According to John Hick, the reason God has many names is that since God's general revelation is revealed to everyone the world's religions sprang up as different responses to the divine reality, embodying different perceptions which have been formed in different cultural and historical circumstances. All of these perceptions have their strengths and weaknesses and when they are in dialogue they can learn from one another.
There is a difference between a world religion and an world theology. Hick (like the Dalai Lama) doesn't advocate the abandonment of the religion of your youth in favor of a one universal religion where everyone worships pretty much the same. He does advocate for a theology that interprets religious experience within Christianity as well as in the other "great streams of religious life." These would include non-theistic religions of hinduism, buddhism and even Marxism and Humanism.
Karl Rahner's idea of the "anonymous Christian" is that there are members of other religions to whom Christ has been revealed and so they are saved. The common criticism of this idea is that nothing is stopping anyone from calling Christians "anonymous Buddhists" or "anonymous Muslims." Hick abandons the idea of the anonymous Christian and says that all religions can be viewed as equally salvific if you understand Jesus being God as a metaphor. He says Jesus never taught that he was God. Others referred to Jesus as God because he lived in complete openness to God's Agape love. Since God is love this is kind of the same as saying something like, "Steve Jobs is geek chic incarnate." He says, "Agape is incarnated in human life whenever someone acts in selfless love." I think this is what it comes down to for Hick, as far as we act in self-giving love God is made incarnate in us also.
It is a common belief in inclusivist soteriology that all religions are expressions of God. The closer they come to Christianity the better, and they are not perfect until they are explicitly Christian. In this way all religions are moving toward Christianity.
John Hick speaks of a Copernican revolution in religion. Early astronomers believed all the celestial objects revolved around the Earth. After they started observing these objects in more detail they realized they don't move in perfect concentric circles around the earth. They decided that celestial objects must move in other orbits while ultimately orbiting the Earth. They called these additional orbits "epicycles." In trying to describe the epicycles they become more and more complex until someone (Copernicus) dared to say that maybe all the celestial objects don't revolve around us, maybe they revolve around the Sun. This got him into lots of trouble.
Like Copernicus, Hick says that maybe all religions don't revolve around Christianity but maybe all religions revolve around God. He says this Copernican revolution in religion "must involve a shift from the dogma that Christianity is at the center to the thought that it is God who is at the center and that all the religions of mankind, including our own, serve and revolve around him".
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Theologies
Claims, or doctrines, such as Papal Infallibility are prime examples of Dogmatic Theological Methods - or circular thinking. They are self-authorizing and self-asserting “proofs”, and therefore cannot be challenged or questioned.
Biblical Inerrency is another good example of this. What becomes interesting is that the more Problematic Theology evolves, the more epicyclic Dogmatic Theology grows in response.
Its all about paradigms, isn't it? Maybe it would be better to refer to the two as Ptolemaic Christians and Copernican Christians. It is only the Ptolemaic Christian that makes use of “Epicycles”. Actually, these terms apply far beyond just Christians.
I like the word “epicycle” because it reminds me of the epicycles needed to add to the Ptolemaic view of the universe to accurately maintain the earth as it's center.
The paths of the planets and the sun and the stars were all to orbit around the earth. But as the planet's and sun's paths became better known, they didn't match this Ptolemaic view. So to resolve this discrepancy, epicycles were added – a series of smaller orbits, revolving with their centers on their original larger circle, or orbit. If the planet could be imagined moving on one of these smaller circles, while still following its original orbit, the actual path more complex and significantly closer to what was empirically observed.
These additions of epicycles allowed this view, this paradigm, to maintain its core belief that the earth was indeed in the center. However, adding epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle in an attempt to 'tweek' the system to match the evidence became increasingly contrived and encumbered.
It would be like two computers talking with one another and deciding to explore the question of how Artificial Computer Intelligence came to be, but, before starting this discussion agreeing that the answer simply could not be a human being.
The same may be said of a group of atheistic scientists attempting to discover the origins of life, but agreeing on the onset that the answer absolutely cannot be supernatural or God. (One of the reasons why I hold so much respect and admiration for Stephen Hawking. He is definitely a Copernican thinker), even if the evidence leads in that direction.
...maybe this is an all too intellectual way of attempting to describe what Problematic Theology, or a Copernican Christian is. Sometimes I've found that satire - comedy - humour is another effective way. The following comic strip particularly jumped out at me. (Especially when we understand "bullshit" more along the lines of what Harry Frankfurt means in his piece On Bullshit)
I suppose what is important is that we take an honest look at ourselves, at our beliefs, at our "theologies", and being willing to ask the question some of these questions...
Biblical Inerrency is another good example of this. What becomes interesting is that the more Problematic Theology evolves, the more epicyclic Dogmatic Theology grows in response.
Its all about paradigms, isn't it? Maybe it would be better to refer to the two as Ptolemaic Christians and Copernican Christians. It is only the Ptolemaic Christian that makes use of “Epicycles”. Actually, these terms apply far beyond just Christians.
I like the word “epicycle” because it reminds me of the epicycles needed to add to the Ptolemaic view of the universe to accurately maintain the earth as it's center.
The paths of the planets and the sun and the stars were all to orbit around the earth. But as the planet's and sun's paths became better known, they didn't match this Ptolemaic view. So to resolve this discrepancy, epicycles were added – a series of smaller orbits, revolving with their centers on their original larger circle, or orbit. If the planet could be imagined moving on one of these smaller circles, while still following its original orbit, the actual path more complex and significantly closer to what was empirically observed.
These additions of epicycles allowed this view, this paradigm, to maintain its core belief that the earth was indeed in the center. However, adding epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle in an attempt to 'tweek' the system to match the evidence became increasingly contrived and encumbered.
It would be like two computers talking with one another and deciding to explore the question of how Artificial Computer Intelligence came to be, but, before starting this discussion agreeing that the answer simply could not be a human being.
The same may be said of a group of atheistic scientists attempting to discover the origins of life, but agreeing on the onset that the answer absolutely cannot be supernatural or God. (One of the reasons why I hold so much respect and admiration for Stephen Hawking. He is definitely a Copernican thinker), even if the evidence leads in that direction.
...maybe this is an all too intellectual way of attempting to describe what Problematic Theology, or a Copernican Christian is. Sometimes I've found that satire - comedy - humour is another effective way. The following comic strip particularly jumped out at me. (Especially when we understand "bullshit" more along the lines of what Harry Frankfurt means in his piece On Bullshit)
I suppose what is important is that we take an honest look at ourselves, at our beliefs, at our "theologies", and being willing to ask the question some of these questions...
