For those of us who watch too much TV, there is a certain phenomenon that we’ve noticed that coincides with the rise in popularity of Reality TV, the “freak-out.” This is when some person featured on a reality TV show has such a dramatic temper tantrum that it must be not only seen, but recorded and played back several times to be believed.
One of these events occurred on the TV show “Trading Spouses,” a show in which two radically different families trade matriarchs in order to experience a different world view. On one episode, a woman named Marguerite Perrin, who identifies herself as a devout Christian, has a complete and total meltdown after spending a few weeks with a family that practices a form a pagan religion. Upon returning home, she lashes out at her family, tears up the money they are to receive for participating in the social experiment, and orders all the “dark sided” people (i.e. the camera crew) out of her home. In order to better appreciate this, you can see her freak-out on youtube at the attached link(or at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE). Although we may look at this and say she’s obviously a misguided lady who has missed the point of being a Christian and I do not personally agree with her reaction, I feel the need to point out that Jesus himself had his own freak-out and (although not televised) it did rub some people the wrong the way.
We are all probably familiar with the story of Jesus casting out the money changers. Upon visiting the temple in Jerusalem, he sees people changing Greek and Roman money into Jewish and Tyrian coinage since they were the only ones that could be used in Jewish rituals. He turns over the tables of the money changers, fashioned a whip from some cords, and chased the money changers out of the temple saying “My house shall be called the house of prayer but ye have made it into a den of thieves.” Although some people interpret it as the money changers exploiting the poor, I would be curious to see how Jesus would react to large churches putting ATMs in the foyers in case people left their cash at home for the tithe.
This event, although not televised, has been the subject of artistic representations and has been analyzed by Biblical Scholars right and left. However, I think it can be boiled down to something very simple, Jesus was mad and he wasn’t going to take it anymore. Although the effects of his actions were profound, I believe this was not something planned out by Jesus or foreordained, but a reaction to a circumstance that he found unacceptable. Although Jesus was divine, he was also human and humans don’t always act with calm collected action. I do not say this to minimize this event in Biblical history, but to express my opinion that it was not a carefully scripted play enacted by characters like puppets but a story of passion and zeal fed by individuals’ love for God and abhorrence of those who used and exploited others. Of course, we cannot minimize actions that are acts of impulse. After all, the “Tank Man” in Beijing who stood in front of a line of tanks being rolled in to quell the protests at Tiananmen Square probably didn’t think through his actions yet his defiance became a symbol of freedom and rebellion for the world.
In summary, God gave us brains, but he also gave us instincts and we should listen to them just as much as we listen to logic and reason. Although impulsive actions can sometimes cause problems (in this case, they certainly did Jesus) they can also be the catalyst of profound actions.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Devil in the Details re: Good Deeds
You can tell summer is here b/c the endless stream of reruns forced me to watch a program I don’t normally watch: Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. For those of you unfamiliar with it, it takes a team of designers, builders, and hundreds of volunteers from the community to come in and either drastically renovate or replace completely their home. In this case, a woman who’s husband died of an allergic reaction to toxic mold while fixing up their home was given a new home to enjoy with her family in order to fulfill her husband’s dream of their own home. I will not say this was not a good deed nor was the family in the episode somehow undeserving of this gift. Still, I don’t normally like this type of program. Outside of the criticisms that such shows promote suburban excess, to me it seems to reinforce that cliché: “One family in dire straits is a tragedy, one-million in dire straits is a statistic.” Still, all the fanfare surrounding these programs did cause me to wonder how this modern way of publicity fits in with Biblical teachings about charity.
We all know the part of the sermon on the mount in Matthew 6 where Jesus tells everyone to not do acts of righteousness in front of other people and: “...when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” Is this really feasible in our modern world? After all, I don’t see that justification flying if a charity got audited by the IRS and they had no records of their expenses. I know we liberal Christians would say this needs to be interpreted to mean not to expect or demand some sort of praise or benefit for doing good works. However, I would ask you to get in touch with your inner-fundamentalist for a moment and think about this as a passage that is to be taken literally. If so, how do we act without knowing what we’re doing since that’s more often a reason for committal to a hospital than a sign of being a good Christian.
Although I am no expert in Biblical history, I do know that Jesus’ time was way before the organization and resources of many charities and aid agencies we see today like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and OxFam. A person who lost their home in a fire couldn’t really file a homeowner’s claim with their insurance and, in the event of a natural disaster, they didn’t expect a score of Aid workers to come in to feed, clothe, and house people until they got back on their feet. If someone was in dire straits, it was usually the family of the person who would help them out and, if they had no family, they were really out of luck. Therefore, the kinds of good acts that Jesus is talking about in this passage are probably more personal, unorganized, and usually would involve one person helping another out.
