The Faithful Skeptic: 03/01/2004

Monday, March 29, 2004

No blogging today. Busy at work and at home! I had to break down and do our taxes. For the first time since we've been married, we're getting money back from both the feds and the state! I guess I'm glad they're done, but did I really need to spend 2.5 hours of my life doing them?

Friday, March 26, 2004

There was one more thing I wanted to add on the postmodernism discussion. An article in Slate (an online magazine on MSN) inspired me to differentiate modernism and postmodernism using two tv shows.

CSI is an excellent example of modernity. There is (virtually) always an answer. The truth is knowable and science is how we know. Through the scientific method we can answer almost any question. We can find out pretty much exactly what happened. Questions of “why” are less important than “what” and “how.”

The X-Files on the other hand, is very postmodern. “The truth is out there,” we just don’t know where. Science can’t explain everything and the universe is much bigger and more complex than we can understand. Even the rational and scientific Scully has to admit that science can’t answer some questions. The X-Files is all about questioning assumptions, particularly the scientific and rational assumptions that are at the core of our society.

Does this work? Maybe. At any rate, I think it’s kind of fun.

I’ve been reading in the last couple of weeks a lot about the “emerging church” or “postmodern church.” It’s a pretty interesting idea. I’ll try to summarize what I’ve read – but don’t hold me responsible if I mess it up. Postmodernism came out of Europe after World War II, primarily as a response to the excesses of modernity. One of the major ideas is that we should reject absolutist belief systems. Nazism was a belief system taken to an absolutist extreme. I think one of the major philosophical recognitions that came out of postmodernism is the realization that the “truth” might not be as obvious as we think it is.

Some postmodernists have gone as far as to say that there is no absolute TRUTH. There’s my truth and your truth, and they probably aren’t the same, but that’s ok. Others have said (particularly in respect to Christianity) that “the truth is out there,” but that it is very arrogant for any human to assume that they can know it absolutely. For example, there may be an absolute truth about God. But if you believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and infinite, can any human being ever comprehend the absolute, complete truth about God? I think many postmodernists would say probably not.

So there’s a movement out there to create “postmodern” churches. And these aren’t (for the most part) crazy, bleeding heart, commie-sympathizing, United Methodists. Most of them are evangelical protestants and fairly conservative theologically. And they are out there creating new churches, writing books, and blogging. A lot of these churches are very focused on evangelism through mission and service work, committed to creating ethnically diverse communities, and driven by 20/30-something gen-x’ers. In a lot of ways, I think it’s really exciting. A lot of the “thinkers” behind the movement reject biblical literalism (as a relic of modernity), are deeply interested in traditional spiritual practices, and committed to creating inclusive religious communities. What’s wrong with that?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what they’re trying to do. What I wonder is if we really need more institutions? Are more churches the answer? Is the reason for declining membership in the UMC because we’re too “modern?” I’ve checked out some of these “postmodern” churches on the web and my impression isn’t that flattering. First, you read their statement of faith (or creed, or whatever they happen to call it) and most of them are biblical literalists. So what’s the difference between these churches and your regular fundamentalist, evangelical mega-church? It looks like the music is louder, the lights are lower (with candles, even!), and the website is slicker (Check one out in Hillsboro here). I’m sure they’re not all like that, but it makes me skeptical about the phenomenon.

Are the churches we have really incapable of speaking to our generation? I sure hope not. I’ll deal with this question in an upcoming blog. I’ve been thinking about what the point of church is, and why is the Methodist church worth fighting for. I’ll get to it soon.

A couple of last thoughts on postmodern churches: One of the other ideas I’ve read is that in the emerging church, there needs to be more room for ordinary people to “do” theology. I’m not really sure what’s stopping people now, but I like the idea that my uniformed, uneducated, arm-chair theology might be validated precisely because I’m uniformed and theologically uneducated! If you want to read more, check out Emergent Village. It is one of the hubs of the movement. Also check out Brian McLaren – he’s a minister in Washington D.C. and one of the most prominent postmodern church advocates. Finally, check out the following blogs of people who are also interested in the postmodern church: Jay Voorhees, Hugo Schwyzer, The Ooze, Doug Pagitt, and Maggi Dawn. There are more, but these are usually pretty interesting.