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Conjunctive Faith
I posted this piece on an old blog of mine and thought it was appropriate for this one. I'm kind of partial to this post because it came in the midst of a big transition for me (although it seems I'm always transitioning). Because of this I didn't really want to re-write it... You know, nostalgia and all. Also, I took that blog down awhile ago and like the idea of this post still inhabiting the Internet. Enjoy!
---
I'm reading The Stages of Faith by James Fowler. If you do a blog search on Stages of Faith or Conjunctive Faith you get a lot of results. Many of the results are people just kind of regurgitating what the stages are. The results that aren't doing that usually seem to be authored by Emergent types talking about Conjunctive faith and church.
So, I'm not going to go into what all the stages are. The first two stages people usually grow out of. So if you're reading a blog as boring as this one without social networking capabilities and video from YouTube then the stages you'll find interesting are the same ones that I find interesting.
Let's start with the third stage which is called "Synthetic Conventional" faith. The word "Synthetic" is used to basically mean "not analytic". The word "Conventional" is used to mean "by convention". The person operating in this stage basically says, "Let's see, this is working for this group of people over here. Maybe it will work for me? Wow! It does work for me! Let's keep doing this then. If it works for the group, it will probably work for me. If it doesn't work for the group then I'd better be careful." Belief systems aren't taken apart and analyzed. Belief systems have a lot to do with being part of a group. Belief systems are largely inherited.
The next stage is called "Individuative-Reflective" faith. At some point the Synthetic-Conventional operator says, "Wow, I've swallowed these belief systems whole. Maybe I should take them apart and re-decide whether I really believe them." They distance themselves from their "shared assumptive value system." They also interrupt the reliance they have on external sources of authority. This does not mean they abandon the judgments and opinions of others. Rather, these judgments and opinions are "submitted to an internal panel of experts who reserve the right to choose and who are prepared to take responsibility for their choices." Fowler calls this the "executive ego."
These two things must happen a) develop a strong executive ego b) critical distancing from the shared assumptive value system. If one happens but not the other, the person will be caught in the uncomfortable transition period between conventional faith and reflective faith. I'd imagine that this is how some of us keep going to church but remain pissed at the church.
I identify with Conventional faith because I think their is a part of me deep down that worries that if I stop going to church then I'll somehow cease to be a Christian. I don't want to stop being a Christian but I don't find Sunday morning service meaningful in anyway and haven't for years. So I'm caught in this angry cycle.
I identify with Reflective faith because it is the voice in me that says, "Psh! Going to church every Sunday morning?! That is SO stage 3!" The person with Reflective faith has taken apart his belief system and put it all back together in neat little compartments. He knows he has reflective faith. He has the vocabulary to talk about Reflective faith and tell you about your Conventional faith. Because he can do all this he ranks himself above the person with Conventional faith.
Sadly enough, I probably operate in Reflective faith most of the time. These angry rants you see going on around here? Now you know why. But I aspire towards stage 5, Conjunctive faith.
It always bothered me the way Christians would look at me sideways when they found out I was reading a book on Buddhism and then said something like, "Well, I guess it's important to know about Buddhism if you want to minister to them." I wasn't reading about Buddhism to try to win Buddhists to Christianity. I was doing it to better understand my own faith. I also thought the person of another faith deserved the same openness from me that I was hoping to get from them. Here is what James Fowler says about Conjunctive faith:
"Conjunctive faith, therefore, is ready for significant encounters with other traditions than its own, expecting that truth has disclosed and will disclose itself in those traditions in ways that may complement or correct its own. Krister Stendahl is fond of saying that no interfaith conversation is genuinely ecumenical unless the quality of mutual sharing and receptivity is such that each party makes him- or herself vulnerable to conversion to the other's truth. This would be Stage 5 ecumenism."
I'm pretty sure that Brian McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy, is about Conjunctive faith. I've heard some talk out there about the "Conjunctive church" and what it looks like. The things is, I don't see anyone institutionalizing a conjunctive church any time soon as institutions are attractive to mainly people operating in Conventional faith.
I posted the following on an old blog of mine and I thought it was appropriate for this one. I'm kind of partial to this post as it came in the midst of a major transition for me (although it seems I'm always transitioning). Because of this I didn't really want to re-write it, you know, nostalgia and all. Anyhow, I'll stop reminiscing and post!
---
What do you do if you find yourself as a pastor with Conjunctive faith leading a flock of people with Conventional faith? Do you slap some new rules down and say something like, "Interfaith dialogue is STRONGLY encouraged by all members!"? Psh, that is SUCH a stage 4 thing to do. Swapping out one set of rules with another and never changing paradigms. Pfft.
Do we start a new church and engage in a lot of "stage 5 behaviors" so the stage 3 people will become uncomfortable and leave? Oh wait, there's that part about openness and dialogue. If I can't get rid of them what am I supposed to do? Be nice to them? Ugh.
I really don't know the answer to this. I am not a person of conjunctive faith as much as I'd like to believe that I am. I am still taking things apart and putting them into neat little categories. I'm still ranking everyone around me and figuring out where I fit.
What am I to do? Trust the process? Act with love always? Unfortunately, it looks like I'll have to tell you later.
---
I'm reading The Stages of Faith by James Fowler. If you do a blog search on Stages of Faith or Conjunctive Faith you get a lot of results. Many of the results are people just kind of regurgitating what the stages are. The results that aren't doing that usually seem to be authored by Emergent types talking about Conjunctive faith and church.
So, I'm not going to go into what all the stages are. The first two stages people usually grow out of. So if you're reading a blog as boring as this one without social networking capabilities and video from YouTube then the stages you'll find interesting are the same ones that I find interesting.
Let's start with the third stage which is called "Synthetic Conventional" faith. The word "Synthetic" is used to basically mean "not analytic". The word "Conventional" is used to mean "by convention". The person operating in this stage basically says, "Let's see, this is working for this group of people over here. Maybe it will work for me? Wow! It does work for me! Let's keep doing this then. If it works for the group, it will probably work for me. If it doesn't work for the group then I'd better be careful." Belief systems aren't taken apart and analyzed. Belief systems have a lot to do with being part of a group. Belief systems are largely inherited.
