Yesterday I posted this thought on Facebook:
Taking the Bible at face value & obeying it will almost always make you a heretic to religious people.
I wanted to unpack a little bit what I was thinking when I wrote it.
First, we're a very religious society. While I totally oppose the concept that we in the United States have every been, are now, or should be in the future a "Christian" nation, there is little debate that we're one of the most religious societies on earth.
Second, religion has its ups and downs. We all have religious practices, to one degree or another, and those practices can have deep meaning and impact on our lives. They can also become places of pride, contention, and downright violence in proving who is right.
Third, religion has tended throughout history to be user and usee when it comes to political clout, power and influence. Religion, once it becomes the accepted practice, does not want to lose its influence, so it seeks to maintain the status quo and hold on to a position of power.
When the early church has no clout, no social capital, it lived on the margins of society and had its most incredible growth and impact EVER. The rise of the church in the first 300 years is nothing short of amazing. But in the 4th century, as the church became the institution of the social norm, it moved away from the margins and into the center. It became sluggish and dull, fat on the feeling of stability and power.
And so has it been for nearly 1700 years since.
Those who rise up and challenge the established religion, often by a humble return and obedience to the core passages of the Scriptures, are labelled as heretics because they challenge the position of power that the religious structures and leaders have long held.
I believe God opposes these positions of power, and challenges us instead to live on the margins, influencing society through acts of service to the quartet of the vulnerable, speaking prophetically to the thrones of power that seek only to maintain their place of favor, even at the cost of those most vulnerable. To love God and neighbor with such reckless abandon that it cannot be dismissed nor bought nor bribed.
That's the kind of heretic I want to be.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Book Review: "Why God Won't Go Away" by Alister McGrath
In the past 10 or 15 years, a new breed of atheist has sprung onto the scene. With Christopher Hitchens somewhat at the front of the pack, this group of atheist thinkers seem to be more about anti-religion thought than they are truly atheistic in nature. It reminds me of the phrase that I once heard someone say about these neo-atheists (I think about Richard Dawkins, but I could be wrong): "There is not a god, and I hate him."
I like Alister McGrath. He thinks well and deeply, and has a great way of taking that deep thinking and making accessible to the public at large. In this book, McGrath dissects the writings of the 4 leaders of the new atheist group: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. And instead of the same old apologetic critiques of atheism, he puts out some great initial thoughts on counteracting the new atheist arguments against God and religion.
If you're looking for a book that dives deeply into the arguments for theism, with all the nitty gritty details, this probably isn't it. But for the average church-goer, this is a great primer on the basics of new atheism and the arguments to counter that teaching.
Probably the most important thing I can say about McGrath's book is that it is full of love. Not wishy-washy stuff, but genuine love and concern for these 4 men and the others who follow them. He knows them personally in some cases, prays for them with what appears to me to be sincerity, and truly wants to get to the truth. That alone makes the book unique and worthwhile in our vitriolic era.
The book is in 3 sections: a description of "new atheism", a discussion of 3 core themes to engage new atheism about, and a little look at what he sees as the future of new atheism. As I already said, the first section is not an in-depth philosophical examination, but meant for the average church goer, and as such does a great job introducing us to the common themes, elements and players on the new atheism stage.
The real value of the book is in section 2, where McGrath explores what the new atheists say about the Christian religion's history in 3 areas: violence, reason, and science. McGrath is honest--truly much idiocy has been done in the name of religion, and even in the name of Jesus. But he also looks at the things done in support of atheism, which certainly isn't any better of a track record. In fact, both of these support the biblical truth of innate depravity within human beings. We are bound by evil in many cases, regardless of how religious or irreligious we might be. One quote: "Maybe it's not that religion corrupts humanity but that a corrupt humanity creates a look-alike religion." (p. 92)
One great quote from the science chapter: "If science is hijacked by fundamentalists, whether religious or antireligious, its intellectual integrity is subverted and its cultural authority compromised." (p. 108) And in praise of science, McGrath says "science is about giving us reasons for believing that certain things are true, while at the same time insisting that we realize that future generations my rightly want to challenge those beliefs. That's why science is so successful: it's willing to change its mind in response to new evidence." (p. 115)
We all must be looking to how new evidence changes what we believe. We believe in an unchanging God, but not in an unchanging understanding of him. May he enlighten us with all truth because of our hope in him (Ep 1.17-18).