Someday I’d like to write a novel. I have absolutely no training in creative writing, but who has that ever stopped? I don’t want to write some trashy detective novel (which I personally enjoy reading), but rather something with substance. I’d really like to write something dealing with faith and religion that it is thoughtful and intelligent. You read a lot of what passes for “Christian fiction” and it’s pretty vapid stuff. I’d like to write a work of fiction that speaks truthfully and compellingly about leading a Christian life, but is also interesting. Can I do this? Probably not. It is a nice goal though.

Today I was thinking about the themes that if I ever write this book, I would want to talk about. Right now I’m thinking about a book about someone my age. The general theme is trying to understand how us Gen-x’ers find meaning in the world. So I was trying to make a list of things that are different for our generation. Here’s what I thought of:

• Rapid, unprecedented changes in science & technology
• Growing up during the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Berlin Wall
• First generation where probably more than 50% of our parents divorced at some point during our life
• First generation that grew up with the expectation that our standard of living was likely to be lower than that of our parents
• Discovery of HIV/AIDS
• Dramatic changes in sexual mores

There’s more, but that’s enough for now. What struck me is that one of the over-arching themes of our lives is impermanence. Our reality is constantly changing. In many ways, we’re living through a very chaotic period in history. We constantly have to adapt to new realities. I think that one of the consequences of that is that our generation is rejecting social and cultural institutions that reflect permanence. One excellent example is probably traditional churches. How do mainline protestant churches (for example) reflect a reality for Gen-x that is characterized by constant change? The answer is that they don’t. Mainline denominations are institutions that have endured/existed for hundreds of years in spite of any number of cultural and social revolutions.

I’m not necessarily saying that churches need to change. What I wonder is how do institutions that have existed for hundreds of years speak to a generation that is accustomed to constant change? How is our generation finding meaning in the world and how can organized religion help?

So I want to write a story that deals with this question. I want to help people understand what’s going on in my head, and hopefully it will resonate with others. Of course, I probably can’t write fiction well enough (or at all) to do this, but it’s a nice idea.

Thursday, March 25, 2004

Power is a funny thing, particularly at work. At least for me, I usually complain that I don’t have enough. But due to some personnel changes in my office, I gained some new power through my relationship with a supervisor in another department. So anyway, today I needed to use that power. A coworker in another department was making it difficult for me to do my job. So I hammered that person. I got them in trouble with their new supervisor and probably made their life somewhat unpleasant. I don’t think there will probably be any long term consequences, but I realize that I don’t feel very good about what I did. Did I show this person a Christ-like love? How did I demonstrate grace in my actions? I didn’t do either.

But on the other hand, this person wasn’t doing their job. And their failure to accomplish certain tasks was making it impossible for me to do my job. So as a Christian that also has a job in a non-Christian environment, how do you deal with someone who has been promoted past their level of competence? They aren’t a bad or evil person; they’re just out of their league. What’s the Christian response? I don’t know. I just hope to treat them better the next time I’m in that situation.

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

The media coverage and politicking over the 9/11 panel is making me a little crazy. I think very few of our elected officials actually care about discovering the truth. Probably the only people who are really committed to finding out what actually happened are the families of the victims. We’re developed a very well entrenched politics of blame in this country. The main objective is to pin the blame for the problem of the day on your opponents and use it for personal political gain. Here’s what I think the Republicans and Democrats would like to see come out of the commission:

Republicans – Clinton was so incompetent (or soft) in the area of national defense that he passed up the opportunity to kill Bin Laden and shut down 9/11 before it happened. The Clinton administration so bungled the intelligence gathering and the response to other terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda that there was no way the Bush administration could have stopped 9/11.

Democrats – Bush and his “neo-con” cronies were so focused on ousting Hussein that they ignored the quality intelligence gathered by the Clinton administration and let 9/11 happen through sheer indifference to the threat. Bush has compounded this failure by going to war in Iraq thus diverting crucial resources from the fight against Al Qaeda.

