What is Agreement?

God has so made the human mind that, as soon as people really begin to think, they begin to differ. If, therefore, there is no difference of opinion in a church, it shows that there is no individual thought in that church. Men think alike only by not thinking at all. This is assent, not conviction. Such belief is, in reality, no belief and has no value. The only agreement in opinion that is worth anything is that harmony which comes after full and free inquiry about subjects on which men differ. Only thus can questions really be settled; without such free discussion, differences are only covered up. ~ Dave Miano

____________________________

What I took away from this quote is that agreement where there has not been the freedom to question is not really agreement.

We see this all the time in American churches. Many congregants believe their positions to be "bullet proof" correct, yet cannot give an account of why they believe this way. It is not a position they came through by their own discoveries and wrestlings, rather it was imparted. And because many churches hold a tacit agreement within the congregation to peaceably hold to these views, it never occurs to the congregants to think that there might be other possibilities.

This also presents a problem in leadership. In 27 years of Christianity, I have heard many Pastors and leaders state something like this:

"I feel such and so about topic X...... but I could never tell my congregation that".

This is the harmony that the author seems to feel is lacking.

As a personal example: I was taught the penal substitutionary view of atonement; not amidst other views and theories... that was the only option. It was not until much later in my Christianity that I learned that many Christian groups have NEVER accepted that view. So, I didn't really "believe" that position... it was simply the only one I had been taught. My agreement with my fellow parishioners on this issue wasn't really agreement, we simply knew no differently.

Goes Good Together

I really enjoy the writings of Richard Beck over at Experimental Theology.  I consider George McDonald to be my theological guide in many ways.  So, when Beck writes about McDonald... I am having a good day.

His latest post - George McDonald: Justice, Atonement, and Hell - articulates thoughts that have been rolling around in my head for a while.  Specifically, that our typical Christian concept of Justice does not capture the heart of God on the subject.  Very often, it sounds like scales being balanced, or someone getting what's coming to them, exacting a pound of flesh - an eye for an eye.  However, Beck echos in his article a thought that I heard N.T. Wright say a year or so ago.... Justice is when things are put right.

Beck says:

This twofold notion of justice--an act of reconciliation requiring the participation of victims and perpetrators--is at the heart of MacDonald's notion of God's justice and atonement. This is the notion that sits behind his "universalism." That is, God just can't ship people off to hell to earn the label "just." Neither could we view hell as a manifestation of God's justice. Because hell doesn't heal the wounds of sin. Hell doesn't mend. Hell doesn't bring peace. Hell doesn't atone.

I couldn't agree more. The problem with Hell, as it is evangelically interpreted, is that is offers no redemption, no hope, no peace. This runs completely counter to the message of love, hope, and redemption spoken of by Christ. It offers only brokenness. A story that ended badly.

He later says:

A further problem with the allure of substitutionary atonement--to have Jesus suffer the consequences of my sin rather than me getting into the hard work of repentance and reconciliation--is that it is selfish, a theological product of my sin. Substitutionary atonement is an attempt to cling to my sin ever more tightly! Let Christ suffer the consequences of my sin so I don't have to make amends and restitution. I'm off the hook as it were.

I don't think many evangelicals would say they do not have to do repentance or reconciliation, but the underlying thought that all of my wrongs are "paid for" does cause us to often leave those words in their rhetorical state. It becomes less urgent.

I highly recommend the entire article.

Some Things You Just Don't Buy On Clearance

I was waiting for a prescription when I saw this in the isle across from me.  I would think that buying clearance medical supplies is a little iffy as it is. But I gotta believe it is always worth it to spend the extra buck or two to get a fresh batch of Trojans.

Just sayin. :)

Stop Using Big Words

There is an old episode of the Simpson's where Homer's mother shows up after decades of being thought dead. Lisa and Grandma Simpson discover they have a lot of things in common.

Homer's Mother: You know, Lisa, I feel like I have an instant rapport with you.

Lisa: (visibly moved) You didn't dumb it down. You said "rapport."

I know how Lisa feels. I appreciate when people use finer word selection. I particularly love when someone uses a descriptive term I don't know. I like to use the word predilection. It is a little more specific than tendency, which carries no implication of desire. To me, that is an important differentiation.

However, I have discovered over the years that many people are bothered when someone is more specific in their word selection. They complain scoffingly about the use of "big" and "complex" words.

