, eventually, a Ph.D. and become a college professor! Yes, I owe them more than I can ever repay.

As time went on, I became more earnest in my absolutism. I met Irene, fellow absolutist—albeit a much gentler one—at the college. We were both elementary education majors. We married in 1977 and remain happily married today, thirty years later. After our marriage came teaching jobs, and babies, our first house, and leaving the Jesus Freaks. Why did we leave? Irene was not much for it. After all, we heard repeatedly we had it all right. Nevertheless, for some reason, from my early teens on, I always had a strong attraction to pacifism. By this time, the Jesus Freak church was strongly entrenched in the Moral Majority. Irene might not otherwise have left, except the Jesus Freak elders reminded her weekly to be obedient to her husband.

It is a long story, but in 1980, we ended up in a Mennonite church. Irene loved it. The heavy yoke of male authority was now gone. We began to grow in new ways. We discovered here questions are allowed and even encouraged. The first question I asked myself was about the story from Bible Club days that always troubled me. I began to wonder about the whole hellfire deal. Of all the parts of the story the Bible Club Lady told, this was the most troubling. There had to be another way of looking at things. I mused long and hard over it, beginning in earnest when I was in my first pastorate (See Alexander 1987, 25-32). I finally came to terms with it all some years later (See Alexander 2003, and 2005, 57-66). Little-by-little I began viewing the entire notion of eternal perdition in a completely new way.

One day I was discussing the Bible with our assistant pastor. He said, “You know, I just can’t believe every word of it is true.” I thought about that one for a minute.

“Neither do I,” I replied.

I half-expected lightning might come out of the sky and strike me. Strangely, though it had always given me a sense of stability, I realized at that moment that I was not an absolutist. I felt light, as if I were soaring to new heights of freedom. Somehow, though, I also felt uprooted. It seemed as if I were back in elementary school. I had betrayed a sacred trust. Again, I was alone and scared.
=====================================================================

NOTE: The term “Jesus Freak” as used throughout this book, refers to a Christian movement that attracted mostly young people from what is often termed the “hippie counterculture.” The dates of this movement are approximately 1969-1975. Many of the Jesus Freak fellowships went on to become “regular churches” in the mid to late seventies. At least one group associated with the Jesus Freaks, Calvary Chapel, has become something resembling a small denomination. Jesus Freak is not used here as a pejorative term. It was in common usage during the time period indicated. Further, adherents of the movement often used the term in self-descriptive ways. To the extent that many of my years among the Jesus Freaks were happy and helpful years, I find it an endearing term. The other alternative, “Jesus Movement,” refers to a wide variety of historic movements and, therefore, lacks the specific descriptive character of the term Jesus Freak.

=====================================================================

To read the story of my abandonment of fundamentalism and why I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt, visit my book web site: http://www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com/ and read other sample chapters from my book.

Fundamentalism and End of Life Decisions

2009-02-15T07:32:00.000-08:00

I mentioned a few posts back about my foray into the highly convoluted world of Christian radio. I listened for several hours on the day previously discussed but eventually had to stop. I was just getting too angry by the whole conversation being played-out on the radio waves. It seemed impossible that anybody could really believe all of the c_ _ p that was going down that day.

Like I said previously, the main topic was why we SHOULD NOT have any type of national health care, as that was a socialist plot. But, intermixed with all of that were many comments concerning "end of life" decisions. The short story seemed to be that the fundies are opposed to ANY discontinuation of life-prolongation measures NO MATTER WHAT THE CASE. I found this especially odd, since such measures are typically quite expensive, and the fundie world opposes any type of national health insurance. Seemed to make more sense for them to agitate for womb-to-tomb care and demand that it include all extraordinary measure to prolong life that are currently possible.

Mostly though, I wondered about the basic idea that life support measures should NEVER be withdrawn. I tried to go at it from several angles. What if I was the recipient of said measures, or my sons, or my wife, or grandchildren? A sticky question, I must admit. Still, I don't think I can be as absolute as our fundamentalist friends are. There comes a point where, to the best of our knowledge, one is keeping a corpse alive.

The problem is twofold. First, our technology has out-distanced our wisdom. We can do things without really knowing exactly what we are doing. Second, our technology has out-distanced our ethical knowledge. Fundamentalists are so confused, I really don't think we can adopt their ethics. Society's ethical capacity simply falls short here. Such decisions didn't even face us 50 years ago.

In short, fundamentalists are too judgmental, know-it-ll, and self-righteous to be of much use in this debate. Until they begin to think rationally, they aren't going to be much help to the rest of us.

Christian Fundamentalism: When Spanking Becomes Abuse

2009-02-12T14:50:00.000-08:00

In his article, Conservative Protestantism and the Corporal Punishment of Children, in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), Ellison (2001) takes up the issue of Conservative Protestants and spanking. One point that he reiterates almost ad nauseam is that such conservative religious adherents are far more likely than the general public to support corporal punishment of children. A second theme repeatedly revisited is that it is not necessarily reasonable to call such behavior abusive. I must state from the start that this is not a dispassionate topic with me. I am an education professor and also a seminary graduate, a trained chaplain, and a minister. Further, my background traces its path though the Jesus Movement, which attracted many “refugees” from the “hippie days” of the late 60’s and early 70’s.

As a Jesus Freak, I was firmly fixed in the fundamentalist milieu from which the Jesus Movement grew. When I married my Jesus Freak sweetheart in the mid 70’s, we began working on a family. When children came, we followed the teachings of the fundamentalist Christian “gurus” and were quite strict with our children. I saw much of the same in our church associations—all young adults with kids, all towing the line in regards to child discipline. I have no doubt that what I saw and was rapidly accepting bordered on abuse—which was one of the reasons I repudiated fundamentalism when my sons were quite small.

My concern, simply put, is with children whose parents might be considering placing them in daycare at a fundamentalist church or school, or folks who read the books of conservative Christian “pro-family psychologists” offering advice on childrearing. I hope to show that fundamentalism naturally places children at danger and naturally tends to abusiveness. In due course, I shall take up the issue of whether “spanking” encouraged by fundamentalist Christian leaders amounts or leads to abuse and whether, therefore, it is wise for a parent to turn to such teachers for instruction in childrearing or entrust the care of their children to fundamentalist childcare and educational institutions.

First, however, it might be instructive to consider precisely why parents under the spell of fundamentalist tutors might adopt a program of corporal punishment. There are four predominant reasons indicated in the literature. First, there is the issue of biblical inerrancy. Fundamentalists believe and teach that the Bible is completely without error on any topic upon which it speaks. It is the “court of no appeals.” Second, fundamentalist writers, teachers, and preachers are well armed with many biblical proof texts demonstrating that “sparing the rod” is not the best approach. Thirdly, fundamentalists expound an extreme authoritarian, male dominated, and hierarchical view of family life. Lastly, the fundamentalist view of humanity is such that humans are viewed as sinful and hell-bound by nature. This rebellion must be addressed. The best way to save one’s child from hell is by “beating the hell out of him or her.”

In Grevens’ Spare the Rod: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse (1991) the notion of using physical abuse to “break the child’s will” is explored. It is the parental responsibility to break the will so that the child will conform to the parent’s wishes, thereby learning obedience to God. How much force must be applied? Most fundamentalist commentators state that the parent must remain fairly emotionless and turn a deft ear to the protests of the child. The child must be struck repeatedly until s/he begins crying profusely, for that is the sign of a broken will—the objective of striking the child in the first place.

Grevens demonstrates through much anecdotal evidence that the whole notion is fraught with difficulties. Although there are several guidelines concerning the need to strike the child with an object and not the hand and to have a “cooling down period” before administering the punishment and, most importantly, to express in some physical way how much the child is loved after s/he has been beaten, it tends to backfire. Citing examples of well-known Christians reflecting on their childhood, a picture emerges of children waiting during the “cooling off” period, making deals with God, and pleading with God that they would not be beaten again. As for the love part, Ruth Wilkerson Harris (sister of evangelist David Wilkerson) in her book, It was Good Enough for the Father: The Story of the Wilkerson Family (1969), recounts how the Wilkerson childern, had to face the “humbling” of embracing their father after a beating and saying, “I love you Daddy. Forgive me for disobeying.”

Capps, in Religion and Child Abuse: Perfect Together (JSSR, 1992), points out that this mixture of anger, pain, beating, and love is very confusing to children. They likely come to view the ritual as a pain filled affair necessary to gain the parent’s love. They must surely long for a love that might, someday, be unconditional, with no beatings attached. They plead for God to deliver them. God doesn’t. As much anecdotal evidence indicates, as adults, such children do not thank God that they had a parent willing to inflict physical punishment on them and many grow up with a very confused image of God. They have been taught that God is all-powerful, yet God did not rescue them when they pleaded with God for mercy.

An interesting view of all of this emerges from BIOLA University’s Rosemead School of Psychology. The study in question is reported in BIOLA’s Journal of Psychology and Theology. It is important to remember that we have not at this point answered the question of whether spanking is abusive in any substantive sense. The BIOLA article, Religiosity and the Risk of Perpetrating Child Physical Abuse: An Empirical Investigation (2005), authored by Dyslyn and Thomsen agrees that Conservative Protestants (the denominational listing in the article lists denominations usually considered evangelical/fundamentalist) are more likely to engage in corporal punishment. However, the authors do not see spanking as abusive. Their study, while finding Conservative Protestants to have the highest score on a test of likely abusive behavior, states that the differences between the Conservatives, Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and unaffiliated are not statistically significant.

One might argue that there is some practical significance in Conservatives obtaining the highest score, but that would be shaky ground. Methodologically, there are problems in that the test used is attitudinal and was given mainly to college students without children. Also, the college environment from which the sample was taken is not described, so it is hard to generalize. In addition, the study flies in the face of considerable anecdotal evidence. Most importantly, BIOLA stands for the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. One might suspect some researcher bias.

So, we come full circle. Everyone seems to agree that fundamentalists, or those leaning that direction, are more likely than most to resort to corporal punishment. Further, the lion’s share of child developmentalists see spanking as a harmful thing—associated with undesirable child, adolescent, and adult outcomes (Ellison, 2001). The question then is, When is the line crossed? Is all spanking abusive? When I was part of the fundamentalist world, what I knew about and saw were some pretty stout spankings administered to children as young as six months old. I saw lots of spankings with paddles. [Remember, you were encouraged to use a “neutral(?)” object. The hands were used to give love. The notion was that the child would not associate the object with the parent.]

In answering the question about spanking, and abuse, I turn now to a fascinating study from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The study, reported on the Medpage Today website (Heavy Spanking Predicts Overt Child Abuse, 2008), revealed the following results:

1. Parents who spanked were 2.7 times more likely to engage in overt abusive behavior than non-spankers.

2. Parents that spanked with a belt or paddle or another object as opposed to their hands had triple the odds of becoming abusers (remember the “neutral” object theory?).

3. For each additional spanking per year, there was a 3% increase in the likelihood of yet stronger punishments being used in the home. (When I was in the fundamentalist church, it was not unusual for children to receive two or three spankings a day.)

4. The report stated, “This is the first study to demonstrate that parents who report spanking children with an object and who frequently spank children are much more likely to report harsh punishment acts consistent with physical abuse.

All of these conclusions seem to have implications for children placed in a fundamentalist Christian environment.

Associated Content, in a May 2007 posting, The Effects of the “No Spanking Law” on Child Abuse in Sweden, discusses a law passed in Sweden in the 1970’s that made spanking a civil offense. Before the law, the family violence child death rate in 1970 was 18%. In recent years it has been 0%. By 1981, only 26% of Swedish parents supported spanking. Now it is less than 11%. In 1996, there were 57 reported cases of child abuse per 100,000 people. At the same time in the US that figure stood at 4,500/100,000. Clearly, spanking and child abuse are connected. It also seems clear that in their propensity to support corporal punishment, fundamentalism and fundamentalist environments could likely put children at risk for abuse. It is something concerned parents would do well to bear in mind. They must ask: Is it a risk I am willing to take?

Christian Fundamentalists & Paranoia

2009-02-09T10:53:00.000-08:00

Fundamentalists are paranoid-- at least after a fashion. I don't know how anyone can deny that. They are conspiracy-minded and believe the world is plotting to "get them" in one way or another. Consider just a few examples:

I have heard fundamentalists rail for hours on how sex education in public schools is really just a ploy to get kids sexually active. Yet, research seems to indicate that sex eduction delays the age of sexual intercourse, reduces the incidence of unprotected sex, and reduces the number of teen pregnancies. In our age of rampant STD's. how foolish not to inform children of the facts. Still, fundamentalists fear that information will undeniably lead to action. In 2009? Who isn't informed? But, the question is, Do we want the information to be correct? Yet, our fundie friends believe it all a malevolent plot.

Take the case of health care. Fundamentalists (as mentioned in an earlier post) see universal health care as a socialist plot to bring in mandated euthanasia. Although many fundamentalists are relatively poor (certainly not all), the fundie leadership has managed to maneuver them into a position of fighting against their own self interest. Dobson, Robertson, etc. know all of the buttons to push. Who suffers? The needy ones they have blinded to reality.

Or... Israel. There is no doubt that Israel has overstepped the bounds of propriety in terms of any sort of just war criteria. These have long guided Christians (even those of us who reject them). Let me review them here:

A decision to go to war needs to be addressed from the vantage point of the eight dimensions Augustine calls us to investigate: Is there just cause? Is the intention right (upright)? Is this the last resort in dealing with evil? Is there no other way? Is the action taken personal, or is it declared by a competent (please note the word) authority? In view of the cost of suffering and death on all sides, is there a real probability of success? Are the goals proportional? In other words, is the goal pursued really worth the cost involved? Are the means proportional? Is massive destruction, the possible escalation to a nuclear exchange, acceptable now or ever? Does the action discriminate between combatants and noncombatants, or perhaps even between the innocent and the evil? Is someone from the enemy camp automatically evil? Is it that simple?

I think it is patently obvious that Israel's past, recent, and likely continuing actions violate much of this. Still, the faithful are told that any step towards peace is opposing God's end-times plan. So, they are suspect of any talk of peace.