What’s the real answer? Who knows…? What I do know is that neither Bush nor Kerry has any interest in the truth. All they care about is getting elected.

If you read management literature, one of the characteristics of successful organizations is that they can learn from both their successes and failures. One of the very important components of being able to learn is to avoid the blame game. While individuals and organizations do need to accept responsibility for failure, the point of reflecting (on policy decisions, management decisions, etc.) isn’t primarily to assess blame. It is to understand why certain things happened, or why particular actions had particular results, and to understand what might result from future actions. Once the emphasis is on blame and punishment, any potential learning benefit goes out the window.

The politics of blame that pervades public life in the US is destructive. It prevents us from learning from our mistakes and doing things better. We’ll never be perfect, but we should at least strive for better.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

I’ve started reading “What’s So Amazing about Grace” by Philip Yancey. Yancey is a (former?) editor at Christianity Today. The book was recommended to me by the teacher of my basic lay speaking class. Yancey is pretty conservative theologically, but I’m finding that I am really enjoying the book. I haven’t finished it yet, so I can’t tell you exactly what Yancey thinks is so amazing about grace. So far it seems to me that his message is that a lot of churches, especially many of the evangelical/fundamentalist flavor (his background), are missing the point of grace. They’ve created environments where the people who are the most in need of grace don’t feel comfortable. People who are in pain may feel too unworthy to come to church. Certainly many mainline protestant churches have created similar environments.

This made me think of a book I read called “Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity” by Bruce Bawer. Bawer has some issues with the Episcopal church which take away from his message to some extent, but most of the book is really well researched and very informative. One of the most interesting points Bawer makes is to argue that there are two broad categories of churches/doctrines in the US. He calls them the churches of love versus the churches of law. He argues that the “church of law” doctrine (fundamentalism) misses the point of Jesus’ ministry and misunderstands grace. Read the book for more details.

What strikes me while reading “What’s So Amazing about Grace?” is that while Bawer’s distinction between love and law is important, it’s just as easy for non-legalistic Christians to miss out on grace. When we have churches where you need to dress a certain way to feel comfortable, or be a particular color, or be in a particular social class to be welcome are we really sharing the grace and joy of God? It’s easy to be self-congratulatory about our inclusiveness and the loving nature of our pleasantly middle-class congregations, but how much are we willing to really reach out to the community? My church is certainly dealing with this issue – we strive to be welcoming, and I think we are. But it’s not really that hard when pretty much everyone who comes in the door looks and acts like us. I guess I don’t really know where I’m going with this. I hope that when our church is tested, we’ll be open and welcoming to everyone and enthusiastic about sharing the grace of God.

Monday, March 22, 2004

I have to admit I was surprised when I learned on Saturday, that Karen Dammann, a United Methodist minister and avowed lesbian was found not guilty in a church trial of violating the United Methodist Book of Discipline. The Book of Discipline states that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teachings” and that gays and lesbians should not be ordained as clergy.

I’m surprised because I figured that even though many Methodists out here in the west disagree with that policy (myself included), the jury would feel they had no choice but to convict. What bothers me is the reaction to the verdict. (Jay Voorhees, in his blog “Only Wonder Understands,” has a very thoughtful response to the verdict and its implications for the UMC. I highly encourage reading it.)

Christianity Today was, not surprisingly, not happy with the verdict and dismissive of the jury’s motives and integrity. I’m sure when they get around to it that the Unofficial Confessing Movement’s page will be frothing in anger. The Confessing Movement (Official page) is a very conservative, quite possibly fundamentalist, movement within the United Methodist Church.

I guess I’m not surprised that so many conservative Methodists think it’s fine to welcome gays and lesbians to worship with us and parts of our church community, but that hell will freeze over before they’re allowed to be clergy, or God forbid, be married in our churches. But this “separate but decidedly unequal” policy makes me angry.

What really bothers me is that I think we’re heading down a dangerous road. It seems to me that conservatives are saying that homosexuality is such a grave sin, that those who would sin so cannot be ministers. But isn’t that saying the “sin” of homosexuality is worse than a bunch of other sins? I think that a lot of conservative, evangelical churches preach that no particular sin is any greater than any other. Their theology is that we all deserve to burn for all eternity in hell because of our sin, and that is only through the grace of Jesus that we can be saved.