The next stage is called "Individuative-Reflective" faith. At some point the Synthetic-Conventional operator says, "Wow, I've swallowed these belief systems whole. Maybe I should take them apart and re-decide whether I really believe them." They distance themselves from their "shared assumptive value system." They also interrupt the reliance they have on external sources of authority. This does not mean they abandon the judgments and opinions of others. Rather, these judgments and opinions are "submitted to an internal panel of experts who reserve the right to choose and who are prepared to take responsibility for their choices." Fowler calls this the "executive ego."
These two things must happen a) develop a strong executive ego b) critical distancing from the shared assumptive value system. If one happens but not the other, the person will be caught in the uncomfortable transition period between conventional faith and reflective faith. I'd imagine that this is how some of us keep going to church but remain pissed at the church.
I identify with Conventional faith because I think their is a part of me deep down that worries that if I stop going to church then I'll somehow cease to be a Christian. I don't want to stop being a Christian but I don't find Sunday morning service meaningful in anyway and haven't for years. So I'm caught in this angry cycle.
I identify with Reflective faith because it is the voice in me that says, "Psh! Going to church every Sunday morning?! That is SO stage 3!" The person with Reflective faith has taken apart his belief system and put it all back together in neat little compartments. He knows he has reflective faith. He has the vocabulary to talk about Reflective faith and tell you about your Conventional faith. Because he can do all this he ranks himself above the person with Conventional faith.
Sadly enough, I probably operate in Reflective faith most of the time. These angry rants you see going on around here? Now you know why. But I aspire towards stage 5, Conjunctive faith.
It always bothered me the way Christians would look at me sideways when they found out I was reading a book on Buddhism and then said something like, "Well, I guess it's important to know about Buddhism if you want to minister to them." I wasn't reading about Buddhism to try to win Buddhists to Christianity. I was doing it to better understand my own faith. I also thought the person of another faith deserved the same openness from me that I was hoping to get from them. Here is what James Fowler says about Conjunctive faith:
"Conjunctive faith, therefore, is ready for significant encounters with other traditions than its own, expecting that truth has disclosed and will disclose itself in those traditions in ways that may complement or correct its own. Krister Stendahl is fond of saying that no interfaith conversation is genuinely ecumenical unless the quality of mutual sharing and receptivity is such that each party makes him- or herself vulnerable to conversion to the other's truth. This would be Stage 5 ecumenism."
I'm pretty sure that Brian McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy, is about Conjunctive faith. I've heard some talk out there about the "Conjunctive church" and what it looks like. The things is, I don't see anyone institutionalizing a conjunctive church any time soon as institutions are attractive to mainly people operating in Conventional faith.
I posted the following on an old blog of mine and I thought it was appropriate for this one. I'm kind of partial to this post as it came in the midst of a major transition for me (although it seems I'm always transitioning). Because of this I didn't really want to re-write it, you know, nostalgia and all. Anyhow, I'll stop reminiscing and post!
---
What do you do if you find yourself as a pastor with Conjunctive faith leading a flock of people with Conventional faith? Do you slap some new rules down and say something like, "Interfaith dialogue is STRONGLY encouraged by all members!"? Psh, that is SUCH a stage 4 thing to do. Swapping out one set of rules with another and never changing paradigms. Pfft.
Do we start a new church and engage in a lot of "stage 5 behaviors" so the stage 3 people will become uncomfortable and leave? Oh wait, there's that part about openness and dialogue. If I can't get rid of them what am I supposed to do? Be nice to them? Ugh.
I really don't know the answer to this. I am not a person of conjunctive faith as much as I'd like to believe that I am. I am still taking things apart and putting them into neat little categories. I'm still ranking everyone around me and figuring out where I fit.
What am I to do? Trust the process? Act with love always? Unfortunately, it looks like I'll have to tell you later.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
A Question of Christmas
I'm not even sure how to frame the question.
What is the meaning of “Christmas”?
What exactly do we celebrate during this holiday season?
Truth be told, it means many different things to many different people. Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Eid ul-Adha, Santa Claus, the list goes on and on. There is also the non-religious and very secular (and commercial) “Christmas”.
During this holiday season I had two interesting conversations with two different people.
My wife and children and I had gone to my sister's to exchange gifts. It wasn't Christmas day because we weren't going to see them on Christmas day. My children were the only children there, and true to being children were excited to open their presents. My sister said to them that Christmas wasn't only about presents. It sounded like the beginning of a speech or a lecture, and in a odd sort of way, I really wish it would have been. Because in the end, the statement was left hanging.
Okay, so what is Christmas about? Coming from a self-proclaimed agnostic – one who celebrates with a Christmas tree, yet doesn't (or won't) place a star or angel on it - really catches my curiosity.
What is “Christmas” about? The answer is family. “Christmas” is about family. In this example I don't have a problem with that. However - should that be true - then “Christmas” should represent the summation of all the other 364 days of the year.
How strange is it that it was only last Christmas that we sat in her home. I could probably count on one hand how many times we've been together during those other 364 days...
...so on hindsight, I don't really buy that meaning of “Christmas”. It can't really be about family - not in this case.
Christmas Eve, we – the four of us – mommy, daddy, son, and daughter – had our Christmas dinner. We had one guest. A friend of mine – also a member of my small group – an older gentleman, a bachelor and without children. It was not an act of charity because we really enjoy his company. But on the same note, nobody should be alone on Christmas.
After dinner we got into a conversation in which he spoke of what Christmas meant to him. Although a faithful man, basically he said Christmas was really about simply enjoying yourself. It's a celebration so simply enjoy it. Although a Christian, he didn't attach any religion significance to the holiday. After all, Christ wasn't born on December 25th.
It's been 3 days since and I am still thinking about that. The last I can remember hearing was that they believed that Yeshua of Nazareth was born sometime in May or possibly Spring, although I have heard of many other dates. Regardless, the point remains pretty firmly established that He was not born on December 25th, or for that matter anytime within the month of December.
So what is it we celebrate? I remember earlier this month reading a story in the paper of two school teachers who put together a Seasons Holiday Musical performance at their local school who got into a little bit of hot water over changing the lyrics of the song Silver Bells, making it religiously neutral. Strange that is. Included in the musical performances was the song The Candles of Hanukkah to celebrate their multiculturalism.
The obvious problem is multiculturalism at the expense of one cultural tradition, namely Christianity's.
From Centrist Christianity, Tim had written,
I believed this and would have argued in favour of this up until this Christmas. (And I don't mean to pick on Tim, nor pick a fight with him – I respect him very much), however, I don't think I agree wholeheartedly.
The Romans held a festival on December 25 called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun."; Sol Invictus. According to the Romans, December 25th was also the Winter Solstice. Later to become Saturnalia. The Early Church “baptized” the holiday and “Christianized” it.