When we do a good deed, how much thought do we put into it? I must admit once I saw an old woman unloading a stack of newspapers at the recycling bin and did spend a minute thinking “maybe she doesn’t want help” before I offered to give her a hand. Many years ago Rita Wilbur did a sermon where she talked about people that hid Jews during the rise of the Nazi party. These people were not known for being saintly or extremely self-sacrificing, they just thought it was the right thing to do. Another, more recent, example is a story a friend of mine told me. She had moved from rural Oregon to Boston and had to get to a hospital to get medical tests performed. She couldn’t find the place, got very disoriented, and ended up breaking into tears on the sidewalk. A woman came up to her asking what was wrong and she told her. She instantly hailed a cab, gave the driver the address, paid him, and told my friend to get in. The woman would not give her name or address so her act could be repaid and just said “I’m from Louisiana, I know what it’s like.”
Perhaps what Jesus is talking about is that helping others in these unsystematic, random ways should be like second nature to us, we should do it without over analyzing, weighing the risks/benefits, or assuming someone else will do it. Although I do not mean to downplay the important role large, organized charities like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army play in serving those affected by hard times, at the root of all good acts is one person feeling the need to reach out to another. Something that maybe we should make as a rule and not an exception.
We all know the part of the sermon on the mount in Matthew 6 where Jesus tells everyone to not do acts of righteousness in front of other people and: “...when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” Is this really feasible in our modern world? After all, I don’t see that justification flying if a charity got audited by the IRS and they had no records of their expenses. I know we liberal Christians would say this needs to be interpreted to mean not to expect or demand some sort of praise or benefit for doing good works. However, I would ask you to get in touch with your inner-fundamentalist for a moment and think about this as a passage that is to be taken literally. If so, how do we act without knowing what we’re doing since that’s more often a reason for committal to a hospital than a sign of being a good Christian.
Although I am no expert in Biblical history, I do know that Jesus’ time was way before the organization and resources of many charities and aid agencies we see today like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and OxFam. A person who lost their home in a fire couldn’t really file a homeowner’s claim with their insurance and, in the event of a natural disaster, they didn’t expect a score of Aid workers to come in to feed, clothe, and house people until they got back on their feet. If someone was in dire straits, it was usually the family of the person who would help them out and, if they had no family, they were really out of luck. Therefore, the kinds of good acts that Jesus is talking about in this passage are probably more personal, unorganized, and usually would involve one person helping another out.
When we do a good deed, how much thought do we put into it? I must admit once I saw an old woman unloading a stack of newspapers at the recycling bin and did spend a minute thinking “maybe she doesn’t want help” before I offered to give her a hand. Many years ago Rita Wilbur did a sermon where she talked about people that hid Jews during the rise of the Nazi party. These people were not known for being saintly or extremely self-sacrificing, they just thought it was the right thing to do. Another, more recent, example is a story a friend of mine told me. She had moved from rural Oregon to Boston and had to get to a hospital to get medical tests performed. She couldn’t find the place, got very disoriented, and ended up breaking into tears on the sidewalk. A woman came up to her asking what was wrong and she told her. She instantly hailed a cab, gave the driver the address, paid him, and told my friend to get in. The woman would not give her name or address so her act could be repaid and just said “I’m from Louisiana, I know what it’s like.”
Perhaps what Jesus is talking about is that helping others in these unsystematic, random ways should be like second nature to us, we should do it without over analyzing, weighing the risks/benefits, or assuming someone else will do it. Although I do not mean to downplay the important role large, organized charities like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army play in serving those affected by hard times, at the root of all good acts is one person feeling the need to reach out to another. Something that maybe we should make as a rule and not an exception.
Friday, May 8, 2009
On Missions, Missionaries, and Wicker Men
While housesitting for some friends, I spent some time enjoying their very elaborate selection of movies on demand by watching the Cult Horror flick: “The Wicker Man.” I had seen the modern version starring Nicholas Cage and didn’t think much of it so I thought I’d check out the original. The movie is about a police officer named Neil Howie who travels to a remote island searching for a missing girl. The island, called Summerisle, is home to a community that practices a form of Celtic paganism and it is this theme that runs through the suspenseful plot of the film. After watching this movie, I am convinced of two things: some movies should never be remade and Neil Howie would’ve made a very bad missionary. This is because the character showed a great deal of disgust and disdain toward the overtly non-Christan practices of the Summerisle residents. For example, he becomes greatly disturbed when he sees that the Summerisle residents have turned the local chapel into an alter to a Pagan god, so much much he pushes the Pagan religious items off and places upon it a makeshift cross made with two boards. Any sort of explanation of their beliefs by the residents is usually met with his indignation for being so Un-Christian, it almost makes you feel less sorry for him when you find out the community of Summerisle has plans to sacrifice him.
Like film, missions and missionaries have come a long way throughout Christianity’s history and so I’d like to take some time to discuss how (if at all) missionaries fit in to the liberal form of Christianity that is my specific focus.