So are conservatives saying that homosexuality is such a sin that they shouldn’t be allowed to be ministers, or that their sin is just pretty obvious and so we should use that opportunity to defrock them? See where I’m going? This could be the start of a fun, new game for Methodist laity. “Search out sin in your clergy!” We could encourage laity to get video of clergy drinking alcohol, gambling, being greedy, etc.

If some Methodists are really saying that clergy should be without sin, then they should be honest about it. Let’s start kicking out every member of the clergy that admits (or is caught) to one sin or another. Personally I think we should have a conversation about whether homosexuality is actually a sin, but that’s another discussion. I think we’re getting dangerously close to having an expectation of perfection in our clergy. I think that position is “incompatible with Christian teachings” and pretty silly, personally.

Friday, March 19, 2004

I mentioned earlier this week that I had to write a sermon. So, here it is. I don't feel very confident about it, but it's done. And with my current level of exhaustion, that's all that matters. So, it's probably crap, but unfortunately that's the best I can do right now. It is my first sermon ever, so maybe I should cut myself some slack.

Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16 (UMH 810)
Psalm 91
1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. [1]
2 I will say [2] of the LORD , "He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust."

9 If you make the Most High your dwelling-
even the LORD , who is my refuge-
10 then no harm will befall you,
no disaster will come near your tent.
11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
12 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

14 "Because he loves me," says the LORD , "I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
15 He will call upon me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.
16 With long life will I satisfy him
and show him my salvation."

This is the word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.

I was a procrastinator in school, and I’ve discovered I’m no different when it comes to writing sermons. I spent a lot of time this week thinking about this reading and trying to come up with a good approach. In many ways, it is a very challenging text. On one hand it seems very clear. The writer of this psalm seems to be saying that if you love God, God’s got your back.

However, on the day I looked up the lectionary readings for this week, four Baptist missionaries were murdered in northern Iraq. A fifth was critically wounded. Admittedly, I don’t know all of the facts. I do know that they were working on a water purification project. I have to believe that were doing it for the glory of God. But after reading Psalm 91, you have wonder, why didn’t God watch out for them? If God’s angels are going to protect anyone, wouldn’t it be these people? They were working in the middle of country torn by war, serving people who might not want them to be there, citizens of the occupying army’s country.

I found myself asking how I could preach on this text when I didn’t have an answer. Believe me, I spent a lot of time trying to come up with a good one. All I could think to say was,

“I don’t know why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. I don’t know why missionaries get killed doing God’s work. I don’t know why children suffer and die. I don’t why God seems to promise protection from all of the evil and sickness in the world and then not protect us. I don’t know why so many people claim to know. All I really know is that I’m better off with God in my life. The world is still a scary place and I’m afraid for my family and friends. I know that God is watching out for us, but I’m not sure I’ll every really know exactly how.”

And that made me think of the reading for today from the 26th chapter of Deuteronomy, verses 1-11:

Deuteronomy 26:1-11;
Deuteronomy 26
Firstfruits and Tithes

1 When you have entered the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance and have taken possession of it and settled in it, 2 take some of the firstfruits of all that you produce from the soil of the land the LORD your God is giving you and put them in a basket. Then go to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name 3 and say to the priest in office at the time, "I declare today to the LORD your God that I have come to the land the LORD swore to our forefathers to give us." 4 The priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God. 5 Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: "My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. 6 But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. 7 Then we cried out to the LORD , the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. 8 So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. 9 He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; 10 and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, O LORD , have given me." Place the basket before the LORD your God and bow down before him. 11 And you and the Levites and the aliens among you shall rejoice in all the good things the LORD your God has given to you and your household.

This passage is essentially a legal text. It reinterprets the legal traditions contained in Exodus and reinterprets them for a settled community, rather than one in exile. In some ways it is very similar to Psalm 91. The Israelites were suffering under the Egyptians, they called out to God, and God led them to the land of milk and honey. However, what I think is important is that they are instructed now to give back to God some of the fruits of their bounty. God provided for them plentifully, but also expects them to acknowledge that provision.