In short, fundamentalism is conspiracy-minded and pathologically paranoid. It cannot be reformed. The only really hope is abandonment of the fundamentalist position.

To read the story of my abandonment of fundamentalism and why I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt, visit my book web site: http://www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com/ and read a sample chapter of my book.

Christian Talk Radio and Health care

2009-02-07T11:22:00.000-08:00

The other day, I did something I haven't done in a long, long time: I listened to a "Christian" radio station. I found it pretty amazing. Most of the talk shows and commentaries were aimed at shoring-up the faithful to "hold-on" through the difficult years to come (the Obama Presidency). Never mind the eight years of hell the nation has endured under the Bush regime. Never mind the tens of thousands of American lives lost and the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost dues to W's policies. Was any of that mentioned? What about the economic "gift" George left our nation to "enjoy?" Was that a topic for discussion? No. None of that was the topic the day I was listening in. Nope. The topic was health care.

The fear was that Obama might actually be able to arrange something resembling universal coverage for all Americans. The foolishness of it all was overwhelming.

First, the notion that there are tens of millions of uninsured Americans was thoroughly pooh-poohed. A flat out lie of liberals. Next, the "Christian" commentators went on-and-on about how this was all a liberal plot to bring in enforced euthanasia. Really, the bleeding-heart liberals are wolves in sheep's clothes who want to use universal health care to give us a "culture of death."

Odd. It seems to me that folks so concerned about LIFE would only welcome health care for all. It seems to me that they would work toward that end and become eager participants in the discussion. Seems to me they would want to help the process move forward.

Fundamentalists seem to me to be among the most confused folks on earth. They talk about salvation, love, and God non-stop. What they never seem to really "grab," however, is how mixed-up their rhetoric really is.

Remembering Mom

2009-02-05T10:54:00.000-08:00

I know that I have a few faithful readers of this blog. You may all be wondering where I have been since about January 25. I've been in Kansas City. My mom got to the point that she could no longer live alone. I moved her into a care facility and decided to stay a few days before returning to Kentucky. However, she very soon became quite ill and passed away on January 31. The Hospice chaplain conducted her funeral service. I wrote the sermon, which he read. So, if you will indulge me, in honor of my mom, I offer that sermon. Please take a few moments to read it. Blessings!

James

Some Thoughts About Gracie

“In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you I go to prepare a place for you?”

I have spent considerable time over the last couple of weeks reflecting on my mom. It’s strange how things you know full-well can so easily escape your attention as you go about day-by-day living. One thing that was very real to me over the last week of my mom’s life was how I tenderly touched her hands, her face, and her hair. It struck me that Mom was almost 88. She was very thin and had grown quite small- almost like a child. I had told Mom a million times that I loved her over the years, but rarely had we touched much. But, that final week, it was as if all reasons not to display love for Mom were suddenly gone. It’s amazing what touching someone you love can do to you.

One day, in the hospital, she reached up her arm. She could no longer talk, and I didn’t know what she wanted. I bent over her bed to try to get some notion of what she desired. She touched me, looked at me in great earnest, and ran her hand over my beard and my hair. She wanted to touch me. She wanted me to know that which only touching can tell. At first, I found it odd. I said, “Mom, it’s all white now, no more blond left. You know, I’m getting old.”

I have reflected on what my Mom meant by that touch. I wondered if she meant I needed to do more for her, or less, or what she was trying to say. In the end, though, I think Katy had the right idea. She was saying- “I appreciate you. I know you are doing your best. I know you wish me well.” A touch can be healing. Sometimes a touch can say more than words ever can. I am left wondering about all of us. Do we reach and touch enough? Are we scared of each other? Are we afraid a touch might show our vulnerability? My mom’s touch made me cry-- right then and there. Are we afraid of tears?

As I touched my mom, the image in my mind was that of a rose. Somehow, in Mom’s case, the vines seemed too fragile for this world. It seems that she was a rose most delicate. All of her adult life- or at least all that all I know of- she was a rose vine exposed to the harshest elements. Petals wilting, tendrils twisted by the winds of fate. Often, her life was hard, and that does hurt, still. But even then, I recall my rose had good moments. After Dad died, she flew to see my sister and me in Colorado, California, and Kentucky. My mom discovered she loved to fly. She loved to visit with my sister and her family. Once, when I was living in Arkansas, it turned out that I was living in Harrison, the town where she and Dad had gotten married. So, she came back to the place of her marriage again. She marveled at the beauty of California, Colorado, and Northern Arkansas. She had many years of good travel, good friends in her apartment building, and enjoying her grandchildren. It seems that even a rose in the harsh desert still blooms.

As I touched her face, held her hands, and stroked her hair over the past week, I knew that her petals were always velvet soft-- even as they fell to the ground. I realized they always were velvety softness for all who took the time to touch and discover. A sweet fragrance in the midst of the ordinary. I began to call her “my rose” while she was in the hospital. I realized that she was beautiful, and precious, and beyond price. I always liked Mom. Still, I had never known her beauty, or softness, or precious fragrance. They were always there, but my eyes didn’t really see these things.

I have wondered, the past week or so, if we realize the beauty that lies in the heart of each other. Do we stop and notice the fragrance? Do we see the softness? Do we see the brokenness and in that very brokenness see the hidden beauty?

One afternoon at Timberlake, Mom commented to dear Katy Raymond that I have wonderful friends. True enough; she has always told me that. Sometimes she used to list them- Kevin, Kate, Dor, Doug, Bruce, Annie- she knew many, some I hadn’t thought of in years. I will never forget that day some 30 years after my wedding. Irene and I were leaving Kansas City to go back to Kentucky when Mom said, “Jim, you have a good wife,” and she held my hand a little longer and looked at me with intensity. She did love Irene; for Irene and I are so much in love. She could identify a rose when she saw it. She often spoke of Doug playing Smoke Gets in Your Eyes or some other oldie on his sax on our porch in the old neighborhood. She often commented on the faithfulness of Bruce Carpenter and the kindness of Dorothy or Katy when she had been very ill. She told Katy how wonderful it was that we had all stuck together since we were kids. She thought we were all good for each other.

My faithful Uncle... Where do I begin? There are not words to describe the debt owed to you. All of these years, faithfully, you have kept your eye on Mom. She told me more than once that you were a wonderful brother. You have proven that time and again. She always loved you, you know. And she knew you loved her. Maybe you never spoke the words, but your actions say it loud and clear.

My sons never knew Mom as well as I might wish, but all of her grandchildren and great grandchildren were gifts to her. I know each of you in this room could tell of a memory of my mom and some way you knew her to be special. Now, I want to close with the thought I began with:

“In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you I go to prepare a place for you?”

What is that place? Where is it? What’s it like? I don’t think anyone can ever really say they know. I certainly don’t. I finished seminary many years ago. I’ve been a minister for years. I preached many a funeral; preached scores of folks into heaven- you might say- sometimes even folks I didn’t really know.   Sometimes their lives were a bit seedy. It didn’t matter. I am a firm believer that when someone passes, the world needs to take note that they have been here. Mom didn’t want much. She was clear about that. But, Gracie, this one’s for you. So I hope you are listening.

I don’t have the answers about all of these ultimate things. Still, I rest in the hope of the Apostle, Eye hasn’t seen, nor ear heard, nor have the minds of humans conceived, the good things God has prepared for those who love God. Gracie, I know this, and I know it well: You are a lover of God. So in that hope, I let you go. I also forgive myself for all of the wrong decisions I surely made, the mistakes I made, and I give you to God. You would want nothing less. Someday, I trust we will meet again.

So, in Gracie’s name, friends and loved ones, I bequeath this gift. I give you all the gift of each other. Uncle Harvey and Aunt Delores, Doug R., Kevin, Irene, the grandkids, my sister, more folks than I can recite- all of us.   For her I promise to watch your back and look out for you. And for her, I know we will always look out for each other. And, someday, that which eye hasn’t seen or ear heard will belong to us all; all of us, flowers in the fragrant garden of God’s roses where all wounds are healed, all things made right, and all is forever and again full of love.

Mom, you live on with me yet. Ever and always you will. You will always live in my heart, My Dear One, My Precious Rose.

Christian Fundamentalism and Domestic Violence: What Constitutes Abuse?

2009-01-25T07:44:00.000-08:00

Elsewhere on this blog, I have dealt with the issue of Christian fundamentalism and domestic violence (see for example 1/15/09). In this post, I wish to clarify some types of abuse that might take place in the context of fundamentalism:

The most obvious is physical abuse. As has been discussed in numerous postings on the blog, it is difficult to make a conclusive statistical connection between fundamentalism and domestic violence. However, there are numerous anecdotal cases of fundamentalist husbands hitting their spouses. Also, virtually all fundamentalist churches recommend spanking as a normal, frequent method of child discipline. Virtually all "fundamentalist experts" advise using an object to spank and spanking until profuse crying ensues. Recent research reported from Univ. of NC (Chapel Hill) has associated just such frequent spankings with cases of more abusive behavior.
Another type of abuse is psychological. Here, the wife, for example, is put under constant pressure to submit to the husband. She is under constant scrutiny and always a candidate for criticism. She may be criticized for her style of clothes (too suggestive), her reading material (not religious enough), or talking to another man (hints of impropriety). The husband may go so far as to restrict her behavior or travel.
A third type (but it may be part of number 2) is the spiritual. Here the woman is constantly reminded that she MUST submit to her husband because the Bible says that she must. If she fails to submit, she will be "out of God's will" and subject to God's punishment. This is beaten over her head on a regular basis-- at home, at church, and with co religionists.

All things considered, a fundamentalists home may not be a particularly happy one. There are many far reaching implications to the idea that a certain belief, notion, or person is infallibly correct and that is his opinion is beyond challenging.

To read the story of my abandonment of fundamentalism and why I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt, visit my book web site: http://www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com/ and read a sample chapter of my book.

What is a "Recovering Fundamentalist?"

2009-01-23T08:51:00.000-08:00

This is an important question. My work (the book, blog, talks, etc.) is predicated on the existence of such a group. So, I want to carefully define the term so that the reader knows what I am talking about. It requires unpacking two words: Fundamentalist, and recovering.

As used in this blog and in my book, the word fundamentalist is pretty simple to grab. A fundamentalist is someone who makes absolute truth claims about things that cannot be proven. In Christian fundamentalism, usually the claims begin with the the PRIME claim: The Bible is absolutely true and without error in all that it affirms; theologically, historically, and cosmologically.

From this basic affirmation springs many other truth claims, varying by the group or individual. It might be affirmed, for example (it likely would, in fact) that all other religions are false. Another belief might be that Harry Potter is a book inspired by the devil. Perhaps one might (and many Christians do) believe that God supports the Republican Party. Many fundamentalists believe that children should be stoutly spanked for disbelief. Lots of fundamentalists hold that women should be subordinate to men. The list could go on and on with slight nuances related to the fundamentalist environment in which one was nurtured.

The next term, recovering, refers to the process of being in recovery. Here is the idea that one never quite gets "over" his/her additions (in this case to absolutism). Something about the addiction or our personality makes the tendency to our addiction an ever present possibility. Recovery must be lived out day-by-day. We don't "just get over it." It is a never ending process of growth, self-understanding, and healing. Still, especially at times it can be quite painful.

For recovering fundamentalists, it is painful because something about them yearns to have a simple life where the pain of uncertainty and decision is removed. Often, we (for I am certainly one of the crowd) remember how simple it was when we just rehearsed the latest phrase from church ("Doubt your doubts, and believe your beliefs," "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."" and so on). Still, in our most honest moments, we knew that something about all of that was disingenuous and that we were, as Karl Marx might say, "drugged" by our religion. That's why we gave up on fundamentalism in the first place.

So, as I think the foregoing demonstrates, recovery from fundamentalism is a developmental process. There are many setbacks on the way. Still, even as we struggle, we know that our pains are really growing pains and that we are becoming more authentically human each day.

To read the story of my abandonment of fundamentalism and why I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt, visit my book web site: www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com and read a sample chapter of my book.

When Conservative Churches Leave Liberal Denominations, What About the Property?

2009-01-19T06:40:00.000-08:00

We are seeing a time of unprecedented fracturing of denominational churches. Here I am speaking of the mainline denominations-- you know, churches like the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), The United Church of Christ, The Lutheran Church (ELCA), and so on). The common denominator is that these churches are liberal, or maybe it is better to say, have a liberal leadership.

David Kerr, former moderator of a large presbytery in California described the situation this way: Presbyterian conservatives have sat back and "let the denomination be hijacked." There may be some truth to this claim.

Currently, the "hot-button item" is gay marriage and gay ordination. This is certainly right in the case of the Episcopal Church. Back that up? Well, several churches and four dioceses have decided to exit the church. One would think this might be a cause for concern for denominations already in decline to the tune of millions of members.

Kerr estimates that about 20% of Presbyterians favor gay ordination. He goes on to delineate the problem. That 20% occupies the positions of greatest influence and decision making in the denomination. Something seems off kilter.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will agree that the position taken here is left of center. I would hope that gays and straights might dialog and reach some rapprochement. But, the point is (liberal soul though I am), it does appear as if there are some clever shenanigans being pulled. Agencies and ecclesial structures within churches should be representative of the membership.

Which brings us to property. Many denominations, such as the Episcopal Church have vowed (and are actually doing it) to set up legal teams and fight the battle for the church property. To me, this seems to be a poorly conceived strategy of dealing with the problem. The theory is that the money to build denominational churches was given in good faith by folks, some now gone to their reward, that intended to be paying for a church of that denomination.

If that 20% figure is anywhere right for mainliners in general, the "givers of funds" may not have thought they were giving to the denominations as the 20%, more or less, in control envision it. It seems wrong to sue for local church property, and it seems wrong to hold churches hostage to denominational affiliation by threat of property loss. There must be a better way. I don't think that mainline churches can afford much more "bad press"-- just to be practical.

It is a shame that churches are not accepting of folks where they are. But, it may be a bigger shame to find a small group of power brokers hiding behind ecclesiastical trappings.

To read the story of my abandonment of fundamentalism and why I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt, visit my book web site: www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com and read a sample chapter of my book.