When we talk about “Missions” and “Missionaries” it usually conjures up several images, not all of them good. After all, during the colonization of the New World most missionaries had an army to back them up and conversion was usually forced upon indigenous peoples of North and South America. Even up to the earlier part of the 20th century, many missionaries not only wanted to convert people to Christianity but also to assimilate them to Western Culture. This is, of course, no longer the case and the standard training for missionaries these days involves in depth study and respect of a population’s culture and language before going into the field. Still, to many people, the word missionary tends to evoke images of a coercive influence on unsuspecting innocents. In college, I attended a talk by two missionaries who traveled to Indonesia to spread Christianity. Someone who also attended the talk was very put off by them and said they were forcing their beliefs on other people. However, they were in the most populous Muslim country in the world, they had entered into the country under somewhat false pretenses, and (if found out) they may have faced serious legal repercussions since Indonesia is not very tolerant of foreign missionaries. Therefore, it seemed to me that they were not in the position to force anything on anyone. However, the basic premise behind being a missionary is to convert someone from their beliefs onto your own, something we in liberal Christianity balk at since it suggests “My God is better than your God.”
In searching for Biblical passages to add to the discussion, I was kind of at a loss. Most people consider Jesus’ instructions to the disciples in Matthew 10 to be the basic instructions to evangelists and missionaries, but one of his specific instructions is to NOT enter Gentile or Samaritan towns and only focus on the House of Israel. In Acts, the story of Paul and Barnabas, they preach to a crowd of Gentiles, but only because their message was rejected by the Jews (kind of making the Gentiles their plan B, not really a statement of respect). Therefore, I draw from the story of the Woman at the Well in John 4, specifically looking at what happened after the Woman and Jesus ended their conversation. Afterwards, she gathers up the town saying that some man told her everything about herself and he may very well be the Christ. They follow her and Jesus preaches to them, afterwards they tell the woman: “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves and we know that this really is the Savior of the world.”
To me, this story really brings into focus the true purpose of missionary work, the people missionaries serve. Most people arguing for missions to convert nonbelievers by force because they don’t know any better or people who say missions shouldn’t exist because they force their beliefs on others. Both sides of that argument are forgetting that the people missionaries preach to are people just like you and me and are capable of making up their own minds about what to believe and what not to. Therefore, people who feel people should be forced into religion are ignoring the fact that people should be able to make up their own minds. Furthermore, people who feel any type of evangelism is coercion also forget that a group missionaries serve are able to decide whether or not Christianity is right for them. The other Samaritans didn’t take the woman’s word for it that Jesus was the Messiah, they heard him speak and decided for themselves.
Back in 2007, the "Christian Science Monitor" ran a series on the growth of Pentecostal Christian groups in Latin America. On of their pieces looked at Brazil and how people involved in “gang life” no longer wait to be preached to other Pentecostals but make the decision to convert on their own. In the slums of Brazil--where poverty, violence, and drug dealing are rampant--people see conversion as the only way out of the gang life. People who have researched this issue may argue they are being coerced into conversion because there is no other way to remove themselves from their violent past or they point out that converts backsliding into their past lives is frequent. However, the fact remains that many gang members and drug dealers see this choice as a way out and choose to take it. I think this case study, as well, as the story of the Samaritans listening to Jesus puts the focus not on the missionary but those (s)he is working with. These people, like ourselves, have their own reasons for believing or not to and (like us) I’m sure they’d like their reasons to be respected.
Like film, missions and missionaries have come a long way throughout Christianity’s history and so I’d like to take some time to discuss how (if at all) missionaries fit in to the liberal form of Christianity that is my specific focus.
When we talk about “Missions” and “Missionaries” it usually conjures up several images, not all of them good. After all, during the colonization of the New World most missionaries had an army to back them up and conversion was usually forced upon indigenous peoples of North and South America. Even up to the earlier part of the 20th century, many missionaries not only wanted to convert people to Christianity but also to assimilate them to Western Culture. This is, of course, no longer the case and the standard training for missionaries these days involves in depth study and respect of a population’s culture and language before going into the field. Still, to many people, the word missionary tends to evoke images of a coercive influence on unsuspecting innocents. In college, I attended a talk by two missionaries who traveled to Indonesia to spread Christianity. Someone who also attended the talk was very put off by them and said they were forcing their beliefs on other people. However, they were in the most populous Muslim country in the world, they had entered into the country under somewhat false pretenses, and (if found out) they may have faced serious legal repercussions since Indonesia is not very tolerant of foreign missionaries. Therefore, it seemed to me that they were not in the position to force anything on anyone. However, the basic premise behind being a missionary is to convert someone from their beliefs onto your own, something we in liberal Christianity balk at since it suggests “My God is better than your God.”