Reading this passage from Deuteronomy made me think of two other things I read this week. First, a Presbyterian minister said (in response to a question about suicide) that God is loving, not logical. We often try to force God into our logical framework. We’re not always going to understand what happens in the world. But as Paul said, we can rest in that “neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[1] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. " (Romans 8:38-39). Frankly, though, that isn’t a very good answer to the question I asked earlier, either. I still wonder why God can leave us with so much pain in the world and in our lives.

That thought led me to the second article I read. Brian McLaren, a Christian songwriter was discussing the lyrics that we often hear in today’s praise music. He’s distressed that a lot of our praise and worship music, and possibly Christianity in general, is becoming all about me. All about you – all about us. What God has done for us, will do for us, how wonderful God makes us feel.

Not that those things aren’t wonderful and that the gifts God has given us aren’t beyond understanding, because they are. But really what we need to be asking is how has God’s presence in our life moved us to LIVE the gospel. We really need to turn Psalm 91 on its head, in a sense. How can we go about making God our refuge and how can we demonstrate our love for God. We need to focus on making our lives as Christians less selfish, theologically. We should put less emphasis on what God gives to us (which is certainly amazing), but rather how we can glorify God through our gifts and service.

More specifically, are we reaching out to those in our community in Christian mission? Brian remarks, “Jesus came not to be served, but to serve … and as he was sent, so he sent us into the world.” We need to be in mission in the world. Not just evangelizing and not just serving those in worse shape than us. We can be missionaries by sharing how the Grace of God changed our lives.

Speaking of missionaries, I don’t know why they died. I just don’t know. What I do know is that they gave their first fruits to God. They reached out to a nation deeply in need and gave everything. I don’t think we necessarily need to go out and give our lives for God to serve the world. Certainly there is something very humble and honorable in being willing to risk that sacrifice for Christ. And in thinking about how we can serve we should remember those 4 saints and what they were willing to give to advance the ministry of Jesus. Particularly during this season of Lent we should think about how we can give our first fruits to God and make God our refuge.

Administrivia...

1.) I changed the name of my blog. I didn't seem angry enough to really be "screaming." Since no one reads it anyway, this probably doesn't matter.

2.) Only three days of posts now appear on the main page. This is a sly attempt to hide the fact that I don't know when to stop writing. This way it looks like I'm more concise than I actually am. I'm probably not fooling anyone.

3.) That's all...I don't have a #3, but a list with only two items seems kind of silly.

Thursday, March 18, 2004

A couple of news stories caught my attention this morning. First, Rhea County in Tennessee is asking the State Legislature to change state law to allow the county to prosecute homosexuals for “crimes against nature.” Further, the County Commissioners are asking their county attorney to draft an ordinance that would allow the County to prohibit homosexuals from residing in the County.

In North Carolina, a husband and wife are livid that their daughter (who is in elementary school) brought a book home from school about a gay prince. They are refusing to return the book to the school until they have assurances it will be taken out of circulation. They also plan on filing a complaint against the school and possibly transferring their daughter.

I just find these stories exhausting. The amount of energy people expend in their hatred and fear tires me out. How do you respond to someone (or a community in the first example) whose response to a changing society is so completely out of proportion? I understand that even well-educated people can disagree on whether homosexuality should be socially acceptable, but pushing for criminal prosecution of gays and lesbians? Transferring your child to a new school because they picked up one book from the library that you don’t agree with? Give me a break. “Dear God, Mary! Our daughter was exposed to a new idea! She might already be indwelt by Satan! Call the minister – we need an exorcism! If we don’t act soon, she just might start thinking for herself!!”

A family member (who shall remain nameless, for my protection) mentioned to me several months ago that social conservatives basically need their own country out here in the west. They believe that the values of the “liberal establishment” (my words, not theirs) are so far from their own that they can’t even live in the same country. I’m sure this sentiment is echoed on conservative talk radio, as well. What has happened to political discourse and community in this country that we’re not even willing to live with each other? Are we really at the point where it is “Believe what I do, or find your own country?”