I like Alister McGrath. He thinks well and deeply, and has a great way of taking that deep thinking and making accessible to the public at large. In this book, McGrath dissects the writings of the 4 leaders of the new atheist group: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. And instead of the same old apologetic critiques of atheism, he puts out some great initial thoughts on counteracting the new atheist arguments against God and religion.
If you're looking for a book that dives deeply into the arguments for theism, with all the nitty gritty details, this probably isn't it. But for the average church-goer, this is a great primer on the basics of new atheism and the arguments to counter that teaching.
Probably the most important thing I can say about McGrath's book is that it is full of love. Not wishy-washy stuff, but genuine love and concern for these 4 men and the others who follow them. He knows them personally in some cases, prays for them with what appears to me to be sincerity, and truly wants to get to the truth. That alone makes the book unique and worthwhile in our vitriolic era.
The book is in 3 sections: a description of "new atheism", a discussion of 3 core themes to engage new atheism about, and a little look at what he sees as the future of new atheism. As I already said, the first section is not an in-depth philosophical examination, but meant for the average church goer, and as such does a great job introducing us to the common themes, elements and players on the new atheism stage.
The real value of the book is in section 2, where McGrath explores what the new atheists say about the Christian religion's history in 3 areas: violence, reason, and science. McGrath is honest--truly much idiocy has been done in the name of religion, and even in the name of Jesus. But he also looks at the things done in support of atheism, which certainly isn't any better of a track record. In fact, both of these support the biblical truth of innate depravity within human beings. We are bound by evil in many cases, regardless of how religious or irreligious we might be. One quote: "Maybe it's not that religion corrupts humanity but that a corrupt humanity creates a look-alike religion." (p. 92)
One great quote from the science chapter: "If science is hijacked by fundamentalists, whether religious or antireligious, its intellectual integrity is subverted and its cultural authority compromised." (p. 108) And in praise of science, McGrath says "science is about giving us reasons for believing that certain things are true, while at the same time insisting that we realize that future generations my rightly want to challenge those beliefs. That's why science is so successful: it's willing to change its mind in response to new evidence." (p. 115)
We all must be looking to how new evidence changes what we believe. We believe in an unchanging God, but not in an unchanging understanding of him. May he enlighten us with all truth because of our hope in him (Ep 1.17-18).
Friday, August 26, 2011
Political Leaders with Religious Views
I've been thinking for a couple of weeks about the prayer rally in Houston a few weeks back. The rally featured the now leading Republican candidate and current Texas governor Rick Perry, among others. It was sponsored by the American Family Association.
But really this blog isn't about Rick Perry (I'm still formulating opinions on whether or not the event was primarily politically motivated) or AFA (whose organizational practices and techniques I usually do not care for). It's about this question: what should be okay and what should be out of bounds for a political leader when it comes to expressing their faith?
There are several levels to this conversation.
First, at the level of USAmerican politics, there is virtually no way to separate a candidate's political and religious views, particularly a presidential candidate. His or her religious practices are going to be interpreted by media and by the public as having political implications. This is a given, and right or wrong we're not going to change it. And the biases of those media or people determines how they view the religious expression. President Clinton attended church far more frequently than President Reagan, but that didn't help him with religious conservatives. Political opponents seem to always interpret their adversary's words and deeds in the worst light possible. So a rally calling Christians to prayer is seen as a ploy to win the vote of the religious conservative. But just because this happens does not mean that candidates should not express their faith in ways they see fit.
Second, at the level of USAmerican religious expression, the vast majority of the religious expressions of public leaders are not the same as biblical Christianity. There is, I'm not the first to point out, an American religion. It sounds like biblical language, but the god of that religion is always on the side of the US. I've written about that in previous posts, and I confess my own bias here, because I do not believe any Christian should be equating the USAmerican public religion with biblical Christianity. The US is not nor has it ever been a Christian nation, chosen by God, in the way the the Hebrews of the Old Testament were. I want to passionately follow the God of the Bible, the God revealed in human form in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. That God, in my opinion, is not impressed with statements of "God bless America" or overt references to biblical themes in political speeches (or in athletes scoring touchdowns, but that's a different soapbox of mine). I don't believe he cares for statements in support of "traditional marriage" from people who have been divorced multiple times, unless they're confessing their own sin. And I am convinced he does not call us to demonize those with whom we disagree, calling them or their actions disparaging names solely on the basis of our disagreement. The followers of Jesus who will impact the world in the most significant ways in the 21st century will be those who (1) understand the US and the world are pluralistic places where people should respect each other regardless of their differences, understanding that true faith can't be faked or coerced, and (2) who live out in word and action the countercultural lifestyle we are called to by Jesus himself.