In searching for Biblical passages to add to the discussion, I was kind of at a loss. Most people consider Jesus’ instructions to the disciples in Matthew 10 to be the basic instructions to evangelists and missionaries, but one of his specific instructions is to NOT enter Gentile or Samaritan towns and only focus on the House of Israel. In Acts, the story of Paul and Barnabas, they preach to a crowd of Gentiles, but only because their message was rejected by the Jews (kind of making the Gentiles their plan B, not really a statement of respect). Therefore, I draw from the story of the Woman at the Well in John 4, specifically looking at what happened after the Woman and Jesus ended their conversation. Afterwards, she gathers up the town saying that some man told her everything about herself and he may very well be the Christ. They follow her and Jesus preaches to them, afterwards they tell the woman: “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves and we know that this really is the Savior of the world.”
To me, this story really brings into focus the true purpose of missionary work, the people missionaries serve. Most people arguing for missions to convert nonbelievers by force because they don’t know any better or people who say missions shouldn’t exist because they force their beliefs on others. Both sides of that argument are forgetting that the people missionaries preach to are people just like you and me and are capable of making up their own minds about what to believe and what not to. Therefore, people who feel people should be forced into religion are ignoring the fact that people should be able to make up their own minds. Furthermore, people who feel any type of evangelism is coercion also forget that a group missionaries serve are able to decide whether or not Christianity is right for them. The other Samaritans didn’t take the woman’s word for it that Jesus was the Messiah, they heard him speak and decided for themselves.
Back in 2007, the "Christian Science Monitor" ran a series on the growth of Pentecostal Christian groups in Latin America. On of their pieces looked at Brazil and how people involved in “gang life” no longer wait to be preached to other Pentecostals but make the decision to convert on their own. In the slums of Brazil--where poverty, violence, and drug dealing are rampant--people see conversion as the only way out of the gang life. People who have researched this issue may argue they are being coerced into conversion because there is no other way to remove themselves from their violent past or they point out that converts backsliding into their past lives is frequent. However, the fact remains that many gang members and drug dealers see this choice as a way out and choose to take it. I think this case study, as well, as the story of the Samaritans listening to Jesus puts the focus not on the missionary but those (s)he is working with. These people, like ourselves, have their own reasons for believing or not to and (like us) I’m sure they’d like their reasons to be respected.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
In Praise of Dysfunction in the Family of God
Well, season 3 of the Tudors will be starting soon and I am anxiously awaiting getting back into the show that made me the poster child for Sloth when it became available on demand. In this season, we see Henry the VIII dealing with wives number three and four, coping with his own failing health, and contending with the “Pilgrimage of Grace.” Although it is a very nice sounding name, the Pilgrimage was actually a rebellion in Northern England against the new Church of England and the suppression of the Catholic Faith. I, for one, am glad that if we are not satisfied with the church we attend now, we can just leave and don’t have to take up arms (because, let’s face it, with Spirit of Peace’s size we’d get creamed). The first episode had me thinking about Schism in the church and I really must ask is schism such a bad thing?
In pretty much every church I’ve been to, there seems to be a lot of talk about how great it is that the Christian Church is so diverse BUT when a church chooses to leave someone’s denomination and join another or start their own, it’s sack cloth and ashes time. No church is immune to separation and I can think of many instances where I would want to split with my current church as well. For example, the Polish National Catholic Church split with the Roman Catholic Church in the early 20th century because a group of churches in the New York/Pennsylvania region felt the RCC was not keeping their needs/interests in mind when making decisions about church finances and land use. Another example is the African Methodist Episcopal church which split from the United Methodists in 1816 over discrimination in the denomination against African-American members. Those of us in the UCC would probably cheer on such decisions, but we don’t exactly boast a 100% satisfaction rate. St Paul UCC in Cibolo, as well as others across the US, chose to split with our denomination over the UCC’s resolution supporting same-sex marriage. Although the UCC stands by its decision and (I’d like to think) respects the minority opinion, the separation of these churches from ours is often seen as a sad event.
Although Jesus’ experiences with organized religion (i.e. the Pharisees) weren’t exactly ringing endorsements, I think we can glean something from his experiences to help put the concept of schism into context. In Matthew 22, a lawyer asks Jesus which is the greatest commandment and the response is to love the lord with all your heart, mind, and soul with loving you neighbor as yourself coming in a close second.
Love is something that remains a bit of a conundrum in all forms of religion. Most people talk about God’s love as “simple” but whole fields of counseling and psychotherapy are based around the premise that love between two people is anything but. Many moons ago, I saw a relationship therapist over some trouble my significant other and I were having at the time. I felt my attempts to affirm the affection for this person were being ignored and I felt very awkward over their actions which were so different from mine. She told me that people express love differently (the term she used was “love languages”) and different people had different languages to express their love.
If we use this idea applied to religion, it does seem to make sense. I know we at Spirit of Peace express our love for God by keeping an open mind about the Bible’s teaching and being accepting of everyone. Maybe more conservative Christian denominations feel the best way they express their love is to maintain as strict an adherence to the Bible as they can. Just as no two relationships are exact clones of each other in terms of how feelings are expressed, can we really say that a church that isn’t exactly like ours loves God any less?