The political polarization of this country is a major threat to liberal democracy. Extremists on both sides of the political spectrum are creating an environment where the only objective is winning (whatever the contest happens to be). We’re creating a political community characterized by winners and losers, rather than open and honest discourse. I think it’s sad.

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

I’m taking a basic lay speaking class right now. For those of you who don’t know, it is very basic training for laity in the United Methodist Church. One of our assignments is to write a 7 minute sermon using one of the lectionary readings from the Sunday closest to our birthday. As of now, I’ve only invested about 5 minutes in this assignment, so I’ve got a lot of work left to do. The Psalm for February 29th, 2004 is 91:1-2, 9-16.

Psalm 91
1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
2 I will say of the LORD , "He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust."

9 If you make the Most High your dwelling-
even the LORD , who is my refuge-
10 then no harm will befall you,
no disaster will come near your tent.
11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
12 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

14 "Because he loves me," says the LORD , "I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
15 He will call upon me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.
16 With long life will I satisfy him
and show him my salvation."

I’m feeling sad this morning. In case you missed it, four Baptist missionaries were murdered yesterday or the day before in northern Iraq [story]. They were in Iraq working on a water purification project when they were gunned down in their car. Certainly many innocent Iraqis have also been killed during the war and the terror attacks after the formal end of fighting. Incidents like this overwhelm me – is there an end to the violence? A father in California murdered 9 of his children. Two 12 year-old boys murdered a 13 year-old classmate in Washington. Terrorists detonated a car bomb today in Baghdad that destroyed a hotel and killed at least 27 people.

It is times like this when you wonder, frankly, what in the hell biblical literalists are smoking. A literal reading of the passage seems pretty clear – if you worship God (“make the Most High your dwelling”) “no harm will befall you.” Try telling that to the families of the missionaries killed. I suppose I’m not smart enough to know what God is really saying.

I have absolutely no idea what to make of Psalm 91. I just don’t know. It’s probably a good thing I’m not a minister. Here’s what I would say:

“I don’t know why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. I don’t know why missionaries get killed doing God’s work. I don’t know why children suffer and die. I don’t why God seems to promise protection from all of the evil and sickness in the world and then not protect us. I don’t know why so many people claim to know. All I really know is that I’m better off with God in my life. The world is still a scary place and I’m afraid for my family and friends. I just hope when it’s my time that I’ve done as much for our world in the name of God as those Baptists in Iraq.”

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

The second article is from Christianity Today and it is an interview of Alan Wolfe who is a professor at Boston College. He has written quite a bit on religion and culture in America. While’s he not religious, I think he has a lot of insight into religion, particularly Christianity, at this point in our history. He also wrote a great article that appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in October 2000 titled, “The Opening of the Evangelical Mind.”

Anyway, in this interview he argues that our culture has had a much more significant impact on religion (i.e. Christianity) than the other way around. He argues that the most successful churches, which are usually conservative, evangelical mega-churches are succeeding not because of their rejection of modern culture, but rather that they are adapting to cultural changes. In particular he points out our culture’s focus on individuality, tendency towards populism, short attention span, and anti-intellectualism.

Thus, the implication is that people are attracted to these churches not because of good, old-fashioned, strict Christian teaching, but because the format and culture of the church reflect what’s happening in the rest of American society. He doesn’t have, or least doesn’t mention, any quantitative evidence to prove this, but points out that people will switch traditions (e.g. Baptist to Pentecostal) for reasons that have nothing to do with the relative “strictness” of the teaching.

On a related note, he also argues that tradition and doctrine are less important than people think they are. In terms of tradition, people freely and regularly change denominations. People regularly leave, or join, churches with strong traditions without considering that tradition. For instance, the Methodist church is grounded firmly in the Wesleyan tradition, but people regularly walk away from United Methodist Churches for entirely different traditions. He believes that orthodoxy is being replaced with popularity. In terms of doctrine, he points out that many conservative churches are placing less emphasis on sin and more on developing self-esteem and personal empowerment. This would suggest the doctrinal character of the church is less important than whether it can meet the needs of the members.