I see this occasionally in blog conversations. It seems to happen a lot in political or religious discussions. How I see it progress usually is that a person who has bullet-proof belief in certain positions gets frustrated when the cliche' explanations, that worked so well at their church or within their political circle, don't get very far in an open conversation with people of opposing (or just differing) points of view. Because the depth of their argument isn't very deep or nuanced, they start to attack the other person. With me, they usually attack my use of words. Recently, a gentleman accused me of using "big words and phrases" to "sound" right (just for the record, my conversation was no more linguistic than this post). It never surprises me at this point to hear the person speak, in an almost prideful sort of way, about their lack of vocabulary, or education, or knowledge on a matter.  It is almost as if to say "I know I don't know my topic with any depth, and I therefore can't give a good explanation of my position.... but I still KNOW I am right!"

Has anyone else seen this phenomenon? How do others side-step the conversation with you?  The above approach works with me in a way, because I usually just quit the conversation at that point.

_____________________


I touched on this topic a few years ago in an article entitled Religious Illiteracy, where I quoted a person from a blog I frequent. She stated her ignorance about theology, but then proceeded to say her points were not open for debate.

The Execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner

In a few hours, the state of Utah will be executing Ronnie Lee Gardner for the crime of murder.  I am an adopted son of Utah, and have been very happy with my family's move out here six years ago. However,  I believe our beautiful state is about to commit a shameful act.

I know that most of my ethic on this issue is driven by a belief that Jesus Christ taught correctly and challenged us to be better than our most base selves.  A natural reaction to injury is to desire like for the perpatrator.  We want the scales to be balanced.  An eye for an eye.

It is on this topic that Jesus chose to contradict the laws that, many believe, were handed down by God.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Later, in that same sermon, Jesus said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'  But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

It is wrong to murder.  A human life should not be taken.  It was wrong when Ronnie Lee Gardner did it 25 years ago.  It will be wrong when the state of Utah - when we - do it tonight.

God forgive us.

If Churches Educated Instead of Indoctrinated

nakedpastor.com

I am reading a great book by Stephen Prothero entitled Religious Literacy. In it, he makes the case that it is bad for our civic development to be so passionate about our religion, and yet be so woefully ignorant about religion - ours and everyone else's.

I have often lamented how unfortunate it is that our churches do not spend more time on religious education. Many churches teach their own view, but leave their congregation completely ignorant of other views and perspectives.

Mason over at New Ways Forward addressed this recently on his blog.  He suggests we start by ramping up our Sunday morning sermons:

"You don't want to alienate people who are visiting or new to the faith. But that might not be as much of a danger as you think. Give your audience the benefit of the doubt, chances are they can handle a lot more than you think. Technical language might lose them, but depth? If they can follow LOST they can follow your sermon."

Later he says:

"And a suggestion for [bible] classes, don't give just one side. All too often there seems to be a reticence to discuss more than the approved position on a given question and a tendency to present straw men of the opponents. But quite frankly to people of my generation that doesn't make you look strong and assured, it makes you look weak and scared that we'll ditch your views if you're honest with us about the other perspectives."

I think very few churches feel comfortable presenting anything but their own view. How many sermons have you sat through where only one view of ecclesiology, atonement, scripture interpretation, eternity, etc. is presented? The church view is often taught not only as the preferred view, but as if no other view exists.

This is not education, this is indoctrination. Do churches believe that ignorance is bliss? Or do they fear members discovering more compelling alternatives? Is it just easier to keep it simple? I saw a movie about the Civil War where a plantation owner said, "We like to keep the slaves ignorant... they're happier that way".

I try to model varied viewpoints in my own philosophical and spiritual instruction with my children. On a given topic, I articulate how other denominations, religions, or atheists may perceive that issue. I might have an opinion, but I point out to my children people we know who would see the topic differently. My view is not the only game in town.

Radio Interview With Author David Dark

My good friend Brook did a 2 hour (yes, 2 hour) interview with David Dark, author of The Sacredness of Questioning Everything, on local Detroit radio.  As far as I know, it is not streamable anywhere.  I have hosted a download of it through my skydrive account, but I had to compress it down a bit to get it under the 50mg file max... so the audio is so-so.  If anyone knows of a better way to do this, I am all ears.  The original file was 200 mg and some change.

David is one of my favorite authors in theology right now.  This interview is a great peek into his head and heart - and Brook does an excellent job of using every question and comment to its best interviewing potential.  I was surprised at how quickly the two hours passed.  If you want to listen in on a great conversation, download this mp3 file.