Do All Religious Folks Make Absolute Truth Claims?

2009-01-17T05:59:00.000-08:00

If the reader of the this blog has been following my brief series on my journey through Seventh-day Adventism (12/27/08. 1/2, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/9/09), s/he will note that I have listed Adventists in the aggregate as fundamentalists. In saying this, I do not intend to imply that Adventists are fundamentalists as the term is commonly understood, as referring, for example to Southern Baptists. I use the term for SDA's because SDA's share that one characteristic common to all fundamentalist religions: They regularly and constantly make claims to have the absolute or total truth about matters spiritual in nature. Although they may deny it, the bottom line is that, for one who has heard the "Adventist version" of the truth and and failed to accept it, salvation is not (or, to be charitable, likely not) a possibility.

SDA's tend to deny this, of course. This became clear when Spectrum Adventist Forum picked up the posts and various comments alluded to the fact that all religious groups and perhaps people, make absolute truth claims. But is this accurate? As I have stated elsewhere, this is not a blog or forum about Adventism, but, by way of example, I wish to employ the idea expressed by some Adventists (denied by others) that all believers make absolute truth claims, so what really matters is which absolute truth claim is "absolutely right."

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias seems to agree that all religion and belief is based on absolute truth claims-- no relativism. This well known evangelical leader in an interview with Nowicki (Religious Scholar Asks: Need God? What if I Don't?-- McClatchy Newspapers), stated the following:

"Truth by definition is exclusive. It is so interesting that atheism that is basing itself on such a tolerant worldview has become so exclusive and would like to see religion annihilated. (One atheist) recently said, if it came to a choice of getting rid of rape or getting rid of religion, he would get rid of religion.

"When you believe something to be true, it excludes the opposite. Hinduism is exclusive. Buddhism is exclusive. Islam is exclusive. Bahai, which claims to include everyone, excludes the exclusivists. They say, all religions are expressing one. If you say that is not true, they exclude your view."

But is this correct? I have argued on this blog and in my book that the very heart of fundamentalism is intractable truth claims-- a court of no appeals. My answer to this is no, it does not follow that being religious means that one will be living in a world of exclusive truth claims. Something much humbler is possible. The wiser approach involves taking a much more nuanced stance. We might have a pretty reasonable confidence in what is empirically verifiable-- but even then we know that new information can change our views. On the level of the subjective (things like love, friendship, affection, etc.), we have even less certainty. When it comes to religious things, they cannot be verified. Here we are in the zone of faith, and as we all know, because all of us have changed the content of our faith to lesser or greater degrees from time to time, this is our area of least certainty.

So... what's the bottom-line? It is must better to say, "I believe" or "I think" than "I know." The absolute truth claim ("I know") is the source of a large majority of the problems in the world today. Time to do away with such claims. There is NO WAY to prove the correctness of rival religious truth claims.

To read the story of my abandonment of fundamentalism and why I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt, visit my book web site: www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com and read a sample chapter of my book.

Fundamentalism and Domestic Violence: Theoretical Perspectives

2009-01-15T12:38:00.000-08:00

Readers of this blog know that I have taken this question up previously on this venue (search directory under domestic violence). In previous postings, I reported on a literature review that I had conducted earlier (some years ago) in preparation for what I (then) thought was going to be an empirical study of the evidence concerning the question. As my earlier blogs pointed-out, my review of the literature was inconclusive.

In this posting, I want to expand on what I think "inconclusive" means and doesn't mean. First, my review DID NOT deal with fundamentalism of the more cultic variety. I think there is little doubt about that one. Crazy, sectarian, fundamentalist religious groups (such as polygamous Mormons) are clearly wife abusers. (Read the book Under the Banner of Heaven for a chilling account.) They seem to be unrepentant about it. They think it's just part of life. Men in such groups seem to believe that they have the prerogative to abuse women.

But, my interest is elsewhere. My book tries to paint an accurate picture of everyday, garden variety fundamentalism-- like that of the James Dobsons and James Kennedys of the world, or maybe "the little church down the road," where your next-door neighbors attend. I have always been interested in that population, likely because I was once a part of it.

So, here is the evidence as I know it:

In fundamentalism, men are seen as authority figures.
Women are expected to "submit" to their husbands-- a promise my wife wrote into her vows when we were married 32 years ago.
Women are, for all practical purposes, second class citizens.
Men are encouraged to "take charge."
Fundamentalist churches can hardly be called bastions of the principles of non-resistance and non-violence.
Fundamentalists are quick to support coercive and lethal means of punishment such as corporal punishment for children and the death penalty.
Fundamentalist churches take passages concerning a wrathful God at face value (and to the exclusion of many other images).
Fundamentalists tend to support a position of civil retributive justice as opposed to distributive or restorative justice.
Many of these principles are preached on a regular basis from fundamentalist pulpits.
Sadly, somehow, fundamentalist churches, husbands, boyfriends, and preachers, manage to brainwash women into thinking this system is from God and that it is in their best interest.
All of this leaves us with a look at a subculture which is male-dominant, rigidly authoritarian, obedient to religious leaders, and fairly accepting of violence as a method of social/personal control.

Taking the above observations as fairly accurate, it is easy to construct a theoretical model of wife abuse at the hands of fundamentalist husbands. Imagine that a wife doesn't go along with a husband's decisions. Or, imagine that she stops believing in the male authority point of view. You can see how that might cause a quandary for a fundamentalist husband.

He's been told repeatedly that he is "in charge." He has been told that this position is given to him directly on the authority of God. Likely, the wife has agreed to be submissive if the marriage took place when they were both fundamentalist adherents. Also, he is probably getting regular "booster shots" of the authoritarian dribble at church and from coreligionists on a regular basis. Divorce is taboo, or close to it.

Might not such a husband become very agitated, frustrated, and angry? Might he also not view his anger as a type of righteous indignation? In such a case, is it not possible that something just "snaps" and he lashes out at his wife? Perhaps physically, but if not, certainly with all kinds of psychological pressure and abuse?

This may be a phenomenon very difficult to document empirically because it depends on self-report regarding both behaviors and religious beliefs. I think it likely that many men (and women) would be rather guarded and reticent to "come clean" about it all. However, I do know from my history among the fundamentalists that such scenarios have been played out in tragic scenes of pathological religious devotion.

To read the story of my abandonment of fundamentalism and why I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt, visit my book web site: http://www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com/ and read a sample chapter of my book.

Seventh-day Adventism and Dishonesty

2009-01-09T12:22:00.000-08:00

I thought I was all done with my "Adventist mini series," but guess what? I'm not. I have one more thing to say. If you really wanna put this deal in context, you've got to get into the directory and read the following post: 12/27/08, 1/2, 1/4, and 1/6. The last post of this series was my list of the seven things I didn't like about Adventism. It corresponded with an earlier one of 7 things I liked about Adventism.

But, I realize there is an eighth thing I REALLY don't like. That is dishonesty. Whenever SDA's hold meetings to get more members (evangelistic meetings???), they usually do so by blitzing an area with junk mail advertising the meeting. Needless to say, the response is low. However, they send out so much junk mail that they are sure to get several folks.

Whenever possible, Adventists hold meetings in a conference center, civic center, hotel, etc. Small towns do hold meetings in churches. However, when it can be avoided, it is. Neutral places are preferred.

The trend when I left (about 11 years ago) was to have a satellite link-up and hold many meetings in different locations simultaneously. Usually they call them "Prophecy Seminars" or something of the sort. You can often recognize an SDA event because the advertisement will include a whole bunch of eye catching sensationalism, often in the nature of pictures.

They also have door-to-door sales folks (called literature evangelists in SDA circles) that sell books like The Great Controversy or Desire of Ages. These books were written by Ellen White over a century ago. They are very Victorian in style (read wordy), and are sometimes sold under other titles or other pen names (often her maiden name). There are many, many EGW books for sale. Modern (and I might add very useful) books on diet and health are often also sold. All of them (at least 10 years ago) sell, usually in sets, for hundreds of bucks. They can usually be bought at an Adventist Book Center in paperback for about $5 per book.

The thing is, in neither the seminars, nor the book dealing is the "consumer" told they are dealing with Adventists. The plan is to "hook" folks through a prophecy seminar or book and THEN disclose that the dispensers of information are SDA's. This is done because SDA's (at least the leadership) believe this mild "deception by silence" is necessary to prevent bias from shrinking the convert pool.

I always wondered, If there is nothing to hide, why hide it? I was never ashamed of being an SDA. I left for other reasons. Adventists seem to be shooting themselves in the foot-- even as they try to live down the title cult.

NOTE: THIS POST IS PART OF AN "ADVENTIST MINI SERIES." THERE ARE (or will be) FIVE POSTS IN THIS SERIES. WHEN THEY ARE ALL "UP AND RUNNING" THEY SHOULD APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING DATES 12/27, 1/2, 1/4. 1/6. 1/9. THE 12/27 POST IS REALLY A BOOK REVIEW. IT PROVIDES SOME BACKGROUND. THE OTHER FOUR POSTS COMPRISE THE ACTUAL MAIN CONTENT OF THE SERIES. THIS BLOG IS ABOUT FUNDAMENTALISM. THE ADVENTIST STUFF JUST SEEMED TO HAVE FOUND ITS TIME FOR TELLING. THE BLOG IS NOT MAINLY CONCERNED WITH ADVENTISM, EXCEPT HOW IT FITS INTO THE LARGER PHENOMENON OF FUNDAMENTALISM AS EXPERIENCED IN MY LIFE.

What I Didn't Like About the Seventh-day Adventist Church

2009-01-06T18:13:00.000-08:00

(To really get the whole picture, please read the posts from 1/2, and 1/4.)

I have written about the things I liked about Adventism. One might wonder, Whatever inspired you to leave? You seem to have so many good things to say about the church, why would you quit it? It wasn't easy. There are two reasons for that. First, to leave is to be an apostate. Both my wife and I had been employees of the denomination. I had served as elder in three different congregations. Although not an ordained SDA minister, I had preached a considerable amount. In short, we worried about hurting friends. Second, we had to plan our leaving when we made a move to a different state. Like all fundamentalists, SDA's can't take no for an answer. They would never have left us alone.

In my last posting (1/4), I listed my 7 favorite things about the SDA Church. In keeping with that pattern, I will list the 7 aspects of Adventism I like(d) the least below.

They are fundamentalists-- Maybe not in the same sense as say, Southern Baptists, but they still are. The basis of fundamentalism is absolute truth claims. Not all Adventists claim that they are in the realm of the absolute. Still, I can't count how many times I heard statements such as "we have all the truth," or "we have the final truth." A court from which there is no appeal.
Religious bigotry-- Although SDA's claim that they don't believe they are the only ones who are saved, they believe that being a "Sunday keeper" is having, or being precariously close to having, the "mark of beast."
Strange literalism-- On one hand, you might say that Adventists don't take the Book of Revelation literally. In other ways, their "symbolic literalism" is as strange as any Left Behind book, with Satan faking Christ's second coming by coming to earth in a flying saucer, the US government enforcing Sunday worship, etc.
Legalism-- Although SDA's talk a good "saved by grace," there is a pretty heavy works trip going on.
Wedding rings-- Once, after I started teaching college, Irene was still teaching for the church. We had come from a fairly progressive conference to a more traditional one. They (the leadership in our new conference) told her to quit wearing her wedding ring. When she balked at that, they forced her to do so. I took this as a sign of a leadership that was stuck on silly little rules and in a ...
Power trip-- Leaders are often quite power hungry and seem to be concerned with many things other than just spiritual concerns. For example, SDA's give a lot of money, which is laudable. However, it must be mentioned that they are always being "beaten over the head" to give yet more.
Dead worship-- It seems that with some folks in the SDA Church, it is a religious principle that God wants churches to be dead. Whenever some "life" comes into the church or the worship, it is quickly stifled.

So, if you have read the three posts concerning Adventism, what do I really think of it all? The SDA Church came along at a point in my life some years after I had abandoned fundamentalism. I was seeking community. It provided that. It provided a place, for a while, where I was nurtured as in the old days. But, a point came that I was going to have to leave or buy into the fundamentalist approach. I have many friends in the SDA Church still trying to "hang in there" in the face of a fundamentalist theology and an authoritarian regime. I just couldn't.

To read the story of my abandonment of fundamentalism and why I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt, visit my book web site: www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com and read a sample chapter of my book.

What I Liked About the Seventh-day Adventists

2009-01-04T17:37:00.000-08:00

(For background on this post, I refer the reader to my post on 1/2)

There were many things about the Adventists that I discovered during my 10 year sojourn that I liked tremendously. Many of these things still stick with me and inform my belief and practice today-- even though I don't talk much about it all. Let me name my 7 favorite things:

The people-- I met many people among the SDA's who were not conservative. They had read widely and were products of the fine Adventist higher education system. These folks could think for themselves. They were not afraid to challenge the old ideas just because they were tradition. Yet, they just didn't capriciously throw the old away. They found creative ways to understand the old in the light of modern scholarship and were not afraid to say that Adventists had made mistakes.
Daring to be different-- Adventists are not afraid to challenge widely held (largely unbiblical, I might add) views concerning the state of the dead, hell, the soul, etc. They may not have always been right, but they were gutsy enough to buck the religious power brokers of the 19th century and today.
A view of the Bible-- Some SDA's, such as Alden Thompson, have been quick to point out that an Adventist view of inspiration doesn't mean verbal, plenary instruction. God acted on humans to inspire them and made use of fallible human words.
Going right along with this is one of my favorite thoughts from Ellen White, widely regarded by Adventists as prophetic: God and heaven alone are infallible.
A sense of community-- It may be due to their sectarianism, but, for whatever reason, SDA's have a much clearer sense of being part of each other's lives than most Christians.
The Sabbath-- I'm not at all sure that Adventists are right in their views concerning the Sabbath, some I am sure are wrong. But to give God 24 hours all in one connected piece without being distracted by commerce, television, eating on the run, and so on and replacing all of that with family, cultural activities, beauty, meditation, and quiet-- well, who can fault that?
Giving-- Not just the token variety. Most mainline church members give less than 2% of their income to church. Per capita SDA giving exceeds 7% (if memory serves me correctly).