To better make a plug for changes in the church leading to separation of different churches, I turn from psychology to engineering. Many years ago I watched a show about how buildings designed in Japan were better able to withstand an earthquake than those made the in US. The ones in Japan are able to “give” so when an earthquake comes, its lack of rigidity causes the building to remain more intact. I think the Christian church needs to have a similar form of “give” since it serves so many people around the world with different needs, interests, and priorities. If however, we strive for a “one size fits all” model, I really can’t see everyone getting what they need out of church. Many years ago, I worked with a woman from Northern Ireland and she had no real affinity for organized religion. Her reasons were understandable, she said that after growing up in a place where people were killing, bombing, and committing other acts of violence against each other over who belonged to the Catholic Church and who belonged to a Protestant denomination, the whole institution of religion seemed pointless. I can certainly appreciate her position and would probably feel the same way if my experiences growing up were like hers.
Therefore, if we are to fully embrace the diversity of the Christian church, we can’t really bemoan or be in denial about the fact that part of that diversity takes the form of strong disagreement. Still, just as a relationship between two people can become stronger when points of contention are addressed, so two I think the church becomes stronger when sticking points are not swept under the carpet but brought out in the light for all to see and deal with. Furthermore, like with many relationships, if there is love, the love Jesus said was the greatest commandant of all, we should have faith that we stand on solid ground.
In pretty much every church I’ve been to, there seems to be a lot of talk about how great it is that the Christian Church is so diverse BUT when a church chooses to leave someone’s denomination and join another or start their own, it’s sack cloth and ashes time. No church is immune to separation and I can think of many instances where I would want to split with my current church as well. For example, the Polish National Catholic Church split with the Roman Catholic Church in the early 20th century because a group of churches in the New York/Pennsylvania region felt the RCC was not keeping their needs/interests in mind when making decisions about church finances and land use. Another example is the African Methodist Episcopal church which split from the United Methodists in 1816 over discrimination in the denomination against African-American members. Those of us in the UCC would probably cheer on such decisions, but we don’t exactly boast a 100% satisfaction rate. St Paul UCC in Cibolo, as well as others across the US, chose to split with our denomination over the UCC’s resolution supporting same-sex marriage. Although the UCC stands by its decision and (I’d like to think) respects the minority opinion, the separation of these churches from ours is often seen as a sad event.
Although Jesus’ experiences with organized religion (i.e. the Pharisees) weren’t exactly ringing endorsements, I think we can glean something from his experiences to help put the concept of schism into context. In Matthew 22, a lawyer asks Jesus which is the greatest commandment and the response is to love the lord with all your heart, mind, and soul with loving you neighbor as yourself coming in a close second.
Love is something that remains a bit of a conundrum in all forms of religion. Most people talk about God’s love as “simple” but whole fields of counseling and psychotherapy are based around the premise that love between two people is anything but. Many moons ago, I saw a relationship therapist over some trouble my significant other and I were having at the time. I felt my attempts to affirm the affection for this person were being ignored and I felt very awkward over their actions which were so different from mine. She told me that people express love differently (the term she used was “love languages”) and different people had different languages to express their love.
If we use this idea applied to religion, it does seem to make sense. I know we at Spirit of Peace express our love for God by keeping an open mind about the Bible’s teaching and being accepting of everyone. Maybe more conservative Christian denominations feel the best way they express their love is to maintain as strict an adherence to the Bible as they can. Just as no two relationships are exact clones of each other in terms of how feelings are expressed, can we really say that a church that isn’t exactly like ours loves God any less?
To better make a plug for changes in the church leading to separation of different churches, I turn from psychology to engineering. Many years ago I watched a show about how buildings designed in Japan were better able to withstand an earthquake than those made the in US. The ones in Japan are able to “give” so when an earthquake comes, its lack of rigidity causes the building to remain more intact. I think the Christian church needs to have a similar form of “give” since it serves so many people around the world with different needs, interests, and priorities. If however, we strive for a “one size fits all” model, I really can’t see everyone getting what they need out of church. Many years ago, I worked with a woman from Northern Ireland and she had no real affinity for organized religion. Her reasons were understandable, she said that after growing up in a place where people were killing, bombing, and committing other acts of violence against each other over who belonged to the Catholic Church and who belonged to a Protestant denomination, the whole institution of religion seemed pointless. I can certainly appreciate her position and would probably feel the same way if my experiences growing up were like hers.