Finally, I want to look at the level of the body of Christ itself, at life among those who live in the kingdom of heaven here on earth. There is a serious need for prophetic leadership today. The average believer is looking for someone who can--with all their flaws--authentically live out the teachings of Jesus. We need pastors and institutional leaders who do this. But we also need political leaders who do this. Just like we need plumbers and builders and bankers and [fill in the blank with any job here] who do this. Political candidates should not check their faith when they enter a race. A candidate who says their faith (whether Mormon, Buddhist, B'hai or atheistic humanism, or anything in between) does not inform their politics is not worth voting for. What we believe is a large determiner of who we are and how we live.
Did Rick Perry participate in the prayer rally primarily for prayer or primarily for political gain? I have no idea. But I do know that we are in desperate need of leaders in all facets of life who are passionately seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and calling us to do the same.
But really this blog isn't about Rick Perry (I'm still formulating opinions on whether or not the event was primarily politically motivated) or AFA (whose organizational practices and techniques I usually do not care for). It's about this question: what should be okay and what should be out of bounds for a political leader when it comes to expressing their faith?
There are several levels to this conversation.
First, at the level of USAmerican politics, there is virtually no way to separate a candidate's political and religious views, particularly a presidential candidate. His or her religious practices are going to be interpreted by media and by the public as having political implications. This is a given, and right or wrong we're not going to change it. And the biases of those media or people determines how they view the religious expression. President Clinton attended church far more frequently than President Reagan, but that didn't help him with religious conservatives. Political opponents seem to always interpret their adversary's words and deeds in the worst light possible. So a rally calling Christians to prayer is seen as a ploy to win the vote of the religious conservative. But just because this happens does not mean that candidates should not express their faith in ways they see fit.
Second, at the level of USAmerican religious expression, the vast majority of the religious expressions of public leaders are not the same as biblical Christianity. There is, I'm not the first to point out, an American religion. It sounds like biblical language, but the god of that religion is always on the side of the US. I've written about that in previous posts, and I confess my own bias here, because I do not believe any Christian should be equating the USAmerican public religion with biblical Christianity. The US is not nor has it ever been a Christian nation, chosen by God, in the way the the Hebrews of the Old Testament were. I want to passionately follow the God of the Bible, the God revealed in human form in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. That God, in my opinion, is not impressed with statements of "God bless America" or overt references to biblical themes in political speeches (or in athletes scoring touchdowns, but that's a different soapbox of mine). I don't believe he cares for statements in support of "traditional marriage" from people who have been divorced multiple times, unless they're confessing their own sin. And I am convinced he does not call us to demonize those with whom we disagree, calling them or their actions disparaging names solely on the basis of our disagreement. The followers of Jesus who will impact the world in the most significant ways in the 21st century will be those who (1) understand the US and the world are pluralistic places where people should respect each other regardless of their differences, understanding that true faith can't be faked or coerced, and (2) who live out in word and action the countercultural lifestyle we are called to by Jesus himself.
Finally, I want to look at the level of the body of Christ itself, at life among those who live in the kingdom of heaven here on earth. There is a serious need for prophetic leadership today. The average believer is looking for someone who can--with all their flaws--authentically live out the teachings of Jesus. We need pastors and institutional leaders who do this. But we also need political leaders who do this. Just like we need plumbers and builders and bankers and [fill in the blank with any job here] who do this. Political candidates should not check their faith when they enter a race. A candidate who says their faith (whether Mormon, Buddhist, B'hai or atheistic humanism, or anything in between) does not inform their politics is not worth voting for. What we believe is a large determiner of who we are and how we live.
Did Rick Perry participate in the prayer rally primarily for prayer or primarily for political gain? I have no idea. But I do know that we are in desperate need of leaders in all facets of life who are passionately seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and calling us to do the same.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Bible quoting cheerleaders
One of the recent flaps in US religious circles has been the recent ruling that cheerleaders at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorp High School can no longer use Bible verses on the banners that the football team breaks through before games. There has been much discussion about whether or not uniform-wearing cheerleaders represent the school (in which case the verses constitute school support for religion) or only themselves (in which case it's a matter of freedom of religious expression.
Choosing between the two might prove a conundrum.