When the Christianization of the Germanic peoples began, missionaries found it convenient to provide a Christian reinterpretation of popular pagan holidays such as Yule and allow the celebrations themselves to go on largely unchanged, versus trying to confront and suppress them. Regardless, on numerous levels there are present numerous pagan traditions, which strongly suggest this to be true. Mistletoe, the Yule-log, and even the Christmas Tree (quite possibly the Yggdrasil, but definitely Pre-Christian).
What is the meaning of Christmas? What is it that we celebrate?
I can't help but wonder if we're inadvertently celebrating the decimation of numerous cultures and traditions, yet – somehow – claim to celebrate cultural diversity.
Maybe Christmas should be eradicated.
Maybe the meaning of Christmas should be an apology.
Maybe the meaning of Christmas should be to extend ourselves to learn from other cultures and other celebrations.
...because the more I think about it, the Christian Christmas seems to have less and less real meaning... it seems to be ringing hallow
I don't believe Christ ever was in Christmas.
Maybe Frank Costanza's “Festivus for the rest of us” carries more weight and truth.
How sad is that?
I find it heartbreaking.
What is the meaning of “Christmas”?
What exactly do we celebrate during this holiday season?
Truth be told, it means many different things to many different people. Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Eid ul-Adha, Santa Claus, the list goes on and on. There is also the non-religious and very secular (and commercial) “Christmas”.
During this holiday season I had two interesting conversations with two different people.
My wife and children and I had gone to my sister's to exchange gifts. It wasn't Christmas day because we weren't going to see them on Christmas day. My children were the only children there, and true to being children were excited to open their presents. My sister said to them that Christmas wasn't only about presents. It sounded like the beginning of a speech or a lecture, and in a odd sort of way, I really wish it would have been. Because in the end, the statement was left hanging.
...Christmas isn't just about presents you know...
Okay, so what is Christmas about? Coming from a self-proclaimed agnostic – one who celebrates with a Christmas tree, yet doesn't (or won't) place a star or angel on it - really catches my curiosity.
What is “Christmas” about? The answer is family. “Christmas” is about family. In this example I don't have a problem with that. However - should that be true - then “Christmas” should represent the summation of all the other 364 days of the year.
How strange is it that it was only last Christmas that we sat in her home. I could probably count on one hand how many times we've been together during those other 364 days...
...so on hindsight, I don't really buy that meaning of “Christmas”. It can't really be about family - not in this case.
Christmas Eve, we – the four of us – mommy, daddy, son, and daughter – had our Christmas dinner. We had one guest. A friend of mine – also a member of my small group – an older gentleman, a bachelor and without children. It was not an act of charity because we really enjoy his company. But on the same note, nobody should be alone on Christmas.
After dinner we got into a conversation in which he spoke of what Christmas meant to him. Although a faithful man, basically he said Christmas was really about simply enjoying yourself. It's a celebration so simply enjoy it. Although a Christian, he didn't attach any religion significance to the holiday. After all, Christ wasn't born on December 25th.
It's been 3 days since and I am still thinking about that. The last I can remember hearing was that they believed that Yeshua of Nazareth was born sometime in May or possibly Spring, although I have heard of many other dates. Regardless, the point remains pretty firmly established that He was not born on December 25th, or for that matter anytime within the month of December.
So what is it we celebrate? I remember earlier this month reading a story in the paper of two school teachers who put together a Seasons Holiday Musical performance at their local school who got into a little bit of hot water over changing the lyrics of the song Silver Bells, making it religiously neutral. Strange that is. Included in the musical performances was the song The Candles of Hanukkah to celebrate their multiculturalism.
The obvious problem is multiculturalism at the expense of one cultural tradition, namely Christianity's.
From Centrist Christianity, Tim had written,
“I have absolutely zero problem with celebrating Ramadan, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Christmas all at once. I have no problem with there being equity in the public expression of those holidays. Because let's face it, we haven't been an exclusively "Christian" nation for some time, if ever we truly were. We are a culturally diverse nation and should celebrate that. However, diversity must be acknowledged without suppression. This is where I grow concerned. Many of the parties that wish to see an "equal" recognition of these other holidays would like to do so at the expense of suppressing Christmas; or more importantly, the Christian connotations... Disturbing because it [is] an insidious form of extremism that seeks to eradicate all traces of sacred Christmas meaning.”
I believed this and would have argued in favour of this up until this Christmas. (And I don't mean to pick on Tim, nor pick a fight with him – I respect him very much), however, I don't think I agree wholeheartedly.
The Romans held a festival on December 25 called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun."; Sol Invictus. According to the Romans, December 25th was also the Winter Solstice. Later to become Saturnalia. The Early Church “baptized” the holiday and “Christianized” it.
When the Christianization of the Germanic peoples began, missionaries found it convenient to provide a Christian reinterpretation of popular pagan holidays such as Yule and allow the celebrations themselves to go on largely unchanged, versus trying to confront and suppress them. Regardless, on numerous levels there are present numerous pagan traditions, which strongly suggest this to be true. Mistletoe, the Yule-log, and even the Christmas Tree (quite possibly the Yggdrasil, but definitely Pre-Christian).
What is the meaning of Christmas? What is it that we celebrate?
I can't help but wonder if we're inadvertently celebrating the decimation of numerous cultures and traditions, yet – somehow – claim to celebrate cultural diversity.
Maybe Christmas should be eradicated.
Maybe the meaning of Christmas should be an apology.
Maybe the meaning of Christmas should be to extend ourselves to learn from other cultures and other celebrations.
...because the more I think about it, the Christian Christmas seems to have less and less real meaning... it seems to be ringing hallow
“Let's keep Christ in Christmas”
I don't believe Christ ever was in Christmas.
Maybe Frank Costanza's “Festivus for the rest of us” carries more weight and truth.
How sad is that?
I find it heartbreaking.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Introduction
I have struggled with how exactly to introduce my intent behind this blog-site, Burlap. It really is a simple idea in itself. However, such a simple idea is in no way simple to put forward. Whether we like it or not, we live in a religiously pluralistic world. The question we are faced with is, how do we deal with that?
We will either look outwards to our neighbours and become tolerant of religious pluralism, or we will retreat from the world and become insular, exclusive, and intolerant. This is Fundamentalism and any fundamental movement is a desperate attempt to force a movement back to the truth. The argument being if we have in our possession, the entire and whole truth and the facility to comprehend it, why would we seek to move away from that?