Therefore, if we are to fully embrace the diversity of the Christian church, we can’t really bemoan or be in denial about the fact that part of that diversity takes the form of strong disagreement. Still, just as a relationship between two people can become stronger when points of contention are addressed, so two I think the church becomes stronger when sticking points are not swept under the carpet but brought out in the light for all to see and deal with. Furthermore, like with many relationships, if there is love, the love Jesus said was the greatest commandant of all, we should have faith that we stand on solid ground.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
On Drinking the Kool-Aid and other thoughts
In keeping with my inspiration coming from odd places, I have now found something to write about in the medium most known for it’s short and succinct ideas: Bumper Stickers. The other day I saw a bumper sticker on a car saying: “Religions are Cults with More Members.” Although this was probably meant to lump mainstream religious belief with the practices of more radical or bizarre faiths, Webster.com does list a possible definition of a cult as “A system of religious beliefs and ritual.” Many people who have unusual beliefs don’t like to refer to their faith as a “cult” given the negative connotation the word has gained from such incidents as the Jonestown Massacre in the 70s and the siege at the Branch Davidian compound in the early 90s. However, I personally am comfortable with the cult origins of my faith, like with most movements, it started small and began to grow. Still, it does cause me to think about how we view other sects/denominations of Christianity and other religions.
First, I think we should get some definitions out of the way. A Cult has many definitions, one of which being the one previously discussed, but can also mean “A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious” and “a great devotion to a person, idea, object, or movement.” These definitions seem remarkably close to the definition of a “sect” which is “a dissenting or schismatic religious body usually regarded as extreme” or “a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.” Both of these stand out to “Denomination,” which is: “a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.” So what would that make Spirit of Peace? We certainly are schismatic since many of us left our previous denominations in search of more open-minded theology and should we call the UCC a denomination since it seems our only uniform belief is that nobody else has to believe what we do? I don’t know if we ever could achieve cult status (NPI) since we are actually a merging of two denominations and lack that central figure like Moses David who founded The Children of God (now known as the Family of Love). However, Oprah is a member of a UCC church so she might be willing to take the role on as a side project.
Although it is not part of the definition, if a person’s beliefs are viewed as “cultish” by a society, they are in for a bumpy road. In Germany, members of the church of Scientology often feel discriminated against because German Society does not approve of their faith. Likewise, the Seventh Day Adventist Church’s known support of freedom of religion is based on the fact that they are often a religious minority and have been on the receiving end of religious discrimination.
Therefore, we are left with that recurring question of what would Jesus do? I’m honestly not sure since Jesus really didn’t seem to push evangelism of people of other faiths. However, in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (specifically, 1 Corinthians 13, that verse known for being read at weddings but really doesn’t deal with romantic love). The passage states: “If I speak in tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or clanging cymbal.” Paul was a cult leader in his own way given he did not share the other apostles beliefs about maintaining the rites of conversion dictated in the Jewish law and some have described his spreading of God’s word as “fervent.” I believe he was saying “love” is the lens through we should view people’s beliefs when they are different from ours. When we say we have problems with a small group who has some beliefs we consider weird, unorthodox, or dangerous, what is our motivation? Is it because we care for the people in this group and are concerned because how they express those beliefs could be harmful to themselves or others or because they have beliefs that are different from ours and, therefore, must be wrong and misguided?
First, I think we should get some definitions out of the way. A Cult has many definitions, one of which being the one previously discussed, but can also mean “A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious” and “a great devotion to a person, idea, object, or movement.” These definitions seem remarkably close to the definition of a “sect” which is “a dissenting or schismatic religious body usually regarded as extreme” or “a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.” Both of these stand out to “Denomination,” which is: “a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.” So what would that make Spirit of Peace? We certainly are schismatic since many of us left our previous denominations in search of more open-minded theology and should we call the UCC a denomination since it seems our only uniform belief is that nobody else has to believe what we do? I don’t know if we ever could achieve cult status (NPI) since we are actually a merging of two denominations and lack that central figure like Moses David who founded The Children of God (now known as the Family of Love). However, Oprah is a member of a UCC church so she might be willing to take the role on as a side project.
Although it is not part of the definition, if a person’s beliefs are viewed as “cultish” by a society, they are in for a bumpy road. In Germany, members of the church of Scientology often feel discriminated against because German Society does not approve of their faith. Likewise, the Seventh Day Adventist Church’s known support of freedom of religion is based on the fact that they are often a religious minority and have been on the receiving end of religious discrimination.
Therefore, we are left with that recurring question of what would Jesus do? I’m honestly not sure since Jesus really didn’t seem to push evangelism of people of other faiths. However, in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (specifically, 1 Corinthians 13, that verse known for being read at weddings but really doesn’t deal with romantic love). The passage states: “If I speak in tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or clanging cymbal.” Paul was a cult leader in his own way given he did not share the other apostles beliefs about maintaining the rites of conversion dictated in the Jewish law and some have described his spreading of God’s word as “fervent.” I believe he was saying “love” is the lens through we should view people’s beliefs when they are different from ours. When we say we have problems with a small group who has some beliefs we consider weird, unorthodox, or dangerous, what is our motivation? Is it because we care for the people in this group and are concerned because how they express those beliefs could be harmful to themselves or others or because they have beliefs that are different from ours and, therefore, must be wrong and misguided?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Martha: Patron Saint of OCD
As my third month as volunteer coordinator approaches, I must confess it has caused me to think a lot about the organizational requirements larger churches must go through on a day to day basis. When my time as coordinator ends at the end of March (and it WILL end then regardless of whether or not someone else can take over the job), I feel I must give praise to one person in the Bible who remains an inspiration to me for all things organizational: Martha.