So, as you can see, there were (are) many things about the SDA Church I greatly appreciated (appreciate). Still, when push came to shove, I wasn't free of the strictures of fundamentalism as long as I remained in the Adventist Church.

My Journey Among the Seventh-day Adventists

2009-01-02T16:45:00.000-08:00

I guess it was my posting on 12/27/08, a review of a recent biography of William Miller-- predictor of the end of the world on October 22, 1844--that has made it clear to me that it is time that I "come clean" on my journey through Seventh-day Adventism. It wasn't just a little "foray"-- though I rarely mention it to anyone. Nope. I was an elder in the church and was employed as a teacher (as was Irene) in SDA church schools. As a (at that point former) preacher, I was often drafted to preach from SDA pulpits, and most of my "audience" considered my "visiting preaching" a treat. All told, we (the whole family) were Adventists for about ten years.

So... Why don't I talk much about it? I guess it is just too hard to explain. I was in "no man's land." What fundamentalism had provided for me was a community. It provided a close group of like-minded folks. When I gave up on fundamentalism, I kept looking for that same community without the political conservatism, the forbidding of the asking of questions, and the cocksureness about everything. I guess I kind of drifted into Adventism because 1.) They were conscientious objectors; 2.) They very much supported the separation of church and state; 3.) They seemed to offer that "sectarian" closeness that I so much wanted-- the relationships it hurt not to have any more.

You might ask, Weren't they just another variety of fundamentalist? That is a sticky question. Since the early 1980's, SDA's have been in flux. Some are pretty cultish and unorthodox, but usually, they live on the fringes of the church. A second group, seems to me to be pretty conservative evangelicals in many ways. A third group, which I call the progressives, would be somewhere on the conservative-liberal theological spectrum where one might find the likes of Tony Campolo or Brian McClaren-- minus the social justice emphasis. This group tends to be middle-aged and younger folks and are represented by Spectrum Magazine. A final group are actually quite liberal and free thinking. These folks are also "fringers." I would say the SDA Church is mostly made up of a mixture of groups 2 and 3. Though they don't ever say it, most SDA's could likely subscribe to the Apostle's Creed.

Why did I leave several years back? I guess I saw that the "we've got all the right answers folks" had all of the "real" power. Though it was a different kind of fundamentalism than I knew among the Jesus Freaks, the absolute truth claims (held to by most, certainly not all) still had me in a strangle hold. I had left all of that and I couldn't go back again.

BOOK REVIEW: God's Strange Work

2008-12-27T10:08:00.000-08:00

Recently I read God's Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World by David Rowe (2008, Eerdmans). This is a well written work and a very even-handed treatment of the "Millerite turned Adventist" Movement which began in the 1830's and extended until some time past 1844 (the predicted end). Having spent sometime among the Seventh-day Adventists, as chronicled in my book on fundamentalism (you may read a sample chapter at www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com). SDA's have a certain "hagiography" surrounding Miller and the accuracy of his computations.

Miller was born in 1782 and, as the book demonstrates, was in many respects a product of late 18th and early 19th century America. He was raised in a (mostly) pious Baptist home and had early inclinations towards religion. As a young man, he was taken with the rationalism of the Deist writers and thinkers of his day. From this, he derived a strong preference for what could be reasonable and proven (hence his later attraction to heavenly arithmetic).

After serving in the War of 1812, Miller discovered that his Deism left him bankrupt when it came to the establishment of purpose and meaning in his life. Although he was raised in eastern New York, he had left for Vermont before his military service to escape the religiosity of his parents. When he found his life devoid of ultimate purpose, he resolved to return to his family farm in New York, which he did, wife and children in tow.

While living in New York, he became a prominent man of some means. He also held local political office. It was in New York through the study of the Bible (not quite as free from the commentary of others as his modern-day children might lead us to believe) that he embraced the principle-- one widely accepted by many writers of the day-- that in prophecy, one day was equivalent to one year. Approaching the 2300 day prophecy in Daniel he concluded it represent 2300 years and would culminate around 1843 or before (later changed to October 22, 1844). As Rowe points out, this conclusion was hardly unique to Miller, having been stated by many religious writers previous to Miller's discovery of the date.

At first (for years) he kept the belief to himself or shared it with only a few close associates. Then he seemed to sense God calling him to "tell it to the world." He was hesitant. Obviously, he knew that to many it would sound like a "crackpot" message. Nevertheless, in the early 1830's, Miller began his prophecy lecturing career. Much of it carried out when he was past 60.

It was actually popularizers, especially Joshua V. Himes, who "shepherded" Miller in such a way that the Millerite/Adventist message became a mass movement. It must be noted that there were many other "prophets" emerging in New England at that time-- especially Joseph Smith. In some ways, Millerism was a product of the same religious fervor that produced Mormonism. This must be said, however, Miller never applied the term "prophet" to himself, and except for his millenialism, he was pretty much an "Old School Baptist." He was decidedly a Calvinist. The Millerite Movement attracted tens of thousands of adherents (to one degree or another).

Of course, he missed the date. After the Great Disappointment, Millerites went on predicting dates for years to come. Some spiritualized the Second Coming, saying Christ came in some manner-- something happened on October 22, 1844. Miller vacillated on the many questions that perplexed bewildered followers until his death in 1848. Himes eventually returned to the Episcopal faith of his childhood. In the 1870's, he was ordained a priest. Millerites fractured into many splinter groups, always predicting or explaining, trying to make sense of the Movement and its failure of prediction.

All things considered, God's Strange Work is a worthwhile read. It gives many insights into the life of a complicated man-- albeit a man of his times.

Christmas Eve

2008-12-24T18:09:00.000-08:00

Yet one more! JCA

To claim again
the love
I knew--
my Friend,
the Beginning and End,
and all the gifts,
and the wonder
of the Child.
Perhaps I've grown
too comfortable.
(Or too familiar
with the Story.)
The angel choirs
swallowed-up
in the hours
of making sermons
and planning programs
all about You.
And somehow,
to miss it all
because the wonder
is gone.
I long for Christmas
again.
Special days
gone by.
Let me fly away
to You
again.
I know You are waiting
there for me.

Reflection of Christ

2008-12-21T17:58:00.000-08:00

Another Advent/Christmas poem from several years ago-- JCA

I give you this day;
it is all I have--
these twenty-four hours.
And really,
it is only this one minute
given to me.
So much gets in the way--
drive away all that makes me sad.
Fill the jars of plain water within
and change it to
the wine of joy and freedom.
All I have is yours, Oh Lord.
All that I could ever hope to be.
Change my life that Christ
might be adored
by all who see
the life I live,
that in all
I might be a reflection of him.
Let me not live
in the gray, cloudy mist
and fog and haze
of earth.
Draw me ever higher,
and in me have your birth.

Something Different

2008-12-19T16:14:00.000-08:00

Here we are, in the middle of the Advent/Christmas season. It seemed right to me, as I thought about it, to take a break from my "typical stuff" (so to speak) and take notice of the day. So, for my next few posting, I offer some original Advent poetry written over the past 10 years. I hope you enjoy....

DID YOU KNOW!

Did you know?//Could you imagine?

I’ve always thought// Of him as the wisest,
The fairest//The one who gave all.
His death//The deepest sorrow
And Good Friday//My way out.
The One altogether lovely// “Wounded for my transgressions,
Crushed for my iniquities//Chastised for my peace.”
Yet it pleased the Lord//To give all He had
So I could walk in the garden//In the cool of the day
With him
He won my heart//By giving
Until he had nothing left//To give.
And you//Blessed Mary,
Did you know that on that day//You said yes,
When you were just//A young virgin child,
Of the sword that would//Pierce Your own soul?
You gave all//You gave all you had//To give.
Did you know the price?
You and he//Just two bewildered people
Called to bring the One.

You gave the One birth.
He also//In bewildered obedience
Taught the One//To work with his hands,
To chop wood//And shared the things
Of father and son.
Two people//Caught up in Something
Much bigger than themselves.
Once, my son was sick//Near death.
That too was a Christmas//And I wept
With no one to console me
To think that I might//Lose my son.
I would give my sons//The moon and the stars.
I would walk a million//Miles for them--
Gladly die you them.
Did you know//Most Highly Favored Lady;
Did you know blessed Joseph
How much your yes//Would cost?
The joy of a new life//Or the sound of a dirge.
To which sound did you//Say, “Yes?”
Did you know?

Of Salvation Army Bell Ringers, Preacher/Professors and Social Justice

2008-12-17T17:51:00.000-08:00

No doubt about it, I have preached some real humdinger social justice sermons in my day. Here I am, approaching the 3rd. Sunday of Advent. I've been reading all of those lectionary texts about "mountains and hills brought low," "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," and the justice of God-- "God will cast down the kings from their thrones and lift up the meek and the lowly." "The hungry God has filled with good things; the rich God has sent away empty." I've really been hitting it hard.

Then, tonight came (Dec. 11)-- a cold night in Owensboro. I'd forgotten about my commitment. You see, a little over a month back, I cut my hand and had to get 25 stitches. Today, in my college education professor job, I was taking a student teacher to meet the cooperating teacher she will work with next semester. I'm pretty clumsy, and I fell in the parking lot-- right on the place where the stitches had recently been. By the time I got home, I decided I was not having a good day. Then my wife reminded me.

Brucie had called a few days back and asked if I would be a bell ringer at Kroger tonight. I had forgotten. But, I had promised Brucie when she called that I'd do it. So, off I went. And, did I mention, it was cold?

I took over for the guy before me. He had been standing inside the store a good bit. I decided that to be effective, I was going to have to get outside and stay there. I smiled and said "Merry Christmas" to every one. Some cut a wide path to avoid me. Lot's walked right up and put some dough in the kettle. Then it happened. Someone said something to me like, "How long do they make you guys work at a time?" I realized that my benefactor thought I was a paid bell ringer.

I remembered seeing some obviously needy folks, of a rather unsavory appearance, right across the way at K-Mart ringing the bell for hours on end. I thought, "I don't want folks thinking I'm one of them. I want them to know that I'm a respectable teacher/preacher donating my time to needy people.

You can see it coming, can't you? My Advent texts. Jesus came as a beggar, one of those people and found solidarity with them. Was I any better? I felt the shame of my judgmentalism. I grabbed my bell, pulled my jacket around my neck and begin ringing for all I was worth. Only this time, I tried to be a beggar. After all, aren't we all?

On Christmas Silliness and Civil Religion

2008-12-15T10:48:00.000-08:00

I noted in the religion page that there have been some mighty "strange happenings" in Washington state lately regarding Christmas displays, politics, freedom of religion, freedom from religion, and the nature of Christmas in a pluralistic society. After the state put the tried and true Christmas stuff on display, everybody wanted a piece of the Holiday Pie. Seems like there is something for everybody in today's civil religion.

Jewish folks, got a menorah. African Americans got some Kwanzaa stuff on display. Then, heavens no! The Atheist demanded a place at the table and offered a Holiday Greetings reminding us that religion is irrational and doesn't make folks moral.

I got to thinking, maybe I should demand a display as well. Maybe I could represent the thousands of fat, ex-fundamentalist, college professor/preachers that are often ignored. After all, we do our part for the good old US of A as well. Don't we deserve our own piece of lettuce in the Salad Bowl?

Now, if you don't want to offend anybody, there is my dear friend Katy. Katy is a frustrated, sort-of evangelicalish writer of Christian fiction. She's a good writer. She's had a few things published, so I think it is fair to say that she is a contributor to the rich faith heritage that makes the fabric of our nation. We need a Katy sign on the lawn pronto! Now will take care of representimg the frustrated writing community.

Then there's the Jehovah's Witnesses....No. I take it back. Non-participators. Oh, forget the whole damn deal.... I mean... I was only trying to give everybody equal time.

Well, there is my friend Paul, the Baha'i. Only thing is, he is BIG TIME into the whole environmental deal. That might, you know, give the Atheists a bad name if they had to share space with a religiously-oriented Tree Hugger.

Maybe though, just maybe, the whole deal is so ridiculous it isn't worth my time. Who cares what sits on the capital lawn? I wish them all the best-- Happy Holidays, and many Happy Returns of the Day.

I think I hear Irene telling me it's time for us to light the Advent Wreath. Don't think I'll be doing that at the capital lawn. Nope, we'll probably just rake some stuff off the dinner table, read a thought or two, light the candle, and say a prayer. Amen.

I'm sure as hell not going to worry about who gets some space on the lawn at Frankfort. Think I'll leave that to the Zoroastrians.

BOOK REVIEW: Quitting Church

2008-12-12T06:41:00.000-08:00

Recently, I read the book, Quitting Church: Why the Faithful are Fleeing and What to Do About It by Julia Duin (2008, BakerBooks). Duin is the religion editor for the Washington Times. I discovered a stark contrast between Quitting Church and What Americans Really Believe (reviewed below, see post on 12/2). Overall, I found Duin's assessment of the evangelical world much more in keeping with most major polls (some conducted by evangelicals such as Barna-- to whom she frequently refers). I think this is a useful, thoughtful book, well considered and carefully nuanced to match the realities of church life as it is currently reflected in evangelical churches.

A major point that Duin makes concerns the Jesus Movement of the late 60's and early 70's. This definitely caught my attention. I was there, living in community, a part of it all. In fact, my book, Stories of a Recovering Fundamentalist: Understanding and Responding to Christian Absolutism, reaches many of the same conclusions as Duin (to read chapters from my book on my experiences in the Jesus Movement and why I abandoned fundamentalism visit http://therecoveringfundamentalist.com). There was something about those days and the community that existed among believers that was healing, real, and alive. Still, we differ in our final analysis. In the end, I believe that fundamentalism/evangelicalism is logically and empirically broken beyond fixing. Duin, on the other hand, writes as an evangelical who still holds to the evangelical faith/practices (except, perhaps, in regards to the status or lack thereof accorded women in evangelicalism). Still, she sees that days of the Jesus Movement as "glory days," just as I often tend to view the Movement as well.