We must define for ourselves which of the following we are and will choose to do. But if we do have in our possession the entire and whole truth and if we also have the facility to comprehend it, then why do we have as many denominations and numerous faiths?
There are only 3 conclusions:
1) We do not have the entire and whole truth in our possession. Which means holy scripture are not completely the truth nor is it entire.
2) We do not have the facilities to comprehend fully the whole and complete truth.
3) All the above; we lack both the truth and the facility to comprehend it, in which case, no decision of ours will make any difference anyway.
So, my conclusion is
1) Only God fully understands the truth of anything.
2) Only God can punish non-believers because only God truly knows what non-belief is.
The distinction and segregation of true believers and non-believers is so outside of my “jurisdiction” that I must never ask that question. They are all simply my neighbours. The focus must be elsewhere.
Only God fully understands the truth of anything. Only God can punish non-believers because only God truly knows what non-belief is.
These two statements of belief transcend boundaries that have caused more pain, misery, grief, and human suffering in all of human history; namely, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Atheism.
Tribalism, Legalism, Religiosity, Licentiousness, Fundamentalism, and soteric criteria all fly in the face of love thy neighbour as yourself.
I wholeheartedly believe that ideas have consequences; real consequences! And because of that I also believe that Doctrine is critically important. Allow me to repeat myself for emphasis: Doctrine (singular, not plural) is critically important.
“Love your neighbour as yourself”
If your belief necessitates more than that, if your theology needs footnotes and endnotes on that statement, then your theology is wrong, your religion is in error, and your belief is crippled.
That is my core belief.
However, my core belief also makes me a hypocrite. The sad fact of the matter is, I don’t love my neighbour. I usually despise, badmouth, hate, am intolerant, or often indifferent, to my neighbour … and indifference makes all the difference in the world.
I guess, ultimately, I don’t fully understand my core Doctrine yet. I have a lot to learn. I have a long road ahead of me.
I am in need of teachers and students; mentors and proteges. I am in need of traveling companions on this path, on this journey, and it is for this reason I sincerely hope you can become a voice within this piece of Burlap.
Where in the past the world was a very large place, if we so chose, we could live an insular life. However, the world is no longer big but very small and being insular is no longer an option (outside of blatant denial). We live in a pluralistic society and we are aware of the pluralistic nature of the world. The model Christianity uses no longer works or fits. The older Christian model, or traditional-paradigm, no longer works and no longer matches what we see.
A paradigm is more than just the lense we view the world through. It is the Model we use to filter our perceptions through. When a paradigm outlives its use, we discard it and attempt to find another model.
When the Ptolemaic view of the solar system could no longer be maintained (that the Earth was its center), the model – the paradigm – was discarded and replaced with a new paradigm; a new model (Copernicus') .
The idea that the Religion of Christianity is the one only True Religion has become difficult to support. The first shift was to add an 'epicycle' and claim that no religion is the One True Religion, and that Christianity isn't a religion. This is still functioning within the Ptolemaic-paradigm, but only adding a footnote, an 'epicycle'.
It isn't that all religions lead to God, but that no religion leads to God.
Those strict dogmatic-types who insist that their religion and only their religion leads to God and/or salvation, we'll call the “Dogmatic”.
On the other end of the spectrum are those that believe all religions lead to God. It could be said they believe in a sort of “Sacrament of Religion”. Out of a lack of a better name, I'll call them “Universal-Pluralists”.
There are those who say that no religion lead to God.
And finally there are those who will claim that no religion leads to God by redefining their belief as a non-religion. But what they are really saying is that their “faith” (substitute any word for 'religion') is the only way. This is really the above mentioned Dogmatic but disguised. They still believe in a singular True Religion and that their belief is it. We'll call these types “Disguised Dogmatics”.
If we are honestly willing to say that no religion leads to God (or salvation), and if we are honestly willing to acknowledge that there does indeed exist a religion called Christianity, and if we are willing to accept that this Religion of Christianity cannot lead to God/salvation, then we must be willing to explore or ask ourselves the question, “What parts of our religion are we willing to give up?”; because if we're not willing to give up any part of our religion, then what we really are is a “Disguised Dogmatic”.
November of 2006 was the first manifestation of this exploration for me with a (lengthy) piece entitled The Nature of Grace. To someone clearly in the first camp (Dogmatic) it must seem in the first few paragraphs that I am not only denying Christianity, but denying even being a Christian. (and to a certain degree, I was).
In Abbaian I had visited the distinction between believing all were legitimate vs. none were legitimate.
The next 'milestone' in my journey was a piece called Postdenominationalism, which really focused exclusively on the more extreme lot in the first camp (the Extreme Dogmatic). As I look back on it now, it was quite narrow in scope, focusing only on denominations (or denominationalism) within Christianity (the unspoken assumption being nevertheless only through Christianity or Christendom).
The latest (and most controversial) piece was Three Syntheses, which took the 'religiosity' out of Postdenominationalism and seriously ask the question, "What part of my religion am I willing to give up?"
The next step is a discussion, a conversation, inviting people not only of other denominations, but of other faiths. These questions and issues are not unique to Christianity.
We must be dedicated to seek the truth wherever it may be found.
We must be willing to take risks and ask questions, because that is how faith evolves. A spiritual journey is one of perpetual change and growth. Stagnation is spiritual death.
Tribalism cannot be the truth.
We must insist on being educated rather than indoctrinated.
Our loyalty should never to be a people or a culture or a dogma, but to ideas and ideals and God himself.
Maybe we should be asking ourselves, or questioning our own idols; identifying what we consider sacred and untouchable, and then discovering whether it truly hold that value
If the concept being put forward is really true then it should be manifest not just within Christendom, but outside of it as well. I find it encouraging that we are beginning to see signs of this.
The Ptolemaic Christian-paradigm has outlived its use and what we are doing is attempting to find a more appropriate one. This is in no way my idea. I am only one voice in this endeavor. And I am inviting others to be that voice with me.
This is a voyage that I am in no way capable of traveling alone.
We will either look outwards to our neighbours and become tolerant of religious pluralism, or we will retreat from the world and become insular, exclusive, and intolerant. This is Fundamentalism and any fundamental movement is a desperate attempt to force a movement back to the truth. The argument being if we have in our possession, the entire and whole truth and the facility to comprehend it, why would we seek to move away from that?
We must define for ourselves which of the following we are and will choose to do. But if we do have in our possession the entire and whole truth and if we also have the facility to comprehend it, then why do we have as many denominations and numerous faiths?
