Somebody Moved... And It Wasn't Me

I am almost 50 years old.  I have known of Donald Trump for decades.  My first memory of him was probably one of his many appearances on Howard Stern back when Stern was on the E! Channel.  I wasn't a regular Stern watcher, but it was the kind of thing you might stop on back when there were no DVRs and one would channel surf.

I remember, even back in my twenties, thinking Trump was a reprobate and a scoundrel.  The way he talked about people, and women particularly, soured my stomach.

Over the decades, interviews I caught with him did nothing to turn those initial impressions.  To me, Trump was an example of what could go wrong in the development of the human soul.

I have many friends and family who voted for him.  They recoil at anything critical said of him and treat with suspicion or disdain anyone who would offer those critiques.

I know these folks.  They are otherwise good people.

Because of that, I am confident that if we could turn back the clock, if the younger me could have sat with the younger them and we watched those interviews together, examined his behavior, they would have had the same reactions I did.  I can't imagine any of them would have held Trump in high esteem.

If I had told their younger selves that one day that same man, with no change of heart or life, would occupy the presidency, they would have been horrified.  Beyond that, if I told them that they would vote for and defend him... they would never believe me.

Yet here we are.

Someone's moral compass has moved to accommodate Trump... and it wasn't mine.

Love God - Love Your Loved Ones Less

Yesterday, my brother shared an article on Facebook concerning Evangelical pastor Francis Chan's challenge for Christians to stop idolizing their family and put Christ's mission first. He asked for his readers' thoughts. After perusing the article, I wrote:

"A: Chan believes anyone who does not "have a relationship" with his god will be tortured for eternity by said god - so out the gate, I am convinced that his view of god is going to be harmful to humanity. Ergo any thought he has to add about how a believer should go about spiritual pursuits, in my view, is going to be highly suspect.

B. Chan is encouraging you to put the most important relationships of your life on the back burner so you can go out and... well, at this point it gets vague... be radical, and all out, and live over the edge! This too will probably end badly. Not for Chan, Chan will get awesome book deals and speaking engagements out of this. He will get lots of perks.

The followers of Chan? Not so much. They will probably mess up relationships, wax and wane between guilt and euphoria until something gives, and make a lot of financial and life decisions with no more consideration than a role of the dice.

My challenge to Christians... stop idolizing... period."

Then this morning, I read an article by Libby Anne over at Love, Joy, Feminism, where she shared about growing up with that evangelical mindset of near paranoia about making sure everything and everyone in your life was undervalued when compared to God.

"I also remember worrying that I loved my family more than I loved God. I was taught that this was wrong—that it made my family idols. I felt so conflicted over this, and purposed time and again to love God more than I loved my parents or siblings."

Reading both of those articles made me reflect on how real that topic was to me growing up. I regularly saw folks give up various past times and pleasures because they were concerned these things were becoming an "idol" in their life. I many times abandoned enjoyments, passed on opportunities, or sabotaged relationships because I thought these things would "hinder my walk with God". Jesus needed to be ultimate (whatever that meant) and nothing could even be a close second.

One of the musical heroes in my circles growing up was named Keith Green. I lived and worked at Green's ministry for 6 months when I was 18.  He wrote a song where he pointed out that everything in his life took 2nd place to Jesus. Keith speaks of his marriage in this way:

"As I told her when we wed, I'd surely rather be found dead, than to love her more than the one who saved my soul."

There was a time when I heard that song and that line and felt it was a powerful testimony of dedication to Jesus - now I see it as a dysfunctional mess.

Imagine a husband insisting to his wife that she love him more than the children. Contemplate what kind of mother would tell a daughter that, if the daughter loved her brother more, then the daughter was unworthy of her mother's love.

Does any reasonable person consider this jealous, competitive perspective in any way loving?

Moral Relativism and The Bible

"If the Bible is no longer your authority then what is?"

I got this question on Facebook while discussing Atheism on a friend's page. The questioner assumes that the bible is clear cut and is THE moral authority.

However, the bible is anything but clear cut. It is not only inconsistent, but much of it would serve as a very poor moral plumbline. In fact, when we look at the bible, we find it was wrong on many moral judgments and it served as an anchor on the moral development of the varied religions it fostered.

Take the notion of slavery - every modern person rejects the practice without exception.  Not the bible - the bible is quite accepting of slavery.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

So, I should be taking my moral cues from a deity who tells me it is ok to beat my slave, as severely as I like ... so long as I do not beat them to death at that moment? If the slave can survive at least a day or two after my beating, I am in the clear?

Oh, oh... but, but that's the Old Testament... that doesn't apply now.

Ok... so, how did the New Testament handle slavery?

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way [well]. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Ephesians 6:9)

Here we can see a moral maturation occurring. It is no longer acceptable to beat a slave within an inch of their life. You are to treat them well, but it is still perfectly acceptable for one human being to own another.

It is clear that the bible is a text which reflected the moral values of its time. It was not setting a timeless and objective moral standard, but a relativistic one. I agree with Brian Dalton, a former man of faith (and creator of Mr. Deity), who said:

“I no longer believe that an institution which changes its doctrines as our culture evolves is in any way directed by a transcendent being.”

Exactly! A truly transcendent God, one who had an absolute view of morality, would not be developing over time like this. A God who was, in his essence, absolute truth would have, from the beginning, given commandments like:

Thou shalt not... EVER... own another human being!

If Israel had been given commands like that, they really would have been a city set on a hill as an example. As it was, they were as bad, or worse than their neighbors. If the bible had contained such clear cut moral edicts, the American South could not have used it as a weapon to subjugate millions.

The bible is many things, written by many authors, with many ideas - some horrid, some profound.