Duin does not see as much ineffectiveness in churches that reach out to the "twenty-somethings." In that arena, the seeker churches and emergent churches have made a real impact. Yet, the model offered by the seeker environment appears shallow and empty to the "thirty-somethings" and baby-boomers. These folks are tired of shallow worship, authoritarian pastors, and the disenfranchisement of women. Many of these folks sense an environment devoid of much spiritual power.

In her research of alternative models of "the way things used to be" (if one may speak in such contradictions), Duin spent sometime at the International House of Prayer associated with Mike Bickle and located in Kansas City. I grew up in Kansas City and was associated with Agape Fellowship, the original expression of the Jesus Movement in the city, living for some time at the communal house. I well remember when Mike Bickle began his ministry in Kansas City in the late 70's. Although Duin seems to see Bickle as an exemplary figure in the Charismatic side of the Jesus Movement, most of us who were there watched as South Kansas City Fellowship (Bickle's original endeavor) went though change after change-- first independent, then a Vineyard Church (with many versions of how that arrangement came to an end), then the "laughing church, Toronto Blessing" phase, then this, then that, and now IHOP. While addressing it to some degree, Duin minimizes the nuttiness of some of the Charismatic/evangelical "movements" as well as the tendency among evangelicals (especially Charismatics) to change almost with the seasons of the year-- always looking for a new way to create a "Spirit high."

Still, her point that the seeker churches bring young folks in the front door, while many long time evangelicals, mourning the "Ichabod" condition, as the glory has departed from evangelical "Israel," are exiting the back door is well taken. She sees some hope in the current house church movement, but notes the tendency to institutionalize even in that environment.

All in all, I very much enjoyed this book. Really, although her diagnosis of the problem as an internal condition among the evangelical faithful is probably on target (but not for those of us who have abandoned the absolutist position-- our concerns lie in a different direction), her solutions are a bit meager. All things considered, the book is well written, thoughtful, and timely. I recommend adding this book to your reading list.

That They May Be One-- Part 3

2008-12-10T10:05:00.000-08:00

So why bother? If you are right about being one in the Lord, why do you go on and on about all of this stuff? Why bother to tell others that Jesus is God? Why go to such lengths to promote a certain view of the Bible, a view that some might say undermines faith? Why, contrary to many of the other believers in a larger hope, do you make waves by arguing so forcefully for humanity's free will? Why indeed?

Congratulations! You have just found the MOST IMPORTANT Part of this little confession. Maybe you are a believer in a larger hope. You can't pin down where this is all going. Some of it you like, but sometimes it seems to you like I'm talking just like Christians have always talked-- "Babylon Stuff!" Maybe you are an "orthodox evangelical." First, some stuff seems pretty straight to you. But now, after reading a bit, you find yourself saying, "Man! This guy is way too liberal for me!"

But if you have read all of this stuff, here you are. And I think you deserve an answer. So here it is. I think the WHOLE DEAL (you know, LIFE, the UNIVERSE, EVERYTHING) is all about the character of God. That's it. That's all of it.

It seems like the Jews grew in their understanding of God. Early on, they looked at the gods of their neighbors and saw Yahweh as the BIG GUY. "Who is like you, Lord among the gods?" As time went on, they came to see Yahweh as the only God. "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One." It is this one God that we are interested in knowing.

God gave us the Bible, I fully believe that. He gave it just as it is. This is why I talk about the Bible as casebook or codebook. If it is a casebook, a case history of God dealing with his friends-- friends that sometimes misunderstood him-- we can begin to see why Jesus' view of things was so radically different than Joshua's. Joshua thought God told him to take the Promised Land and mercilessly kill all of its inhabitants, men, women, boys and girls, babies. But Jesus said that he did not come to destroy people's lives but to save them.

God is radically honest. He wants us to see exactly how his friends have acted and how they have struggled to find the way. He wants us to see how, step-by-step, we are lead to a view of Yahweh as the kind Abba (Daddy) that Jesus knew and proclaimed. You see, it all boils down to God's character. It is a very important question, whether Jesus is God or not. If Jesus is God, that means God hangs around with sinners, touches lepers, washes dirty feet, cries, laughs, gets angry, and dies even as he forgives his executioners.

It is supremely important if God casts folks into an eternal hell. If one lie means eternal damnation, then we have God as the ancient oriental despot. But if God reconciles his enemies and never forecloses but always respects OUR freedom, the situation is radically different. That means that God, who knows all things, would never create someone with the intent of destruction them. It means that no one is beyond his love.

What he wants is a love relationship. So free will is of the utmost importance. You might say that God prizes nothing more than our free will. Love, if the Apostle Paul is right, does not force or coerce. It woos and wins the object it seeks. God cannot do other than allow us the freedom to say "NO." Yet he never forecloses. He relentlessly loves that all might be won to him.

It matters if a Christian bears arms and fights and wars. This says something about the God s/he represents. How can s/he represent the Guy who gave the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and fight for country or king? We have only one True King, and he calls us to a battle where our weapons are not "carnal" but spiritual.

We all pray for many things. But how often do we just shut-up, sit down and love God from the heart for just twenty minutes?

So this is it. This is why it matters. Who is God? What is God like? "The whole universe waits for the revelation of the children of God." All creation waits for a knowledge of who God is, God's character. That's why it matters.

That They May Be One-- Part 2

2008-12-08T09:57:00.000-08:00

In 1 Cor. 15 Paul tells us the content of the gospel he preached. "The Messiah died for our sins, exactly as the scriptures tell it....He was buried....He was raised on the third day" (MES). That's the gospel. But what about_______ (you fill in your main concern)? What about it? Read 1 Cor. 15 for yourself. THAT'S THE GOSPEL!!!!

Of course, the gospel does have lifestyle implications. But do not confuse the implications with the gospel. The implications are our love gift to God. Salvation is God's love gift to us. It is clear that Christians should be the most moral people on earth. They should also be the most kind and understanding. When it comes to lifestyle, we are all at different places. Discussion, convincement? Certainly, there is a place for that. But not rejection. Only those without sin can throw the stones (words spoken concerning a prostitute). If we lead folks to Christ and his word, and if they accept him from the heart, we must leave them in God's hands. Certainly, we should never reject people over ideas. I don't know about you, but I know a bit about me. I became a believer in 1971. My ideas have changed many times since then. There is little charity in the words heretic or cult. Be careful what you say. By your words, says the scripture, you will be justified or condemned.

I believe, just like the creed says, that Jesus was "Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father." But I know of people, some with very Christlike characters and sincere believers in the larger hope, who believe that Christ was definitely NOT God and was a created being. They will affirm that he is the Son of God, sinless, preexistent, and incarnate. But to these folks, to talk of a Trinity or make Jesus fully God smacks of polytheism. And, yep, the early Christians struggled over this too. I guess I've got to say (Arrggh....!) that if they believe that Christ died for their sins, was buried, and rose from the dead, they pass the gospel test. Even my "fire and brimstone" friends, if they accept Christ as their Savior, pass the "test."

Now I don't like either of those beliefs. But I don't think that I can go beyond the gospel. Acceptance of the gospel defines a Christian, not agreement with certain thoughts or ideas. Ouch! Hurts doesn't it?

My best friends (not counting my wife of course!) recently sent their kid off to college. She is a beautiful Christian girl. She isn't (and her parents aren't) in agreement with me at all about this hell deal. They would be considered by most much more traditional evangelicals. Anyway, she went to a certain "Christian" college. She was baptized as a believer but didn't see baptism or other practices quite the way the sponsoring denomination did. Because she did not agree with everything they believed many of her fellow students doubted the genuineness of her Christianity.
How pathetic that we treat each other like this! I know of some who have no use at all for any organized church because they disagree with "churchy ideas." That is, of course, their prerogative. Still, I think it is sad how often we attack and resent each other over "religion." What about the Master's prayer? Doesn't it matter?

I once heard a little poem that describes our sad condition.

Think as I think,
No more, no less,
That I am right and no one else.
Say what I say.
Do just what I do.
And then and ONLY then
Will I have fellowship with you!

That They May Be One

2008-12-05T09:49:00.001-08:00

In his Priestly Prayer recorded in John 17, Jesus earnestly prayed to the Father that his followers might be one. Two-thousand years later, how are we doing? Miserably, I'd say. We are anything but one. Christ's Body, his glory, his witness, the church, is fragmented into thousands of little "camps." Some are built on distinctive doctrines, others more on distinctive practices. And, add to this that even within ecclesial communities, many of us have our pet beliefs. The root of Babble (as in the Tower of...) is the notion of confusion. The church is a towering Babble.

Certainly, I'm not writing to suggest that I have the solution that will unite us all and make us all think alike. Yes, it's been tried. Some with creeds, others with covenants, and yet others have attempted to use church discipline as a way of achieving the oneness Christ so longed for. Still, it hasn't worked. The church is less "one" than it's ever been. I don't know of any way to make us all think alike. Some might say back to the Bible. Aren't we all reading the same one now? What I purpose is a very simple platform. We will not achieve unity in all details of belief. Not now, maybe never. But I do think that St. Paul gives us some keys that may help us. In Romans 14 Paul tells us to accept each other and not pass judgment on others because we disagree with them about "disputable matters." I like the way The Message puts it, "Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do." It's a bold statement. He goes on to give many examples. Some might say, "Hey, now wait a minute. That chapter is about disagreements about stuff like food, and keeping certain holy days. It's not about anything really important."

Maybe these folks will say that they only refuse to accept others that disagree with them about MAJOR, GIGANTIC things like, oh let's say: Abortion (I think it's wrong.), Warfare (I think the New Testament teaches Christians shouldn't bear arms.), The rapture (I think that idea is contraindicated.), Hell (Well, you can read the web page on that one!), The inerrancy of the Bible (I certainly don't accept this in the conventional sense.), The Christian Right ( I don't think you should mix religion and politics to create a "civil religion" and expect all to conform.), Women pastors (I'm all for it!).

My list could go on. But I think if I listed enough items, I could make about everyone angry. So could you! Now, some would say these are great BIG you are/aren't saved sorts of things. But, you see that's it exactly. To the early church food, Sabbath-keeping, and other such insignificant things were great BIG you are/aren't saved sorts of things! Maybe you think the early church had her act much more together. Forget it! I was a seminary student in Historical Theology when I first discovered the notion of universal reconciliation. Yes, it was widespread in the early centuries of the church. But, so was the belief in annihilation. Within a hundred years of the apostles, Justin Martyr was already making very clear reference to that belief. He must have gotten it somewhere! Hell was around too-- and I mean the eternal variety! I can't think of a church history textbook that does not admit that pacifism was widespread in the early church. Yet we know there were Christian soldiers. Beware of anyone that says "The early church (as in ALL the early church) believed...." It would be very nice. But it is not quite so neat as all that.

BOOK REVIEW: What Americans Really Believe

2008-12-02T08:45:00.000-08:00

Recently, I picked up the book, What Americans Really Believe, by Rodney Stark and others. As near as I can figure, the book is an outgrowth of the sociology department at Baylor University. All of the authors (there are several) save one are Baylor social science faculty. The book is a report and analysis of a 2007 survey conducted by Gallop for Baylor regarding religious beliefs of Americans.

If one were to read the book, especially the analysis of the data collected, one would get the opinion that the authors are saying a few things loud and clear and in many, many ways:

Evangelical churches are thriving
Most Americans are really evangelical in their outlook
The Mainline denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) are irrelevant and on their way out.
Even those in those dying denominations think a whole lot like evangelicals.
Evangelical churches (not to be redundant-- the authors sure are!) are thriving.

As I see it, the book supplies some useful data. But, it is dismissive of other major surveys of the religious landscape. The claim is thus: If only the other major surveys asked the right questions, they would know that we are right. And, I might add, they dismiss just about everybody. Now, I quoted some earlier Baylor surveys in my book (see left sidebar). As I said, they have something to say. Still, I think this idea-- others ask the wrong (or maybe right) questions in the wrong way-- plays both ways. Hey, Baylor Folks, did it ever occur to you that YOU might be asking the wrong questions in the wrong ways? It's sad that Baylor's Southern Baptist agenda comes through so loud and clear from scholars in a fine institution whom one would think would embrace impartiality. (Compare the Baylor survey to the recent Pew "Religious Landscape Survey.")

I am also concerned that Baylor seems to dismiss even its own data when it appears to be uncomplimentary. For example, charts included in the book indicate that those with the most evangelical/fundamentalist orientation are the least open to new experience. As has been frequently noted, evangelicals/fundamentalists are often xenophobic and easily threatened by different views, issues of diversity, etc. They have made up their mids and don't want to be "confused by the facts." This seems to be implied by the Baylor data, but it remains unexamined.

Even the Baylor survey indicates that only around 35 percent of Americans are "churched" in any meaningful sense. Other surveys have indicated that the "unaffiliated but spiritual" group is the fastest growing segment on the religious landscape. Baylor attempts (poorly) to show that this group is really some variant of the "religious" and probably Christian (perhaps evangelical as well??). It is such dismissive treatment of research conducted by those who do not share the Southern Baptist fundamentalist paradigm and the far-fetched conclusions reached that brings the entire Baylor endeavor into question. I guess I expected more sociology and less "faith-based" apologetics from such a fine institution.

All-in-all, I'm disappointed!

Public Schools, Release Time, and Separation of Church and State

2008-11-30T08:14:00.000-08:00

A recent case in Huntington, IN demonstrates the fine line that government and government agencies must tread in an attempting to deal even-handedly with religion. The case in question regards release time from public school for religious education. The issue of release time is an old one, going back many years in American jurisprudence. Release time has both won and lost its day in court, and has been on trial almost more times than one would want to recount.

What release time is all about is allowing children to leave the regular school program, usually for an hour or less a day or week, to receive religious education during school hours. Usually, the children go to a portable trailer or some structure not directly connected to the school. Parental permission must be obtained. A student or parent may decline a child's participation.

At issue in the Huntington case is the use of the school parking lot and electricity. Since these are provided via taxpayer's funds and since taxation is to be conducted for the common good and not sectarian promotion, many find the idea of release time inappropriate. Others find the notion a school even making religious instruction available during school time to be a tacit endorsement of a particular religion on the school's part.