This is interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First, the reality is that most, if not all, protestant churches are having serious discussions over tradition, and probably more importantly, doctrine. The question is whether these discussions really matter to ordinary churchgoers. In the United Methodist Church, there is clearly a core of very dedicated laypeople that care deeply about questions of doctrine and tradition. In my local UMC church however, you could probably count the people who are even aware of these discussions on two hands, and one hand the people who actually care.

So at what point does doctrine start to matter to the average layperson? If the UMC started marrying gays and lesbians would people care? If we became a creedal church would people care? I think the answer might be scary to some Methodists. I suspect that a lot of people who attend UM churches (particularly those under 50) probably aren’t that interested in John Wesley and don’t especially care what the Book of Discipline says. They are more attracted by the community of their local church and the pastor (until the conference moves them).

The moving of pastors within the UMC leads me to something else. Our church just found out that our minister is leaving our church to spend more time with her family. A lot of people within the church are heartbroken (maybe overstating it a little, but not by much). I talked with another member on the way to work and she told me that our minister was “the most important reason” she attended our church. This situation is a little different in that the conference is not moving our minister, but I think the impact on the church is much the same.

It will really be a test of the community of our church. How much of the identity of our church is encapsulated in the personality of our minister? One thing I’ve noticed about the mega-churches I’ve attended is that there is almost a cult of personality around the senior pastor. The identity of the church is grounded, in large part, in the personality and charisma of one man (usually – haven’t seen many women pastors at mega-churches).

So the question for us United Methodists who care about Wesley and the Book of Discipline, is how do we make our tradition and doctrine real and relevant for the people in our churches? How do we help “seekers” understand that our shared history as Methodists actually means something? As much as I hate to admit it, I don’t have an answer. I am a first generation United Methodist, but the shared history and tradition of the UMC is very important to me. I’m not sure if the lay members of the church or clergy should take the lead.

Certainly the grace of Jesus Christ is “portable,” (to borrow a term from modern society) but I hope that there’s something about the United Methodist Church that will catch people’s attention and keep them from switching churches as often as they do cell phone plans.

There’s a blog I like to read called “Only Wonder Understands”, that is written by Jay Voorhees, a United Methodist minister in Nashville. He’s written some very intriguing and insightful posts on issues surrounding the church (among other things) and I encourage checking his site out.

I’ve read a couple of interesting articles on religion the last couple of days. Newsweek regularly features a column by George Will. Everyone always tells you that personal attacks dilute your message, but to hell with it! I think George Will fashions himself as the great, conservative intellectual crusading against the depravity of modern liberalism. Personally, I think he’s a nitwit. It amazes me that people pay so much attention to an incredibly partisan (and partisanship being inimical to intellectualism), faux intellectual.

In his latest column (3/15/04 – not online, I think), he argues, in the face of facts, that despite being portrayed as a conservative, evangelical Christian, George W. Bush is actually promoting a profound civil, secular religion of democracy. Will says, “Bush is presenting America to the world – and, inescapably, to itself – not defined as a Judeo-Christian nation but as an examplar and exporter of universal good.” What nonsense! Bush is the most openly religious president I can remember and has done more to advance the conservative Christian agenda of any president in recent history. Will is living in a fantasy if he believes that George Bush has no interest in promoting fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity for all Americans. Will further argues that Bush is actually severing ties between Christianity and democracy. This is in the face of a president who has sought federal funding for religious charities and pushed for a constitutional amendment to ban marriage, primarily at the call of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. Are we talking about the same George Bush?

Will goes on to argue that mainline protestant churches have little to contribute to political life because their “God-talk is thin, homogenized gruel.” He argues that they have become ultra-relativist cesspools of hedonism and are drowning in pools of their own sin. (I’m taking a little creative license here in paraphrasing his argument.) He is basing this on one book written by some Canadian kook (not that all Canadians are kooks, I’ve only run into this one). This particular kook is Clifford Orwin. His book, “The Unraveling of Christianity in America,” argues that mainline protestant churches have responded to “secularism by capitulating to it and the discourse of psychotherapy and personal fulfillment.”