There are only 3 conclusions:
1) We do not have the entire and whole truth in our possession. Which means holy scripture are not completely the truth nor is it entire.
2) We do not have the facilities to comprehend fully the whole and complete truth.
3) All the above; we lack both the truth and the facility to comprehend it, in which case, no decision of ours will make any difference anyway.
So, my conclusion is
1) Only God fully understands the truth of anything.
2) Only God can punish non-believers because only God truly knows what non-belief is.
The distinction and segregation of true believers and non-believers is so outside of my “jurisdiction” that I must never ask that question. They are all simply my neighbours. The focus must be elsewhere.
Only God fully understands the truth of anything. Only God can punish non-believers because only God truly knows what non-belief is.
These two statements of belief transcend boundaries that have caused more pain, misery, grief, and human suffering in all of human history; namely, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Atheism.
Tribalism, Legalism, Religiosity, Licentiousness, Fundamentalism, and soteric criteria all fly in the face of love thy neighbour as yourself.
I wholeheartedly believe that ideas have consequences; real consequences! And because of that I also believe that Doctrine is critically important. Allow me to repeat myself for emphasis: Doctrine (singular, not plural) is critically important.
“Love your neighbour as yourself”
If your belief necessitates more than that, if your theology needs footnotes and endnotes on that statement, then your theology is wrong, your religion is in error, and your belief is crippled.
That is my core belief.
However, my core belief also makes me a hypocrite. The sad fact of the matter is, I don’t love my neighbour. I usually despise, badmouth, hate, am intolerant, or often indifferent, to my neighbour … and indifference makes all the difference in the world.
I guess, ultimately, I don’t fully understand my core Doctrine yet. I have a lot to learn. I have a long road ahead of me.
I am in need of teachers and students; mentors and proteges. I am in need of traveling companions on this path, on this journey, and it is for this reason I sincerely hope you can become a voice within this piece of Burlap.
Where in the past the world was a very large place, if we so chose, we could live an insular life. However, the world is no longer big but very small and being insular is no longer an option (outside of blatant denial). We live in a pluralistic society and we are aware of the pluralistic nature of the world. The model Christianity uses no longer works or fits. The older Christian model, or traditional-paradigm, no longer works and no longer matches what we see.
A paradigm is more than just the lense we view the world through. It is the Model we use to filter our perceptions through. When a paradigm outlives its use, we discard it and attempt to find another model.
When the Ptolemaic view of the solar system could no longer be maintained (that the Earth was its center), the model – the paradigm – was discarded and replaced with a new paradigm; a new model (Copernicus') .
The idea that the Religion of Christianity is the one only True Religion has become difficult to support. The first shift was to add an 'epicycle' and claim that no religion is the One True Religion, and that Christianity isn't a religion. This is still functioning within the Ptolemaic-paradigm, but only adding a footnote, an 'epicycle'.
It isn't that all religions lead to God, but that no religion leads to God.
Those strict dogmatic-types who insist that their religion and only their religion leads to God and/or salvation, we'll call the “Dogmatic”.
On the other end of the spectrum are those that believe all religions lead to God. It could be said they believe in a sort of “Sacrament of Religion”. Out of a lack of a better name, I'll call them “Universal-Pluralists”.
There are those who say that no religion lead to God.
And finally there are those who will claim that no religion leads to God by redefining their belief as a non-religion. But what they are really saying is that their “faith” (substitute any word for 'religion') is the only way. This is really the above mentioned Dogmatic but disguised. They still believe in a singular True Religion and that their belief is it. We'll call these types “Disguised Dogmatics”.
If we are honestly willing to say that no religion leads to God (or salvation), and if we are honestly willing to acknowledge that there does indeed exist a religion called Christianity, and if we are willing to accept that this Religion of Christianity cannot lead to God/salvation, then we must be willing to explore or ask ourselves the question, “What parts of our religion are we willing to give up?”; because if we're not willing to give up any part of our religion, then what we really are is a “Disguised Dogmatic”.
November of 2006 was the first manifestation of this exploration for me with a (lengthy) piece entitled The Nature of Grace. To someone clearly in the first camp (Dogmatic) it must seem in the first few paragraphs that I am not only denying Christianity, but denying even being a Christian. (and to a certain degree, I was).
In Abbaian I had visited the distinction between believing all were legitimate vs. none were legitimate.
The next 'milestone' in my journey was a piece called Postdenominationalism, which really focused exclusively on the more extreme lot in the first camp (the Extreme Dogmatic). As I look back on it now, it was quite narrow in scope, focusing only on denominations (or denominationalism) within Christianity (the unspoken assumption being nevertheless only through Christianity or Christendom).
The latest (and most controversial) piece was Three Syntheses, which took the 'religiosity' out of Postdenominationalism and seriously ask the question, "What part of my religion am I willing to give up?"
The next step is a discussion, a conversation, inviting people not only of other denominations, but of other faiths. These questions and issues are not unique to Christianity.
We must be dedicated to seek the truth wherever it may be found.
We must be willing to take risks and ask questions, because that is how faith evolves. A spiritual journey is one of perpetual change and growth. Stagnation is spiritual death.
Tribalism cannot be the truth.
We must insist on being educated rather than indoctrinated.
Our loyalty should never to be a people or a culture or a dogma, but to ideas and ideals and God himself.
Maybe we should be asking ourselves, or questioning our own idols; identifying what we consider sacred and untouchable, and then discovering whether it truly hold that value
If the concept being put forward is really true then it should be manifest not just within Christendom, but outside of it as well. I find it encouraging that we are beginning to see signs of this.
The Ptolemaic Christian-paradigm has outlived its use and what we are doing is attempting to find a more appropriate one. This is in no way my idea. I am only one voice in this endeavor. And I am inviting others to be that voice with me.
This is a voyage that I am in no way capable of traveling alone.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Woven
I can carry Taoist values, as reflected through certain martial arts – dichotomies often existing in harmony, not at the expense of one another.
I can learn the tranquility of the Buddhist, to let go of issues that cause stress, as there is a time and place for passivity.
I can value, revere, and worship the divine directly through Nature, paralleling paganism.
I am free to hold Christian and monotheistic metaphoric truths to further understand the incomprehensible and hope to love others better, without the trappings of literalism, tribalism and legalism.
I can appreciate and accept Catholicism’s veneration of the Virgin Mary as a manifestation of the much needed yet unaddressed divine-feminine.
I can see the symbolic power and beauty of Orthodox icons and not suffer from idolatry.