Although conservative Christian parents may point out that attendance is voluntary and that their children have a "right" to a religious education, it begs the question: Why on school and time (and possibly property or expense)? It's like the old "prayer in school deal." Why should a time to pray be officially recognized by schools when students can pray in school virtually anytime they want? If religious organizations are so keen on offering religious education to kids, why not offer it when school is not in session? Are they afraid that, given the choice between free time and religion, parents and kids will opt for free time? Is it a case of trying to "make" kids be religious? If it is so important to parents, why do they not see to it that kids receive religious education outside of school?

Schools walk a fine line. They are government agencies, and as such they are not in the religion business. On the other hand, religion is a very real part of society and culture. As such, schools should teach plenty ABOUT religion, but nothing about HOW to be religious, whether in a school building or in a trailer in the parking lot.

A Law Against Helping the Homeless?

2008-11-28T06:52:00.000-08:00

In Brookville, PA, the First Apostle's Doctrine Church has open the parsonage to the homeless for the past several years. The church is located about 80 miles from Pittsburgh. Why does the church do this? The pastor states that the church is attempting to following the Bible's teachings concerning the Christian responsibility to care for the poor, needy, and homeless. That would seem like a laudable goal. If the church doesn't "step up to the plate" and help the homeless, who is going to do it?

It seems as if the city fathers don't agree. The borough recently cited the congregation for zoning violations. Although the church had been offering this service for some years, the city decided they had had enough.

Amazing. In this time of economic upheaval and increasing homelessness, a city government would actually take away the only opportunity that some folks might have to find relief from the elements and perhaps a hot meal.

Still, this is nothing new. I have seen battles in my own community over this very concern. Neighborhoods are concerned about safety. While we must grant that the homeless certainly have an inordinate share of "problem people"-- many mentally ill (remember the Reagan Administrations little gift of dumping the very sick out on the streets in the 80's?), we are faced with the problem of what we are going to do with these folks? I don't know about you, but I'm only stay a paycheck or two ahead of being broke myself. What if we were in their shoes? It's not impossible, you know (think economics-- think Great Depression).

It's been popular to ask, "What would Jesus do?" If that is not just so much rhetoric, maybe it is time to ask. What would he do? (Matthew 25-- hint)

Should Abortion be a Universal Human Right? Who is Really "Pro-life?"

2008-11-26T06:20:00.000-08:00

I noted in my local newspaper that a Swedish feminist political party, known as the Feminist Initiative Party, is making a push for the EU to recognize abortion as a universal human right. This is a bold step. Although it merited reporting in the international press, I would predict that the identification of abortion as a universal human right on a par with clean water or access to medical care (which the US unfortunately does not view as a right) has a very long "row to hoe." Many European governments, while not outright banning abortion, make obtaining an abortion difficult.

We live in a very "label challenged" world. Those who are inclined to make abortion generally easy and universally available (and sometimes paid for by the government) usually adopt the title "pro-choice." Yet, when I listen to the pro-choice rhetoric, I really don't hear "pro-choice." What I hear is "pro-abortion"-- vehement and angry. Still, that side of the debate, generally opposes capital punishment, supports social welfare programs, agitates for famine relief in Africa, and a whole slue of worthy positions.

The other side, the so-called "pro-life" are not really pro-life-- at least not all the way. What they want is a legal remedy putting and end to abortion. I don't think things are quite that simple. Abortion was a major issue for 20% or less of the overall US electorate in the 2008 presidential election. Further, this side overwhelmingly supports capital punishment, the Iraq War, very limited social programs. I would hardly call their views consistent with the moniker "pro-life."

Let's get real. I think abortion, in most cases, is morally wrong. Still, I don't think that, after all of these years of legal abortion, making abortion illegal will result in anything but civil disobedience and outright "revolution" of a sort. If one really wants to stop the tide of abortion, it would seem to me that enacting laws and social policies-- including incentives to give birth to an unwanted child-- would be the path to take.

Finally, let pro-life truly be PRO-LIFE. Yet us stand for life and see that any attitude or action that diminishes life contributes to a death culture. Those truly pro-life need to refuse the violence of the War, denounce capital punishment, lobby for children's and parent's health care and a livable wage, and act in life-affirming ways in all they do. Any death-affirming policies diminish all of us. It strikes a blow against the power of life-- strong though fragile as it is. Let pro-life be pro-life indeed!

Education Reform, NCLB, the Religious Right, and Other (sometimes) Scary Stuff

2008-11-23T03:46:00.000-08:00

One reads a great deal concerning education reform nowadays. It might almost seem as if this were some new trend in education. Indeed, it is not. I have been an educator for over thirty years. My field of expertise is reading. After teaching in a regular elementary classroom for a couple of years, I completed a master's degree in reading and learning disabilities. Except for a five year break to attend seminary and serve as a full time minister, I have been a teacher of elementary reading. In 1995, I completed a doctorate in reading/educational psychology. At that point, I began teaching reading methods in a college setting.

Over my thirty years of involvement in education, I have seen many, many reforms. Some have come from the right, others from the left. In the field of reading, when I began my teaching, basal reading programs were in, and we attempted to teach every skill known to humanity. Next, whole language gained quite a following. Next, an oldie, but a popular one, reappeared: phonics. Now we are emphasizing a balanced approached-I think that is likely a step in the right direction.

We can easily extend this discussion beyond the boundaries of reading. When I started attending elementary school in 1960, math was a "drill and kill" activity. The expectation was learning of the basic math facts and procedures whether you understood them or not. It is rather easy to see if you learned under this method. Just attempt to explain "conceptually" why 1/2 divided by 4 is 1/8, and why to arrive at that one must "invert and multiply." I am surprised at how many cannot explain the multiplication and division of fractions at the conceptual level.

When I was about half way through my elementary school education, the so-called "new math" hit the educational world. I remember well spending most of my fourth-grade year (when it started in Kansas City) marking that 5 + 2 > 1 + 3. I liked this math. I was not too good at the old stuff, and I found this a breeze.

People become very opinionated about educational reform. I have seen many a battle over the issue of whole language vs. phonics. It seems like everyone gets involves. Classroom teachers form strong opinions. Politicians form strong opinions and include reform as part their political platform. They know education is a hot button issue with voters. One group that I watch with great diligence is the religious right. It seems as if they have turned such aspects of educational reform as phonics-based reading instruction and support for the No Child Left Behind Act into something resembling religious dogma. It seems to make little sense, turning reading methods into a religious or quasi-religions crusade, but that is what the leaders of the religious right seem committed to support (James Dobson, for example).

I reiterate: educational reform is not new. With that notion disposed of, I would like to suggest three principles of any lasting and useful educational reform. These are characteristics of reform supported over the long haul by much research and dictated by commonsense. I have arrived at these through observation of reform cycles that I have seen throughout my years of work as an educator.

First, education reform cannot be test-driven. Currently, the watchword is accountability. From this perspective, teachers are cagey, lazy actors who need to have their feet held to the fire to make them perform. I have observed thousands of teachers over the years, worked with thousands of pre-service teachers, and supervised well over a hundred student teachers. I must admit, one does rarely encounter a lazy, careless teacher, but it is unusual. The attempt to control teachers and student achievement by means of standardized tests is a misguided approach.

A recent study by the Educational Testing Service, makers of the SAT and nationally used teacher certification exams, revealed that there is much in student performance that cannot be controlled by schools. In fact, ETS discovered four variables: absenteeism, the percent of children living in single parent families, the amount of television kids watch, and how much preschoolers are read to daily by caregivers (especially parents) were very accurate predictors of reading test results used for No Child Left Behind reporting in eighth-grade. It seems that learning involves many variables (the four factors accounted for over two-thirds of the differences in aggregated state testing results). Home factors are things that schools and teachers cannot control.

Instead of testing and testing yet more, a better use of funding would be the improvement of conditions for parents and families. Funding Head Start results in a measurable increase in IQ scores for disadvantaged children. Why not continue to fund enriched environments for Head Start children when they leave the program and help retain ground already gained? Why not fund more "parents as first teachers" programs to go into the homes and teach parents how to help get their preschoolers ready for school? Why not spend more money eradicating poverty-especially since that seems to be the real issue?

Second, an effective reform program would insist on scope and sequence. By scope, I refer to the content taught, by sequence, I refer to when content is to be mastered. This was one of the downfalls of the whole language movement. It taught reading without any real coordination of materials, curriculum, or expectations for mastery in terms of when expected benchmarks should be met. Much more coordination of teaching needs to take place and curriculum guides and agreed upon content are essential.

At the same time, I am not implying that methodology needs to be completely standardized. There needs to be some general guidelines on how to go about doing things. Still, teaching is as much art as science. To address methodology too much turns teaching into a mechanical act, and we know that the relationship, or blending, of teacher and learner are all important concepts. What we need are standards and benchmarks without denying teachers the authority to make hundreds and thousands of critical decisions each day. What we need are flexible standards and flexible benchmarks.

Lastly, we need a new way of doing things. After all of the years of reform, after all the years of researching what works, an amazing trend is notable. Educational critic and researcher, John Goodlad, notes that the most common activity one observes in today's elementary schools is seatwork (i.e. worksheets, quiet work from textbooks, etc). The most common activity noted in high schools is lectures. Both of these approaches are notoriously ineffective. Just consider lectures, for example, how often do you "zone out" during sermons? And, if you do attend, what keeps you "plugged in?"

We have lost the wisdom shared with us by John Dewey so many years ago and supported by study after study. Children learn best by doing. Kids need to make a classroom democracy, not just study government in their civics textbook. They need to come up with ways they can recycle and begin a neighborhood recycling program, not just read about pollution. Education needs to become real. The real is better than the contrived. As psychologist Jerome Bruner has pointed out, doing is better than seeing, and seeing is better than just reading or hearing about something. Probably the best approach combines all three methods.

Reforms come and go. However, on these three principles, we can arrive at a reform that will stand the test of time. All of us want our schools to improve. Isn't it time to skip the political rhetoric of the right (including the religious right) and the left and do what is best for kids? Isn't it about time?

Don't Confuse Faith and Knowledge-- They Simply Aren't the same!

2008-11-21T03:33:00.000-08:00

When I was a seminarian, one of my professors was fond of reminding us that the Bible was "a book about how to go to heaven, not a book about how the heavens go." That was many years ago, and it was a transition time in my life. Having been raised in a fundamentalist church, I "chucked it all" when I entered high school. It wasn't long until I was fully caught-up in the tail end of the hippie movement, already petering out in the late 60's and early 70's. When I was still in high school, my dad, who was born in 1909, had taken all of the hair, rock and roll, political rebellion, and drug trips he could endure. He wanted me out. At age fifteen, I was kicked out of my parents home. Really, I was quite happy about the arrangement. Home was entirely too square. I lived for some time by panhandling, mooching, stealing, and getting stoned. I really was having a good time. Then, I encountered something new, the Jesus Freaks. Theses folks were just as fundamentalist as the church of my childhood, but they still managed to remain hip.

It is a long story, but I recognized they had something I wanted: certainty. Events went from there into a happy fundamentalist oblivion for the next several years. But, in the back of my mind I was always haunted by the question, "How do you know?" The answer was supplied by fundamentalist leaders. I knew that I knew that I knew because the Bible said so, or as a popular bumper sticker had it, God said it! I believe it! That settles it! The Bible became the court of no appeals. If the Bible said it, it must be true. That worked pretty well until I got to college. Then other notions came my way that made that approach appear as circular thinking. They were notions that made sense to me. I tried to talk it over with our leaders. They told me, "Believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts." It didn't help much.

Eventually, I arrived at the point that I was rapidly losing all faith. Then a revelation came to me. There are two ways of knowing. One way is by means of our senses and investigation. This is the way of science. That is "true" which can be empirically proven to be true. We live in a world of observation. The Bible is full of stories about the sea parting, the sun standing still (as if it moved), a fingerless hand writing on a wall, a worldwide flood in which one guy and his family, out of all the people in the world, and two of each kind of animal, escape on a boat, people living to be 900 years old and much, much more. Yet, no one can claim to have observed any of these things in reality. We are left with two choices: These things used to happen but no longer occur, or these things never really happened at all. Compare these stories to the religious myths of ancient Israel's surrounding neighbors, and you will discover they are full of similar, but different, impossible stories.

My conclusion about it all is that the Bible stories, likewise, are myths, intending to convey a point, and largely irrelevant when it comes to teaching about science, cosmology, or unbiased history. There is a second way to know truth. It is through the myths. Myth is an avenue of truth. But it is different from observational truth. Is it just "play" truth? No. I would argue that the ancient myths of the Bible are "super truth." They contain truth that will endure long after today's factual news is forgotten (as history bears out).

In Michael Shermer's book, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, Shermer cites research concerning the beliefs of Americans relative to creation and evolution. Reading his data, I would say Americans are rather evenly divided on the issue of natural selection vs. creation. This is interesting, since the weight of evidence is heavily in favor of some variety of evolution. As he points out, the US is the only industrialized western society where this is really an issue any longer. To what do we attribute this? Isn't all about a basic confusion and fear? It is about confusion because many Americans seem to have been taught that the Bible is indeed "a book about how the heavens go." It is based in fear because fundamentalist religious leaders have led the faithful to believe that if the Bible is anything less than factually true in all it proclaims, it is completely untrustworthy. It is a sad state of affairs. We are called upon to depart from commonsense and live in a world of make-believe. This leads to other problems. Seeing the Bible as absolute in all it affirms for all times and places leads to intolerance, bigotry, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, and yet more fear of diversity. In our modern world, it is a price society can no longer afford to pay.

Atonement Story # 2

2008-11-19T15:36:00.000-08:00

Here's Another version:

Story # 1...

God made people. God said, “Take care of things down here on the earth. Have a good time. But what ever you do, don’t go eating THOSE apples! If you do, you’ll die!”

The two young lovers had a great time gardening until one day they decided that MAYBE, God had misled them a bit about the apples. So they thought they’d just take a bite.

Boy! Was God mad! God was so mad that God said, “I’ve got to kill them both or the whole of creation will come unglued. They broke the rules. That means I must kill them. Probably have to torment them forever to restore balance to the universe too.”