Unless more spiritually mature heads prevail. I have 2 questions, and neither of them is about the constitutionality of the case:
1. Why would believers consider it profitable to write verses on banners that will be broken through? I would think the symbolism alone would be enough to put us off, not to mention the silly misapplication of Bible verses. [As a former athlete, I am amazed at the misuse--including my own once or twice--of verses like quoting "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" before a bench press.]
2. How would verses on banners advance the kingdom of heaven?
We continue to promote a civil American religion that does not resemble worship of the God revealed in Jesus.
Choosing between the two might prove a conundrum.
Unless more spiritually mature heads prevail. I have 2 questions, and neither of them is about the constitutionality of the case:
1. Why would believers consider it profitable to write verses on banners that will be broken through? I would think the symbolism alone would be enough to put us off, not to mention the silly misapplication of Bible verses. [As a former athlete, I am amazed at the misuse--including my own once or twice--of verses like quoting "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" before a bench press.]
2. How would verses on banners advance the kingdom of heaven?
We continue to promote a civil American religion that does not resemble worship of the God revealed in Jesus.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Worlds colliding
It's no secret I love Seinfeld.
I will watch it every time it's on tv, even though I've seen every episode probably hundreds of times. It has to be one of the cleverest sitcoms in history (albeit sitcoms have a short history in the overall scheme of things).
One of my favorite episodes is when Elaine starts hanging out with George's fiancee Susan, and Susan looks to be entering the circle of relationships that is the core of Seinfeld. George is extremely anxious about this. Like many men feel, he knows there is a difference between "relationship George"--the George that has to be a certain way when he's with Susan--and "regular George"--the fun-loving, conniving, partying guy he normally is. And he knows that when these worlds collide...
"Jerry, if relationship George walks through that door, he will kill regular George."
And then, in perhaps the greatest paraphrase of Scripture in sitcom history: "A George divided against himself, cannot stand."
I know the feeling of worlds colliding. We all do who attempt to follow Jesus. This morning I was tempted to post some heresy on my Facebook status, something like "Arnie is celebrating the best holiday this weekend...the Masters. Is something else going on?" But alas, in deference to "relationship Arnie", I chickened out. But truly, I would much rather watch the Masters coverage all weekend that watch "The Passion" again. Forgive my heresy.
The truth, though, is that worlds collide for those who want to follow Jesus. Our attempt to follow him collides with life--family life, work life, and in many cases, even religious life. Maybe especially religious life.
I will watch it every time it's on tv, even though I've seen every episode probably hundreds of times. It has to be one of the cleverest sitcoms in history (albeit sitcoms have a short history in the overall scheme of things).
One of my favorite episodes is when Elaine starts hanging out with George's fiancee Susan, and Susan looks to be entering the circle of relationships that is the core of Seinfeld. George is extremely anxious about this. Like many men feel, he knows there is a difference between "relationship George"--the George that has to be a certain way when he's with Susan--and "regular George"--the fun-loving, conniving, partying guy he normally is. And he knows that when these worlds collide...
"Jerry, if relationship George walks through that door, he will kill regular George."
And then, in perhaps the greatest paraphrase of Scripture in sitcom history: "A George divided against himself, cannot stand."
I know the feeling of worlds colliding. We all do who attempt to follow Jesus. This morning I was tempted to post some heresy on my Facebook status, something like "Arnie is celebrating the best holiday this weekend...the Masters. Is something else going on?" But alas, in deference to "relationship Arnie", I chickened out. But truly, I would much rather watch the Masters coverage all weekend that watch "The Passion" again. Forgive my heresy.
The truth, though, is that worlds collide for those who want to follow Jesus. Our attempt to follow him collides with life--family life, work life, and in many cases, even religious life. Maybe especially religious life.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Random Prayer Breakfast thoughts
Here's some quotes and thoughts from last week's National Prayer Breakfast:
"We do not need cheerleaders but partners." Tony Blair, speaking about promoting peace in the world
Greatest obvious truth: "If faith becomes the property of extremists, it creates discord." Tony Blair
Greatest not-so-obvious truth: "There are limits to humanism, and beyond those limits only God can work." Tony Blair
Most obvious statement that may not be true: "There is no religion whose central tenet is hate." President Obama.
"We do not need cheerleaders but partners." Tony Blair, speaking about promoting peace in the world
Greatest obvious truth: "If faith becomes the property of extremists, it creates discord." Tony Blair
Greatest not-so-obvious truth: "There are limits to humanism, and beyond those limits only God can work." Tony Blair
Most obvious statement that may not be true: "There is no religion whose central tenet is hate." President Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)