It seems to me that the intellectual response is to realize that modern mainline churches are facing the reality that society is changing and advances in science, technology, psychology, and studies of human development are forcing everyone to reexamine how they view the world. Mainline churches are struggling with the same issues as society. Look at the recent controversy in the Episcopal Church over the ordination of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop. They’ve received less media attention, but the United Methodist Church and Presbyterian Church USA have also struggled with ordination of homosexuals. To paint mainline churches with a broad brush and label them as moral relativists falling from Christian teaching is to fundamentally misunderstand the discussions taking place in the church. Perhaps George Will should try visiting one before he criticizes it.

Sunday, March 14, 2004

I attended a conference last week that was, for the most part, pretty unremarkable. The conference was put on by the Oregon Municipal Finance Officers Association. The session I attended was titled "Selecting Top Talent." The speaker was discussing methods for ensuring that organizations recruit quality workers for their organizations.

He argued that there were basically two components to finding the right person: selecting someone with the right competencies (do they actually have the skills to do the job) and someone who is "learning agile." The concept is that people who are learning agile simply learn more quickly than others and are more adaptable to their environment. People who are learning agile tend to be broadly curious, learn from their successes and failures, and like complexity (among other traits).

The idea of learning agility really resonated with me. First, while it's not exactly a revolutionary idea, it is important that there are people out there who are actually measuring this, and secondly that people are recognizing that it is an important trait of management employees. I also like to think of myself as learning agile, so maybe I just the like the idea because it validates how I see myself...

Anyway, it seems to me that a lot of Christianity, particularly the conservative/fundamentalist flavor, is distinctly non-learning agile. There's a belief that the world isn't complex and we know everything about the world that we need to know. There is also a definite anti-intellectual tendency in the fundamentalist movement. I think the fear is that opening our minds will lead us to "bad" thoughts, and ultimately the devil. Thus curiosity is to be feared, not welcomed.

Though I think that if God meant for us to be mindless automatons, God would have given us "The Idiot's Guide to Not Pissing Off God." Instead we get a collection of stories, letters, psalms, geneaologies, and ancient laws (and people pissing off God - see Lot's wife). God wants us to think and use our intellect (as well as our other gifts) to understand the world and our place in it. I think it's terrible to walk around afraid of learning new things. Curiosity and the thirst for knowledge is the main reason we still don't live in caves. Knowledge exploited for the wrong reasons has it's own problems (weapons of mass destruction, profit for profit's sake, etc.), but to walk around believing that curiosity is the work of Satan will lead us to another dark age.

This probably isn't particularly coherent, but my lovely daughter hasn't felt like sleeping much at night. I feel like a zombie...probably the devil exploiting my natural curiosity to turn me into an agent for the dark forces.

An interesting idea to explore another time comes from Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God." I haven't finished the book, but in the introduction she argues that Christianity has changed to accomodate the needs of our times. That is, our life as Christians today is radically different than Christians in prior centuries. The implication being that we shape our beliefs and traditions to fit our needs, rather than the other way around. Fundamentalist Christians would probably argue this idea is ridiculous. I'd say more, but I haven't finished the book yet.

Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Having a one-month old daughter definitely changes your life. For one thing, you end up spending more time than you ever thought you would wondering whether another person (your baby) has gone to the bathroom or not. It also requires you to spend a lot of time on your butt. In America, that usually means watching tv. It's pretty difficult to read (or blog for that matter) with a baby in your lap.

So, here's a list of what I've been watching while praying that my daughter stays asleep...

CSI: Miami - Kind of gory, but still fun.
Friends - Hmmm...how to justify this...
Everybody Loves Raymond - Man, I'm glad my family isn't this dysfunctional!
The Apprentice - A guilty pleasure, but still a very interesting commentary on American business.
The Daily Show - The best news show on TV...also very, very, very funny.

You know, people tell you about disgusting diapers, but you never really get prepared for when your baby poops so much it explodes out of the front (or back) of the diaper and soaks through their clothes. Very disgusting...but then your baby is totally adorable a couple of minutes later and you totally forget about the explosive diaper.