But God is kind of soft hearted (although God already knew that all of this stuff was going to happen and already knew that God was going to be soft hearted). God said, “I love them too much to kill them, so I’ll come down to where they live as a human. I’ll still be God. I’ll be perfect. Since I’m going to be a perfect human as well as true God, I’ll kill myself in their place. I’ll die and they’ll go free. It is the ONLY way to make amends for breaking the laws I’ve given them. If they will accept this swap, I’ll cut them loose from the penalty they owe.

Story # 2...

My dad really loves me. He is a well known and prominent community leader. But, let’s say that I don’t go his way. Nope, I get a tattoo, put an earring in my tongue, and join a rap group. I get caught up in sex and drugs.

I steal $30,000 from my dad’s safe for drugs. Then, I get busted for possession. It hits all of the papers. Dad is really embarrassed, not to mention the loss of a considerable amount of hard earned money.

First offense, so I get probation on the drug charge. I’m living with my friends, depressed, angry, and lonely. This was not how I was raised by my loving, kind father. I am estranged from him.

One day, dad calls in tears. He says that he wants me to come home, to start again. But I am ashamed. I’ve ripped him off and I’ve brought dishonor to the family name (which I know means a lot to him). He says he doesn’t care. He will accept the loss of the money. He will accept and deal with the shame. All I have to do is accept his gift of forgiveness.

I’m not sure. If I accept the gift, I’m admitting that dad is right about how to live and that I’ve blown it. I have to admit that I have been in the wrong, that I’ve wronged him and that I need his forgiveness. I have to admit that the only way to get right is by the actions he takes. In his forgiving, in any forgiving, there is pain. The pain we cause others, the pain we cause “our DAD,” and the pain we cause ourselves

My dad could turn me over to the cops for taking what is rightfully his. He could forget about me and let me rot with my friends. But he takes the initiative as well as the pain and offers to set me free. But for the forgiveness to be complete, I have a part. I must admit my wrong and need. I must accept the gift.

Which version speaks to you?

Two Stories of the Atonement

2008-11-17T15:29:00.000-08:00

Two stories which do you like best?

Story # 1...

God made people. God said, “Take care of things down here on the earth. Have a good time. But what ever you do, don’t go eating THOSE apples! If you do, you’ll die!”

The two young lovers had a great time gardening until one day they decided that MAYBE, God had misled them a bit about the apples. So they thought they’d just take a bite.

Story number two in two days! Come back and read it!

Isn't it Odd?

2008-11-15T15:25:00.000-08:00

Isn't it Odd...

Isn't it odd...

That although the relationship of Christ to the church is often likened to a marriage in the Bible, people continue to view God as demanding their love? No one would want to marry a person who said "Love me and marry me or I'll kill you." Or, "If you don't marry me, I torment you forever." I asked Irene to marry me because of a deep abiding love for her. Still, I wouldn't have wanted her to agree to marry me if she did not freely choose to. We marry for love and because we want to spend our life with the object of our affections. We fall in love because of the tenderness, kindness, and respect of the other. We marry because we want to; because we want to spend our life with the other, not because he or she demands it. Isn't it odd that we are better lovers than God?
That although Paul says love does not keep a record of wrongs and Jesus tells us to love our enemies, do good to them, and treat them kindly, because this is being perfect like the Father in heaven, God is exempt from all of this? Isn't it odd that God requires us to be more loving than God is?
That we are told that God is love and that love is defined very plainly in the Bible (1 Cor. 13) as being humble, kind, caring, forever enduring, thinking the best of others, patient, and merciful, and, yet, God violates virtually every principle defined there?
That a parent would never consider killing his/her child for a wrong done and that we are encouraged to discipline them for their own good, but God will assign a person to eternal perdition for one (any) blunder? Isn't it odd that we are better, kinder parents than God is, although Jesus calls us evil parents and parents that fall far short of the Heavenly Parent?
That there is not a just judge on earth who would consider it justice to impose the death penalty on a brother or parent in place of the guilty party, but God calls that justice?
That we would never impose the death penalty on a child for stealing a cookie, but the merciful God Almighty does?
That Christians who believe the penalty for sin is annihilation or hell say that Jesus paid the debt. Why then do they celebrate his resurrection when the penalty he must pay is an eternal one?

That Jesus would die for our sins and yet kill us for them?

Now, I know some will say, "What about this Bible verse?" I can quote Bible verses too. In 1654, George Fox wrote, "No creature can read the scriptures to profit thereby, but who come to the Light and Spirit that gave them forth." No one can correctly understand the Bible apart from the character of God. This was shown forth most clearly in Christ on the cross. As Paul says, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself..." Christ's act was to show God's love to the world, not to appease a hate-filled God.

We all have the same Bible. Why then do some see love, and others wrath? A simple story may sum-up the point well. I never believed chiropractors could solve any problems, but once I went to one out of desperation. As we discussed chiropractic, he told me that he had used many of the same texts as medical doctors in chiropractic college. "How could that be?" I asked. "The ideas of chiropractic are very different then those of conventional medicine." "We do use many of the same books," he assured me. "I guess it depends on how you read them!"

Isn't it odd...?

Perspectives on Spititual Direction

2008-11-12T17:40:00.000-08:00

The purpose of this posting is to offer a reflective review and analysis of two books by Margaret Guenther, The Practice of Prayer (1998), and Holy Listening: The Art of Spiritual Direction, (1992) . I think it proper to begin with an observation that applies to Guenther’s books in particular. In no way can I say that I have encountered a satisfactory definition of the term spiritual direction. I am left with the sense that it is a bit like quality art. We cannot really define it, but we know it when we see it. Is that satisfying? No.

Nevertheless, after reading the books and considering the evidence, I must admit it to be the case. When Guenther struggles to convey what she speaks of when talking of spiritual direction, she is not playing semantic games. It is an enterprise (?) truly defying definition. She is clear that spiritual direction is not psychoanalysis. It is not pastoral counseling. It does partake of characteristics of both. Yet, it is different. Guenther stakes out her ground on this when she speaks of the role of self-disclosure in spiritual direction.

After carefully reading both books, I think that I would define spiritual direction as listening to and helping to create a story. The role of story seems to jump off the page and encounters me as a very necessary and central element in spiritual direction. It is the role of the spiritual director to help the directee tell his/her story. In fact, if I understand where Guenther is coming from on this one, the director becomes a very real and essential part of the story himself. He or she has a role to play in moving the story of faith along.

Another image that comes to mind is that of the Bedouin rover in the story of the patriarchs. They are always on the move. From the start, however, where they are moving to is quite another matter all together. It appears that it is the journey more than the destination that spiritual direction is concerned with. In that respect, it is about caravanning together.

Therefore, what then, is spiritual direction presented as something directionless? Hardly. It is a missional activity that concerns itself with the journey into ever greater wholeness (sozo=salvation). It is the task of the spiritual director to listen carefully and sense when the story of salvation in any individual life is at a pivotal point. When is a new phase on the horizon? In dealing with simplicity and prayer, Guenther moves our attention to the transitory nature of this life as a motivation to simplify. We are all going down that same road.

In terms of a listening spiritual director and a movement onward, this aspect of my life and future is not far from me. Being in the throes of midlife as I am, I think that a proper listening to my story needs to hear the echoes of anxiety, and meaninglessness, and fear that realization often engenders. That is my pivotal point in many ways. I look back, question the worth of it all, and wonder what and how much lies ahead. This type of careful listening is at the heart of holy listening. We all need someone who can listen to us carefully and discover where that cutting edge of growth is for each of us today.

There can be no canned program of holy listening. Spiritual direction is always individual. It is always the unique story that we are all writing at any given time. For aFor many the great difficulty is right here. We cannot focus enough to listen meaningfully to another. We are just too preoccupied with our own agendas and concerns. As our minds drift, and our concerns move away from the setting, we may encounter serious problems. We might lose sight of the journey. Or, we might embellish what is said with our own undisciplined agendas. While a director will surely share his or her own journey from time to time, the focus must be on the one who has come seeking direction. This can be a well-neigh impossible task for some of us. We are just entirely too self absorbed.

Under the rubric of listening, it is helpful to consider Guenther’s notion of spiritual direction as a teaching event and of the spiritual director as teacher. This is very near to my heart. I am a professor, an education professor to be precise. I spend my days teaching pre-service teachers the intricacies of pedagogy. I am constantly reminding them there are two sides to teaching. There is that aspect of teaching which is rightly the domain of science. In this, I wish them their practice informed by research. There has been considerable research into best practice. Best practice might be defined as those practices that teachers engage in standing solidly on the bedrock of science. Best practice derives from meta-analyses of many studies- high quality studies. The conclusions are rather in the undeniable category. Few would disagree about such practices. Yet, for all of the textbooks on teaching, it seems that consistent, widely applicable evidence exists only for nine or ten practices. Of course, these practices are hugely important to teachers. They are well established and we ignore them at our peril.

Likewise, there appears to be a science to spiritual direction. The fact of such a book as Guenther’s on spiritual direction demonstrates that things having been learned over the years by trial and error are proven to possess wide application. The same may be said of prayer. In The Practice of Prayer (1998), Guenther provides information on methods, history, effectiveness, and so on. These things speak of science, of experimentation, of trial and error.

If the science is any good, it must be applicable. It must have application that transcends the one synthesizing the knowledge. If the science is worthwhile, it will bear the scrutiny of repeated testing and experimentation. If this science is useful, it should be able to contribute to a general theory of spiritual direction or prayer. That is indeed the case. Once again, the mere presence of books about prayer and spiritual direction indicate something of a universal nature is distillable.

However, I always tell my students there is another part to teaching. That part is pure art. It is not possible to ‘can it’, sell it, nor distill it. It cannot be set forth in ‘easy to follow’ steps. Here, we are in an entirely different domain. We are sloshing around in murky, mysterious, uncharted territory.

As a teacher educator, a teacher of pre-service teachers, I believe that I can teach the science to those who will apply themselves to learn. However, I cannot teach the art of the teacher. That seems to be something that one just ‘has’ or does not ‘have’. I cannot begin to count how many student teachers I have supervised that, finally, could not teach. They had excelled when I had them in my classes. They all showed promise. Nevertheless, the spark, the art, just was not there. Many have gone on to be teachers, principals, and superintendents. However, they never really had the art that engenders greatness. They lack the flow of creativity. The love, and hate and passion I might add, are missing. Art is not teachable. One may improve art-- if one already possesses it. It may be shaped, guided, and molded. Nevertheless, it is not something created. It is a gift.

I think that spiritual direction is like that. We can learn the science. We might get the highest grade on the test in Spiritual Direction 101 and still not work as effective directors. I think I might be in this category. I know lots about history and facts about spiritual formation. What I lack is that ‘something’ I find when I am talking with my spiritual director.

Guenther is right to make a distinction between spiritual direction and pastoral care and counseling. I am very good at those things. They are more directive, goal oriented, and often more short term. I do well at this because I am adept at pastoral psychology and truly care about folks. However, direction requires a perceptiveness I lack. It calls for a listening I cannot provide. It asks for a detachment (Guenther talks about this in some manner throughout) into which I cannot tap. I do not believe that all pastors are spiritual directors. I am aware that Peterson sees that as a main task of the pastor (see Working the Angles, 1987). I think his statements on this topic placed side by side with Guenther’s views on direction are very instructive at this point.

How? Simply by the way that the topic is approached. Guenther is much more in the tradition of the classical spiritual director. This is apparent when she cites so many examples from the classical forms of prayer in The Practice of Prayer (1998). Peterson seems to me to be speaking more of mentoring. At the heart of mentoring is friendship, respect, and mutual accountability (at least that is often the case). In the classic idea of direction, one must approach some relationship in ways that are reminiscent of asceticism. I do not see how anyone could really deny that Guenther is more in the tradition of the desert while Peterson is more in the tradition of a cup of coffee at Denny’s. My distinction may well be semantic, but it certainly works for me.

The art and science distinction loses something when it comes to prayer considered as something separated from direction. We all pray, in some manner. We see many types of prayers in the New Testament and maybe even more in the Old Testament. There is no real indication that effectiveness depends on the criteria of spiritual direction as stated here. Prayer is a discipline. As a discipline, it responds to scientific inquiry. However, it is also the desperate cry of the heart in a time of need. At those times, both art and science go ‘out the window’ and necessity says it all. God promises to hear. There has been far too much written in an attempt to make prayer into some sort of science. I think we can speak of the discipline of prayer in scientific terms. But the prayer of necessity? The prayer that is the cry of the heart? That prayer transcends any categories we may choose to apply to it.

It is clear when Guenther writes of prayer; she does so in the same vein (i.e. The science of prayer) that she applies to direction. The notion of the director as a teacher is a helpful one. In fact, I would venture to say that preaching is also an educational activity. In that respect, both spiritual direction and preaching are concerned with proclamation. They are concerned with spreading the good news of salvation, wholeness. One works through a proclamation of immediacy. The other works through discipline.

In The Spirituality of Imperfection: Storytelling and the Search for Meaning (Kurtz & Ketcham, 1992), the topic of transformation as a process is addressed using the overall framework of Alcoholics Anonymous. One might argue that such a departure from the Christian tradition brings an element into discussion here that is out of place. Still, there is a wide tradition of spirituality from the educative direction. In 1902, James (1902/1962) articulated the varieties of conversion experiences. While noting that many are not of the ‘evangelical’ type, James does effectively delineate an experience of conversion that is more of an educative nature. Certainly, even those conversions that are dramatic and direct, such as that of Augustine, often contain a long educative process.

Applied to the spiritual director, we catch a glimpse of a conversion of an ongoing nature. It is the task of the director to use the science of direction, applied artfully, to achieve the desired objective: The transformation of the person.

Perhaps there is no time when a director is necessary more than those times when we must pray through devastation and desperation. In those times when God is conspicuous in his absence, the director’s task is to remind the directee that God is not truly absence. When God seems to have us on hold, we need someone whom we can tell of our aloneness without fear of being overridden. By the simple act of listening, a spiritual director can validate our feelings. In that respect, the director must often be detached and able to separate her agenda from the direction session.