Because of the Gnostics, I hope to be free of the addictive nature of historicity and religiosity.
I need not abandon the open-eyed skepticism of the Humanist, Atheist, or Agnostic on watchful guard for liars, “words of knowledge”, cheats, spiritual frauds, “prophetic gifts”, and charlatans.
I am Woven; a living tapestry of identities, languages, cultures, and faiths.
A piece of burlap; Strong and tightly bound, yet unbound in my liberty.
I am not a subject of the lowest common denominator. I am a gestalt. The unweaving of one part is the undoing of the whole.
What the Religionist must call purification – the purging of alien practices and ways – is to become unwoven. A single thread is easier to capture than a richly woven tapestry. My “religion” would best being described as a Non-institutional Syncretist… and Syncretism is akin to wringing the truth out of 10,000 lies.
I can learn the tranquility of the Buddhist, to let go of issues that cause stress, as there is a time and place for passivity.
I can value, revere, and worship the divine directly through Nature, paralleling paganism.
I am free to hold Christian and monotheistic metaphoric truths to further understand the incomprehensible and hope to love others better, without the trappings of literalism, tribalism and legalism.
I can appreciate and accept Catholicism’s veneration of the Virgin Mary as a manifestation of the much needed yet unaddressed divine-feminine.
I can see the symbolic power and beauty of Orthodox icons and not suffer from idolatry.
Because of the Gnostics, I hope to be free of the addictive nature of historicity and religiosity.
I need not abandon the open-eyed skepticism of the Humanist, Atheist, or Agnostic on watchful guard for liars, “words of knowledge”, cheats, spiritual frauds, “prophetic gifts”, and charlatans.
I am Woven; a living tapestry of identities, languages, cultures, and faiths.
A piece of burlap; Strong and tightly bound, yet unbound in my liberty.
I am not a subject of the lowest common denominator. I am a gestalt. The unweaving of one part is the undoing of the whole.
What the Religionist must call purification – the purging of alien practices and ways – is to become unwoven. A single thread is easier to capture than a richly woven tapestry. My “religion” would best being described as a Non-institutional Syncretist… and Syncretism is akin to wringing the truth out of 10,000 lies.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Burlap
I see threads woven together to form a tapestry.
I see people woven together by the hand of God.
St. Paul called it the Body of Christ.
Yeshua, the Anointed, spoke of it as the Kingdom of God, now, yet still to come.
Islam holds to the “ummah”, the nation of Islam, transcending political borders.
Ezekiel saw the Jewish people as a corporate entity, the daughter of God, Jerusalem.
They spoke of a composite entity – a living organism – composed of people, woven into a living breathing tapestry; woven by God.
I see this woven tapestry as a piece of burlap; strong, tightly bound in the center, but loose and frayed on its edges; sometimes damaged, ripped and torn.
We tend to worry about these outer frayed-edges. Ultimately we're concerned about this piece of burlap coming undone.
The master weaver is God, for it is only God that can successfully weave these pieces of thread into this piece of material, this beautiful piece of cloth. But with every piece of cloth there are unfinished ends...frayed edges. The question must be asked, what are we to do with these rough edges? Are we to hem them into an ascetically pleasing finish? Or are we to simply cut them off? Perhaps burn them? Should we pull them off; tear them out? Who are these frayed edges?
We should not hem the frayed edges in to make a homogeneous seam and edge. This is to hide and tuck these people away and out of sight. We should not cut them off because they have as important of a roll to play in this tapestry. Once a frayed edge is cut off it is only a matter of time until the next row of thread breaks and becomes the frayed edge, thus eating away, or diminishing the whole of the cloth. We should not attempt to pull them off, or pull them out because, again, it will unravel this beautiful cloth.
They are both the most fragile part and the most critical part of this beautiful piece of cloth. They are the most fragile part because they must be delicately cared for. They are easily undone and easily lost. Any structure or institution is only as strong as its weakest part. Yet they are the most critical part of this cloth because it is these fringe-dwellers which actually hold this cloth together. Once a loose thread is pulled out it begins the process of unraveling the entire cloth. It is these frayed edges that inadvertently stop the undoing of this piece of burlap. And let's be absolutely clear on this one point; God does not unravel these pieces of thread, man does.
But these fragile frayed edges also have the unique opportunity to bind other edges – to eventually form a much larger cloth. They can connect many pieces into a singular 'quilt'; a unified body.
This site – Burlap – isn't about selling one's beliefs. It's about resigning them. It's about connecting. It is about moving beyond the syntheses.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Lord, Liar, or Lunatic
There's an argument levied against those who would entertain the idea that Jesus was a great wisdom (moral) teacher. Lewis' Trilemma.
C.S. Lewis called it Lord, Liar, or Lunatic, suggesting that you only have 3 options as to what you believe Jesus could be.
In chapter 2 of The Alpha Course Manual, the author attempts to establish Jesus’ status as God by appealing to human reason and using logic. He does this by quoting C.S. Lewis,
What this point really is saying is the same thing that Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of Four:
They are appealing to our logic to accept the only possibility left – no matter how incredible it may seem to the modern mind, while deliberately sidestepping an equally possible answer. That the gospel stories themselves could be opinions or partially fabricated stories by unknown authors, or written as response to other wittings, or even influenced or tainted by previously established doctrines.
Like Sherlock Holmes said, once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable (or undesirable), must be the truth.
Although the Alpha Course is attempting to educate or teach, what it is beginning is the process of indoctrination; teaching what to think rather than how to think. I don't believe it is intentional, but I do believe it is a byproduct of Bible-worship; the bible being believed to be unquestionable.
The books of the Old Testament are listed chronologically. However, the books of the New Testament are not. The four gospels come first, followed by the Pauline Epistles and other shorter letters. I've wondered why. The fact of the matter is that all of Paul's letters chronologically occur first and therefore outdate the gospels. One conclusion I've come to is that Christianity as we have it today is based upon a Pauline construct. I believe Paul made Jesus Christian. However, Jesus (Yeshua) preached and taught“the Kingdom of God”, but what he got was the Church. The gospels (not only written significantly after Paul's letters and the beginning of the established orthodox doctrine, but even after his death) may very well have been tainted by this Pauline Christianity. There is significant evidence of editing and additions and tampering, possibly for doctrinal purposes. (1 John 5:8, the endings of Mark, etc.). But, again in the spirit of fairness and open mindedness, it is also possible that they were not.