However, the reflection of ancient morals contained within its pages are simply not up to the task of guiding a modern people on the path to a better future.

If you like what you read, share it!

Christian Relativism and Glenn Beck's Call

Christians will often state that relativism is a bad thing. However, many believers have a very relativistic ethical code. For example, there have been a number of Christians picking apart the movie Avatar. I heard one Christian say of Avatar's message of environmental and corporate responsibility:

"Yeah, they try to portray it as good, but it is just paganism and they are trying to trick us."

Here the Christian states that something seems good, but because it is being portrayed by another belief system, that makes it bad.

This was also demonstrated today by Glenn Beck. He warns Christians to abandon churches that focus on "Social Justice". Glenn said:

"I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"

Social Justice would normally be a good thing. It sure was a biggie on Jesus' list. However, because "liberals" are for it, that makes it bad.

Religion can cause people to develop very dubious ethical systems. Good and bad become relative to who is doing it. Loving your neighbor becomes valuable if you are a Christian, but if the same behavior is exhibited by an atheist it becomes "nice" at best and deceitful at worst. God forbid we should think well of the Muslim who loves his neighbor.

Glenn knows this phenomenon personally. Many Christians are "rah-rah" Glenn. Go Glenn go!!

Then they find out he is a Mormon.

Suddenly Glenn doesn't sparkle so brightly.

Here are some other blogs I follow that have weighed-in on Mr. Beck's view of churches that work for social justice.

Michael

Richard

Skye

Bruce

Wes

Sojourners

Scot

Ignorance

HT Josh at SCP

I like at the end of this video when he talks about people trying to define THEIR truth as THE truth. It goes back to relativism, the fact that what is true for you may not be true for everyone else.

It makes me think of John the Baptist. He had a pretty wild lifestyle; it was intense. Could you imagine if he spent all of his time trying to convert people to his lifestyle? What if he saw it as more than his calling - it had to be everyone else's too? He might have missed Jesus if he were to have taken that path.

The Mallet of Absolute Truth

I was Google-ing the Truth Project today and found that my blog articles are some, of very few, that critique it. So I started to drift through the many blogs and articles that praised it.

One of the more common praises is a relief amongst Christians that the Truth Project is standing up and defending "Absolute Truth". In fact, I think in many circles, clinging to absolute truth has become synonymous with (or has even surpassed) clinging to Christ.

Somewhere in Christian history the notion that some truth is not relative became NO truth is relative. In fact, the word relativism has become a swear word or an insult. In fundamentalist camps it would be a low blow to refer to someone as a "relativist".

Well, I am a relativist. I think we all are. God sees the whole picture. The rest of us are peeking through our lenses and vested interests from our different perspectives and angles. How could it be any different? The difference between myself and someone who claims to cling to absolute truth is that I recognize that the ground on which I stand is positional in reference to God. Therefore, I must keep moving to gain a better view of God. The absolutists believe their position to BE the baseline and if everyone would just come and stand where they are standing - all would be clear.

This is why I feel programs like the Truth Project can be so damaging. It makes the listener feel they are putting on layers of armor... when actually it is mere papier-mâché. You have all seen this or heard it in action. A Christian who has read a book, or seen a DVD, or heard their Pastor, has become an expert and tries to engage someone from the "other side" - except it doesn't sound like a discussion, it sounds like a lecture. The Christian gets befuddled by the most sincere contradictory questions (because their beliefs have been given, not earned) and goes back to repeating what they have already stated. Finally the Christian, in frustration, walks away muttering something about the other not "having ears to hear the truth" or other such nonsense. The Christian tends to learn NOTHING from an exchange like this because they usually make very poor assumptions:

• He or she already has the Truth
• The other is against them
• Anyone not of the Christian Faith brings nothing of spiritual value to the table
• If the other does have a spiritual insight, it must be tainted

To me, phrases like "absolute truth" are the shield and club of the lazy. They want everything ready made and pre-packaged (like the rest of our lives) so that nothing requires work or effort. We just want to be in the right group with the proper beliefs, and we want an iron clad solid response to anyone who would say otherwise. Mystery and ambiguity leave too many loose ends. Let us simplify God so he can be properly sorted out.

Paul was a relativist. He was completely comfortable being a Jewish believer. He just felt that Gentile believers didn't need to be Jewish believers. Many Jewish believers felt that there were obvious markers to who was in the Faith and who wasn't. Paul rejected this - not the markers themselves, only their enforcement on others. However, he gave grace for people to personally do what they felt they needed to do, "If anyone regards something as unclean... then for him it is unclean." Today in Christendom, we would want to press Paul for a straight answer. He would give none. He would shrug and say, "It is a matter of your conscience". I tend to think most of the Christian Testament writers would be unpopular in Christian circles today.

Paul spoke positively about freedom. Why is the Christian community so afraid of it?

More Book Commentary

From my web page:

Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer

Truth can be so much harder hitting than fiction. The book refers to itself as "A Story of Violent Faith" and it tells the story of the darker side of religious life here in Utah. I think its subtitle is fitting and actually speaks to most faiths. There is a Professor who has recently put forth the thesis that "monotheism is inherently violent". I wish I could dismiss that notion quickly, but it can be a stinging truth.

Everyone in Christian circles gets all in a bunch over spiritual relativism (the idea that everyone has their own path and no pursuit is more or less valuable). Walter Brueggemann does an interesting talk where he puts forth the notion that absolutism is no less harmful. Absolutism, he says, invariably leads to denial. Reading this book, you can see the ultimate destination of absolutism. When self reflection stops, when one can no longer look critically at one's own theology and philosophy; suffering is the outcome.