My director tells me that she long ago discovered that one must talk at the feeling level if spiritual direction is to be of much use. My wife and I were presenters with United Marriage Encounter for several years. One of the points we always try to make when dealing with couples is ‘feelings are not right or wrong; they just are’. Since almost all of us tend to attach morality to feelings, where the attachment doesn’t fit, instead of boldly confronting when needed about actions and decision, where morality does fit, I firmly believe most of us would make poor spiritual directors.

There is a sense in which a spiritual director often fulfills the role of confessor. That is necessary and proper. Guenther describes a director sufficiently dispassionate that s/he can take in the feelings that make us human. This includes the pleasant nice feelings (of course, that is not so because feelings are amoral), but also the ugly and the frightening (or so we view them). She mentions the need to avoid being shocked. This is difficult but necessary if we are to validate the directee. Of course, this is ‘easier said than done’.

When you get down to it, about everything discussed in this posting is far ‘easier said than done’. I certainly do not believe that the completion of a program in spiritual direction will likely create a spiritual director. It is hardly that simple.

Maybe Guenther said it all in the title of her book. Spiritual direction is holy listening. Like all holy activities it deserves due reverence. As such, it is high calling. I do not think that a soul is a trinket to be trifled with. Jesus placed supreme value on the one lost sheep—the one lost soul. A spiritual director’s calling is to seek and be sought. It is a missional, outreaching task. I think it is something we all need. Maybe most of us just do not know it. We need a director to come along side, disclosing of him/herself as appropriate, and join our journey is a great gift.

For many the great difficulty is right here. We cannot focus enough to listen meaningfully to another. We are just too preoccupied with our own agendas and concerns. As our minds drift, and our concerns move away from the setting, we may encounter serious problems. We might lose sight of the journey. Or, we might embellish what is said with our own undisciplined agendas. While a director will surely share his or her own journey from time to time, the focus must be on the one who has come seeking direction. This can be a well-neigh impossible task for some of us. We are just entirely too self absorbed.

References

Guenther, M. (1992). Holy Listening: The Art of Spiritual Direction. Boston: Cowley.

___________ (1998). The Practice of Prayer. Boston: Cowley.

James, W. (1902/1961). The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Collier.

Kurtz, E. & Ketcham, K. (1992). The Spirituality of Imperfection: Storytelling and the Search for Meaning. New York: Bantam.

Peterson, E. (1987). Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity. Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans.

Why Fundamentalists Insist on Making Us All Righteous (no matter what we want!)

2008-11-10T07:40:00.000-08:00

I wrote this some months back-- before the elections. Since I am "putting it in the que" for Nov. 7, and today is Oct. 31, I do not know who has won. It may seem a bit dated, but the major premise remains. One might view it as a bit of a retrospect...

Another election year. It is a time when our country has the opportunity to go in a different direction or stay on the same well-worn path. Too many years of neo-con philosophy. Too many years of the failed policies of George Bush. We have seen our nation led down the path to economic collapse. We have seen our country led into a war costing thousands of American lives and (by conservative estimates) tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives on the basis of sloppy intelligence at best and lies at worst. We have seen a lack of concern for the "common people" and tax breaks and economic advantage for the rich. We have seen the decline of America's public schools and the use of public funds to support private and religious schools.

A large part of the Republican base is made up of social conservatives. A large segment of social conservatives are found among the ranks of the Christian Right. The Christian Right is mainly comprised of fundamentalists and evangelicals. Therein lies much of the Republican base. The power of fundamentalism in our nation is real. As a voting block, evangelicals and fundamentalists are a force to be reckoned with. The Southern Baptist Convention alone represents nearly seventeen million members. Currently, members of fundamentalist denominations and churches outnumber those of the traditional mainline churches such as Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and the Disciples of Christ. Liberal and moderate voters ignore the Christian Right to their peril.

Fundamentalists are, unfortunately and surprisingly, rather deceptive. They have tried such tricks as voting in the Democratic primaries, though the GOP is without a doubt the party of the righteous faithful. They vote in the Democratic race and support the candidate they think is least likely to win in November. Another deception is to push the emotion buttons related to gay marriage and abortion. While they do so, they are well aware (they must be) that many thousands innocent civilian lives are being lost in a war initiated and prosecuted by a Republican administration, the darling of the Christian Right. Where is the concern for life so vocally proclaimed, as is the case with abortion? Granted, the unborn are important, but what about the "already born?" Our righteous friends will fight to preserve traditional marriages and traditional families while those they support put forth policies that make it difficult for such families to make ends meet.

One must admit; some of what they have achieved is a stroke of genius. Why do they do it? Very simply, they must work to make America a "godly nation" (as if it ever was). Fundamentalists and evangelicals are compelled to see to it that we collectively walk the "sawdust trail." It is a matter of duty. They must save us. Further, they are the representatives of God to save a corrupt American society. That is their task. It is their understanding of the Great Commission. They are not satisfied to "Go and make disciples of all nations." They must make fundamentalist disciples. So, by hook or by crook, they must make us all righteous. That applies to politics as well.

Many, if not most, fundamentalist churches distribute "so-called" unbiased voter guides. These guides aim to show which candidates will support fundamentalist causes. This ranges from school board member (or maybe dog catcher) right on to the highest office in the land. This time though, it may backfire. The neo-cons and the Christian Right have had their way for eight years. It hasn't been a pretty sight. They have had their day and rather made a mess of things. In addition, I sincerely doubt they have succeeded in making many of us more moral. Fundamentalists cannot take no for an answer, but many Americans are tired of being lied to, bullied, and misled.

How I Left Fundamentalism-- Part 4

2008-11-08T18:39:00.000-08:00

The last part of the story (that I'm telling here!)...

Done (almost) in a sentence

That led to a search. I began to investigate various denominations and their views of these things. I wrote dozens of letters, spent hours in the library, and read many books. I did not have to look far. I discovered the Mennonite Church held views concerning the Bible and non-violence similar to mine. That culminated in my awakening one Sunday morning and announcing to Irene that she did not have to come, but I was going to the Mennonite church down the road. She came, but reluctantly.

It was an easy transition because this Mennonite church decided to organize into small fellowship groups (termed “D” groups, or “discussion” groups), and it was largely Charismatic (neo-Pentecostal). We soon fit right in. We got very involved, and, after a time, I began to lead a small group. Then, the final event occurred. As I talked with the associate pastor one day, concerning something in the Bible, he announced he did not believe all of the Bible was historically, factually true. I heard my voice say, “Neither do I.” Then I was out. No longer was I an absolutist.

I wish that was the final happy conclusion to the story, but as we have discovered, leaving is hard. I enrolled in seminary. There I learned to question. I did question. I did think. Then I would get scared. A voice would say, “You’re not supposed to question.” Again and again, I had to remind myself I was no longer an absolutist. I had “been there and done that,” and I knew it no longer worked for me.

I served as pastor sharing my time between a Mennonite Church and a Church of the Brethren congregation (also a peace church) while attending seminary. However, I missed the closeness of the subculture. I started searching for that sense of camaraderie I shared as an absolutist. I aligned myself with the Charismatic (neo-Pentecostal) Movement in the Church of the Brethren but soon found them too absolutist for my liking. After my ordination in the Church of the Brethren, I began my full-time pastorate in Virginia; I affiliated with a conservative group trying to get the Brethren back on a path they thought they had forsaken. To me, that was the path of peace and community. However, it did not work. I could not accept the hellfire view of things anymore.

Frustrated, I resigned my ordination after a few years. There was anything wrong with the Brethren. The Church of the Brethren is a superb denomination with a long and honorable history. I was simply a victim of my absolutist past. I began looking for Christians who practiced community. I missed that close-knit subculture so much at times that it hurt. In the midst of our deciding to leave the Brethren, Irene and I visited with the Bruderhof community, an Anabaptist, peace oriented, communal denomination that holds all property in common. Irene found them too rigid and regimented in their lifestyles.

After a time I (we) joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I stayed with it for ten years. I even taught in the SDA school system, as did Irene. Still, the literal approach to the Bible kept smacking me in the face. (This is not to say anything negative about individual SDA’s. I must say virtually all my close Adventist friends are true free thinkers) They were non-combatants, but they rarely said anything concerning non-violence. In addition, I was back to the flat Bible. It just was not going to work for me.

For a bit, we attended an evangelical mega-church. The music was great, but they lacked the subculture of the Adventists. I began to get tired. I had lost the faith of absolutism. I did not miss the wackiness I experienced as a result of the subculture’s beliefs. I missed the closeness I experienced in the subculture (this is something most folks who attend mainline churches—and I do—cannot really understand). All of this running and changing went on for almost fifteen years. Eventually. I concluded the subculture was somehow a product of the absolutist version of conservatism. Finally, I just quit searching. I decided to learn to live without that closeness. It was too costly.

I stopped running and decided to start helping. I again accepted a pastorate at a small church, greatly needing leadership for its continued existence. Theology was not much of a concern to me. As long as I did not have to be certain of all the answers, I thought I could make this work. My association with the church began when a clergy friend convinced me that, no matter what my history, I had the training and concern to help. The church was near my home and the college where I teach. I stayed at the church for a number of years.

It has been about ten years since I quit running. I may have renounced absolutism twenty-seven years ago with one simple sentence. Nevertheless, I have discovered that it is hard to leave. It took a toll on my wife. It took a toll on my kids. It took a toll on me. Freedom is the prize, but the cost is high.

Several themes common to "quitters" appear in my story. Please be certain to note how, even after I left, I, indeed, experienced relapses. I continued to look for the community the subculture provided. I have never found anything resembling it, and I now wonder if such dependency is really a good thing after all. Still, my journey makes one thing clear. Leaving is a long process. It goes on and on. Some days, after all these years, I think I am still in the process of leaving. I still want order and predictability in my world. I must always remind myself that is not the nature of reality.

How I Left Fundamentalism-- Part 3

2008-11-07T18:28:00.000-08:00

More from my book. Stick with the story, the plot thickens...

The issue of the Moral Majority

The second event that led to my exit from the absolutist church took place over a number of years. The reader will recall that the churches I attended had roots in Jesus Freak days. The Jesus Freaks, at least in the beginning, were largely ex-hippie counter culture participants. The Vietnam War was still ongoing and the draft was in full swing. Most of the young men in the absolutist church were conscientious objectors, who found the teachings of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount incongruous with military service. The church elders wrote many letters to draft boards in support of alternate service. Quite a few of the young men were performing alternate service at an area hospital.

As time passed and the Jesus Freak fellowships organized into Charismatic or fundamentalist churches, other things began to change as well. The newly formed churches were quickly caught up in the burgeoning Christian Right Movement. In my church, this began in embryonic fashion with Nixon’s second bid for the presidency. We heard from the pulpit that Nixon was “a godly man.” In the Carter campaign days, we fully supported of his bid because he was a born again Christian. President Crater turned out much more liberal than we anticipated. Then, things really accelerated. The Regan election machine was in full operation, and a new political force, the Moral Majority was on the rise. They were pro right-wing, supportive of fundamentalist causes, dedicated to bringing a Christian society back to America (as if there ever was a Christian society!), and they based virtually all of their support on a flat, verbal/plenary inspired Bible. They were also quite militaristic. They took the additive approach to arrive at this: consider Jesus’ call for non-violence, add the Biblical calls for violence and vengeance (there are plenty), divide by two and, there it was! Here one could find a platform for the just war (lately, preemptive as well).

The alignment of the absolutist church I attended with the Christian Right and the Moral Majority created several problems for me. My dad and I may have had our disagreements, but both Mom and Dad tended to find war a generally unsatisfactory method for solving problems. This was especially true for my mother. My mother and I usually have been quite close, so that impacted my thinking. Second, my Jesus Freak roots stretched back to a time when the flat Bible was somewhat less influential. It was not a well thought out position, but those facing the draft saw Christianity as supporting non-violence. I also, no doubt, retained a bit of the rebellious hippy streak that vetoed the idea of violence on general principles. However, despite these problems—the Moral Majority’s acceptance of violence notwithstanding—another, much larger problem arose.

The encounter with Bonhoeffer

Starting with the tithe business, I had come to wonder about the “flat Bible,” verbal/plenary view of things. I came to see that some parts of the Bible “trumped” others, and parts of it simply stood on a higher moral plain. Old Testament passages dealing with the end of violence and God’s reign of peace combined with the New Testament peace imperative grew in importance for me. Those upholding holy war or a crusade lessened in importance in my view of God’s will regarding war and peace.

Therefore, I found myself confused. I did not know what to think about the direction my church was going, but I had no clearly defined direction for my life worked-out yet. Some answers, however, were waiting in the wings—in the most unlikely of places, right where I found myself. I guess it was serendipity (or perhaps something more). The third event leading to my leaving took place when a young woman in the church lent me a book. I am not sure if she read it. If she did, she certainly received different messages from it than I did. The book in question saw its first publication in the turmoil of Germany in the late 1930’s. A young Lutheran pastor named Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote it. The title of the book is The Cost of Discipleship (Bonhoeffer 1995),

Bonhoeffer is a rather enigmatic figure. A devout Christian, his writings are profound and even poetic. He became involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler, something I will not deal with here, but which I have dealt with at length elsewhere (Alexander 2004). Although his book discusses many things, some might regard the main theme as “costly grace,” or some might see it as the price that must be paid for true devotion to the Kingdom that Jesus came to proclaim. However, it was the lengthy commentary on the Sermon on the Mount that seemed to speak directly to me.

Bonhoeffer did not see the Bible as flat at all. The pinnacle for him was the words, doing, and dying of Christ. Everything I read went against the Moral Majority thinking that I encountered in church. Above all, it confronted me with Christ’s call to non-violence. In the face of all of the violence in the Bible, in the face of Joshua and the military conquest of Canaan, in the face of David and his battles with the Philistines, in the face of St. Paul and his admonitions concerning obedience to the government stood Jesus giving a higher call. I knew a decision confronted me. It was another moment of conversion we so frequently face. If Bonhoeffer was right, my church and the Moral Majority it supported were wrong. I decided to cast my lot with non-violence and the superiority of Christ’s teachings over the rest of the Bible. I firmly decided that all things were not equal; the Bible was not flat.