We all know the story from the Gospel of Luke: Martha is head of the household and welcomes Jesus into their home and does all the work while Mary sits around and listens to Jesus. Martha gets mad about this and is chided by Jesus saying that she is distracted by many things while Mary has “chosen the better part” by taking time to listen to Jesus. We don’t really know what happened after that, Martha probably agreed with him or (if she was like me) she probably would’ve made the mistake of telling Jesus “Then fix your own $#@% dinner!” Although we can concede that Jesus was right and Martha was wrong, Martha still remains a veritable patron saint of people with type-A personalities. The pastor of my parents’ church said in a sermon that a group of people at her old church served as the logistical hub and named themselves “The Marthas.”
Although Jesus’ teachings and actions usually serve as the cornerstone of a Christian community of faith as they should, those who are driven to attend the organization of who does what and when remain a significant part of any church’s ministry (including our own). After all, “Meals under the Bridge” remains a very well-known and respected interfaith ministry here in San Antonio and it would not be possible without Ellen Ott’s attention to detail.
Like with Martha, our work in the Church is to honor and serve God since Martha’s OCD actions were in appreciation and respect for Jesus. However, what happens when that work causes us to loose sight of the bigger picture that is Jesus’ message of love and salvation? More than once I vented over the day to day business of being Moderator and how it can feel like frustration personified to friends who, unwittingly, got drawn into my diatribe. One time I was on one of these rants and the friend said: “If you hate being Moderator so much why do you do it?” This caused me to take a step back and realize that, in getting wrapped up in the minor details of being moderator, I had lost sight of why I did it which was to further the mission of Spirit of Peace which, I think the whole congregation can agree, is what God wants us to do (and because no one else wanted the job, but I digress). Although I did not hate being moderator, I got so wrapped up in the less-savory aspects of the position and forgot the reason I took the task on.
Probably someone who was a better organizer than I could ever be was Mother Teresa. When she started her ministry to the poor of India she had no start up money, was one of the few who actually reached out to the poor of Calcutta, and she had to do pretty much everything herself. In her Biography, she talked about her early months where she was tempted to return to Convent life, her response was: “Of free choice, my God, and out of love for you, I desire to remain and do whatever be your Holy will in my regard.” Well, fortunately Mother Teresa didn’t have to keep doing everything herself and her organization the “Missionaries of Charity” has grown to more than 4,000 nuns caring for people in over 123 countries. Still, although a great drive to work made her service possible, would she have continued to reach out to others if she had forgotten why she was doing such a tireless and thankless job?
We all know the story from the Gospel of Luke: Martha is head of the household and welcomes Jesus into their home and does all the work while Mary sits around and listens to Jesus. Martha gets mad about this and is chided by Jesus saying that she is distracted by many things while Mary has “chosen the better part” by taking time to listen to Jesus. We don’t really know what happened after that, Martha probably agreed with him or (if she was like me) she probably would’ve made the mistake of telling Jesus “Then fix your own $#@% dinner!” Although we can concede that Jesus was right and Martha was wrong, Martha still remains a veritable patron saint of people with type-A personalities. The pastor of my parents’ church said in a sermon that a group of people at her old church served as the logistical hub and named themselves “The Marthas.”
Although Jesus’ teachings and actions usually serve as the cornerstone of a Christian community of faith as they should, those who are driven to attend the organization of who does what and when remain a significant part of any church’s ministry (including our own). After all, “Meals under the Bridge” remains a very well-known and respected interfaith ministry here in San Antonio and it would not be possible without Ellen Ott’s attention to detail.
Like with Martha, our work in the Church is to honor and serve God since Martha’s OCD actions were in appreciation and respect for Jesus. However, what happens when that work causes us to loose sight of the bigger picture that is Jesus’ message of love and salvation? More than once I vented over the day to day business of being Moderator and how it can feel like frustration personified to friends who, unwittingly, got drawn into my diatribe. One time I was on one of these rants and the friend said: “If you hate being Moderator so much why do you do it?” This caused me to take a step back and realize that, in getting wrapped up in the minor details of being moderator, I had lost sight of why I did it which was to further the mission of Spirit of Peace which, I think the whole congregation can agree, is what God wants us to do (and because no one else wanted the job, but I digress). Although I did not hate being moderator, I got so wrapped up in the less-savory aspects of the position and forgot the reason I took the task on.