Indoctrinate Your Children For Jesus

This video made me nauseous.  The people who made this, and those who like it, would probably call this approach "mind control of children" if it were used for any other religion or political thought they disagreed with.  Can you imagine what Focus on the Family would do with an atheist version of this video?  But when Christians do it, it is fine.  It is inconsistencies like this that cause Christianity to lose its credibility.

Not only is this wrong on an ethical and child rearing side, it is also (imho) just bad BAD theology.



HT: Bruce

On a related note from Nakedpator.com

Here are some other posts I have written on the subject of children and Christianity:

Baptizing Children
Save Your Kids From Hell!!!
Exclusivism and Parenting

Craig Evans and Bart Ehrman

I don't think this is really a debate.  For one thing, Evans never really addresses Bart's questions.  The two men just state their case as to what scripture really is.  To me, Evans sounds like he is trying to have it both ways.

All Get What They Want

One of the things that I noticed in my first years in Salt Lake City was the commonalities between my evangelical upbringing and the LDS (Mormon) faith.  Of particular note were the "faith-building" stories.  In my own Christian subculture, people loved to pass on stories of healings, raisings of the dead, ordained meetings, etc.  It always was a story repeated by someone's cousin who heard a pastor who had talked to a preacher who had heard it from a guy in Africa.... but it DID happen.  When I came to SLC, I discovered Mormons had similar stories in their sub-culture... sometimes the SAME story -  substitute ward for church, bishop for pastor, missionary for... um, missionary, and voila!; your faith gets a shot in the arm!  Where the stories originate, who knows.  There are probably Hindu versions of these stories running around.

I was reminded of this phenomenon when I opened the Faith section of the Salt Lake Tribune this morning.  It seems there is an author and speaker coming to town who died and went to heaven.  Now, since she is Mormon, when she went to heaven she had the opportunity to hear Joseph Smith teaching.  In the Charismatic circles I grew up in, the story involved a person who saw a building full of "healings" that had not been claimed in "Faith" by believers.  When evangelicals tell these stories, there is usually a side trip to hell where the visitor gets to watch atheists and liberals burn.

On my initial reading, I rolled my eyes. Every group seems to have these folks, and every group has people who will pay money to listen.

As I thought about the article later in the day, I found myself considering: What if her story is true? What if she did see visions of a Mormon heaven? What if the Charismatic saw streets of gold and money everywhere? What if the evangelical got to see all of the nay-sayers finally get theirs.

What if all get what they want?

In the series finale of Lost, Jack asks his father where they are (now realizing that he is dead).  His father tells him that this is a place that he and his friends created together so they could find one another.  It was their creation.

In a Christmas Carol, Jacob Marley carries the chains he forged in life. The chains were of his making.

In a deleted scene from the movie Dogma, the demon Azrael (played by Jason Lee) explains that the torments of Hell were created by man:

"Human, have you ever been to Hell? I think not. Did you know that Hell was once nothing more than the absence of God? and if you'd ever been in His presence, you'd realize that's punishment enough. But then... your kind came along. And made it. So. Much. Worse....

Evil is an abstract! It's a human construct. But true to his irresponsible nature, Man won't own up to being the engineer of evil, so he blames his dark deeds on my ilk. But his selfishness is limitless, and it's not enough for him to shadow his own existence. He turned Hell into a suffering Pit - fire, wailing, darkness - the kind of place anyone would do anything to get out of. And why? Because he lacks the ability to forgive himself. It is beyond your abilities to simply make recompense for and regret the sins you commit. No - you choose rather to create a psychodrama and dwell in a foundless belief that God could never forgive your 'grievous offenses'. So you bring your guilt and inner-decay with you to Hell - where the horrid imaginations of so many gluttons-for-punishment give birth to the sickness that has infected the abyss since the first one of your kind arrived there, begging to be 'punished'. And in doing so, they've transformed the cold and solitude to pain and misery."

In C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicle The Magician's Nephew, Aslan explains to the children that their evil Uncle Andrew has made himself unable to hear the voice of Aslan. Aslan further explains that all of Uncle Andrew's torments were those "he created for himself." Likewise the queen, in getting what she wanted, succeeded in creating her own misery.

I do not know what will become of us in the moments after we die. Perhaps there will be nothing. However, it would not surprise me to find we get the eternity we desired.

If that be the case, we should heed Aslan's final warning to the children:

"All get what they want; they do not always like it."