Probably someone who was a better organizer than I could ever be was Mother Teresa. When she started her ministry to the poor of India she had no start up money, was one of the few who actually reached out to the poor of Calcutta, and she had to do pretty much everything herself. In her Biography, she talked about her early months where she was tempted to return to Convent life, her response was: “Of free choice, my God, and out of love for you, I desire to remain and do whatever be your Holy will in my regard.” Well, fortunately Mother Teresa didn’t have to keep doing everything herself and her organization the “Missionaries of Charity” has grown to more than 4,000 nuns caring for people in over 123 countries. Still, although a great drive to work made her service possible, would she have continued to reach out to others if she had forgotten why she was doing such a tireless and thankless job?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Anti-Hero
If you are like me and spend a great deal of time watching television, you have probably noticed a shift in the type of programming that is on most nights. The lines between the good guys and bad guys are more often blurred and we have come to see the emergence of what we call “the anti-hero,” an individual who is the protagonist of the story yet is either not a “good guy/girl” or at least not fitting the typical stereotype of what the good guy/girl should be. Probably the first anti-hero of television was none other than JR Ewing of the show Dallas, he was “the man everyone loved to hate” yet he was the primary focus of the show and without his twisted antics the show would’ve been too boring for words. A more recent example is the show: “Sleeper Cell” which details the activities a cell of terrorists in the United States. So much time is spent developing these characters and showing the good and bad about them, you become drawn into the story and concerning yourself more with them than the FBI agents who are operating to stop them.
The Bible also has ample villains in it and they are many things, but certainly not boring. For example, the queen Herodias and her plot to kill John the Baptist is scheming on a level that would put Alexis from the show “Dynasty” to shame. Probably the first character that would be considered an “anti-hero“ of the Bible would be Pharaoh in the story of the Exodus. After each plague the Bible says God hardens Pharaohs’ heart, which would indicate that God is moving this story along to a very dramatic and serious finale. One character in the show “Oz” talks about this story and, bluntly, raises the question: “So if God harden’s Pharaoh’s heart after each plague, who’s side is God really on???” This is a valid question, why would God prolong the Hebrews’ slavery in Egypt if Pharaoh would’ve given up on his own after one or two plagues?
I do not think God allows bad things to happen for the sake of great drama. However, I am of the belief that God can truly show the extent of his love for us by showing the extremes He is willing to go to in order to help his people. After all, would the nation of Israel been as faithful to God to wander in the wilderness for 40 years if God said “let my people go” and Pharaoh said “ok.” If you have more of an attention span as I do, you have read the lengthy list of laws and rules God laid out for us. Just as with any relationship, there has to be some quid pro quo, we need assurance that our obedience to God’s law will be rewarded by having God on our side against even the most aggressive foes. In the Bible, we see people faithful to God triumphing over others who have more money, a bigger army, or the law on their side. In another dramatic story, it was Martin Luther King’s faith in God that allowed him to stand against those in favor of segregation even though when he began the segregationists had more money, more political power, and had the law on their side.
Ultimately, in our lives, God may ask great things from us, ask us to step outside our comfort zone, take risks, and in general prompt people to ask: “what are you on and why aren’t you sharing?” Still, when that time comes it is my hope we will remember that God is likewise able to make great things happen and he has the track record to prove it.
The Bible also has ample villains in it and they are many things, but certainly not boring. For example, the queen Herodias and her plot to kill John the Baptist is scheming on a level that would put Alexis from the show “Dynasty” to shame. Probably the first character that would be considered an “anti-hero“ of the Bible would be Pharaoh in the story of the Exodus. After each plague the Bible says God hardens Pharaohs’ heart, which would indicate that God is moving this story along to a very dramatic and serious finale. One character in the show “Oz” talks about this story and, bluntly, raises the question: “So if God harden’s Pharaoh’s heart after each plague, who’s side is God really on???” This is a valid question, why would God prolong the Hebrews’ slavery in Egypt if Pharaoh would’ve given up on his own after one or two plagues?
I do not think God allows bad things to happen for the sake of great drama. However, I am of the belief that God can truly show the extent of his love for us by showing the extremes He is willing to go to in order to help his people. After all, would the nation of Israel been as faithful to God to wander in the wilderness for 40 years if God said “let my people go” and Pharaoh said “ok.” If you have more of an attention span as I do, you have read the lengthy list of laws and rules God laid out for us. Just as with any relationship, there has to be some quid pro quo, we need assurance that our obedience to God’s law will be rewarded by having God on our side against even the most aggressive foes. In the Bible, we see people faithful to God triumphing over others who have more money, a bigger army, or the law on their side. In another dramatic story, it was Martin Luther King’s faith in God that allowed him to stand against those in favor of segregation even though when he began the segregationists had more money, more political power, and had the law on their side.
Ultimately, in our lives, God may ask great things from us, ask us to step outside our comfort zone, take risks, and in general prompt people to ask: “what are you on and why aren’t you sharing?” Still, when that time comes it is my hope we will remember that God is likewise able to make great things happen and he has the track record to prove it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)