I am left only with the idea that the truth of the Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth is so enmeshed and coddled as to be inaccessible, hidden and even unknowable. I am fully aware that many Christians will argue that the Bible is inerrant and without contradiction and that any perceived contradiction is the fault of the reader who doesn't fully understand...
... there's not much to say to this. This is a statement of belief, not fact. It is also an admission to the abandonment or lack of objectivity and willingness to learn.
(Excerpt from Oct. 4, 2009's Above and Beyond Christianity: a summation)
In chapter 2 of The Alpha Course Manual, the author attempts to establish Jesus’ status as God by appealing to human reason and using logic. He does this by quoting C.S. Lewis,
“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher” he’d either be insane or else he’d be the “devil from hell”. “You must make your choice,” he writes. Either Jesus was and is the Son of God, or else He was insane but, C.S. Lewis goes on, “Let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” The Alpha Course Manual, pg. 10The Alpha Course begins this process of educating by offering up logical possibilities as to Jesus’ status.
What this point really is saying is the same thing that Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of Four:
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”My problem lies in its methodology (and even possibly in its potential of manipulation).
They are appealing to our logic to accept the only possibility left – no matter how incredible it may seem to the modern mind, while deliberately sidestepping an equally possible answer. That the gospel stories themselves could be opinions or partially fabricated stories by unknown authors, or written as response to other wittings, or even influenced or tainted by previously established doctrines.
Like Sherlock Holmes said, once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable (or undesirable), must be the truth.
Although the Alpha Course is attempting to educate or teach, what it is beginning is the process of indoctrination; teaching what to think rather than how to think. I don't believe it is intentional, but I do believe it is a byproduct of Bible-worship; the bible being believed to be unquestionable.
The books of the Old Testament are listed chronologically. However, the books of the New Testament are not. The four gospels come first, followed by the Pauline Epistles and other shorter letters. I've wondered why. The fact of the matter is that all of Paul's letters chronologically occur first and therefore outdate the gospels. One conclusion I've come to is that Christianity as we have it today is based upon a Pauline construct. I believe Paul made Jesus Christian. However, Jesus (Yeshua) preached and taught“the Kingdom of God”, but what he got was the Church. The gospels (not only written significantly after Paul's letters and the beginning of the established orthodox doctrine, but even after his death) may very well have been tainted by this Pauline Christianity. There is significant evidence of editing and additions and tampering, possibly for doctrinal purposes. (1 John 5:8, the endings of Mark, etc.). But, again in the spirit of fairness and open mindedness, it is also possible that they were not.
I am left only with the idea that the truth of the Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth is so enmeshed and coddled as to be inaccessible, hidden and even unknowable. I am fully aware that many Christians will argue that the Bible is inerrant and without contradiction and that any perceived contradiction is the fault of the reader who doesn't fully understand...
... there's not much to say to this. This is a statement of belief, not fact. It is also an admission to the abandonment or lack of objectivity and willingness to learn.
(Excerpt from Oct. 4, 2009's Above and Beyond Christianity: a summation)
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Economic Business Model
I think "church" should be who we are and what we do more than where and how we do it.
I believe when somethings become an industry their core principle and purpose becomes compromised. I believe the institutional church has become an industry.
I don't believe church should be based upon an economic business model, and I believe "church" as we traditionally/generally understand it today is. Church has been based upon an economic business model. Church has ceased to be what it's original purpose was and has become an industry. One key element in any viable industry is that it must be self-supporting or self-renewing.
I've been accused by some of taking the easiest way - the path of least resistance- of following a belief-system yet not committing to the burden and responsibility of a church and the obligations that go with it. Kinda like going out with a girl but not committing to marriage - trying to have the best of both worlds.
But I would disagree. In fact, my path leaves me very vulnerable and is far from the path of least resistance. Since I haven't supported that church I shouldn't rely upon it's services. Since I haven't invested in that church I shouldn't become one of it's services' consumers.
I run another real risk because I also know how supportive a caring community can be in difficult times. I am also aware that if or when those times befall me and my family (and I pray they won't) that I can expect little or no support. After all, I chose not to pay into this system - I chose not to pay my "spiritual insurance premiums". Is that why we're to go to and support our local churches? Is it really nothing more than a disguised insurance company? I know it shouldn't be.
I believe in the business of church.
I just don't believe in Church as Business.
The institutional church needs to abandon the Economic Business Model.
What are some of the more practical and mundane “tools of the trade” (for pastors/church leaders)? A cell phone, a computer with Internet, an email account, a telephone, an office, and a vehicle. What would the monthly expense for these things be? How do you afford these things? (And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that you also need to pay your mortgage and feed your family). In a word, parishioners. There exists a very real, very practical aspect of church today that necessitates a Business Model. It’s a simply fact of economics. Bills need to be paid. Money needs to be made. Take away the money and the bills don’t get paid. Take away parishioners and you take away the numbers. Take away the numbers and the money goes away.
I find this disturbing. I hear talk about trying to emulate church leadership after the New Testament times with its pastors and elders, and presbyters, etc., but what I repeatedly see is the Economic Business Model. I don’t believe Jesus and His Disciples’ ministry was based upon this model.
Before we can even begin to entertain how church is “done” and before we can begin even asking the question, we must first look at changing how the most basic, practical, and mundane issues of how it is managed is done. How do we pay the rent? Or, maybe, even that’s asking the wrong question. Should we even be paying rent? The church does not need a roof over her head. The church is a Corporate Entity, but it is not a person like you and me.
But church, as this Corporate Entity, has a roof over her head while individual people are left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness. And I don’t believe this is what the Lord had ever intended.
Jesus said that He had sheep of other folds (John 10:16). He also repeatedly told Peter to “Feed my lambs”. “Take care of my sheep”. “Feed my sheep”. (John 21:15-17). So the question begs to be asked: Why does the church have a roof over her head while there are people left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness?
I believe when somethings become an industry their core principle and purpose becomes compromised. I believe the institutional church has become an industry.
I don't believe church should be based upon an economic business model, and I believe "church" as we traditionally/generally understand it today is. Church has been based upon an economic business model. Church has ceased to be what it's original purpose was and has become an industry. One key element in any viable industry is that it must be self-supporting or self-renewing.
I've been accused by some of taking the easiest way - the path of least resistance- of following a belief-system yet not committing to the burden and responsibility of a church and the obligations that go with it. Kinda like going out with a girl but not committing to marriage - trying to have the best of both worlds.
But I would disagree. In fact, my path leaves me very vulnerable and is far from the path of least resistance. Since I haven't supported that church I shouldn't rely upon it's services. Since I haven't invested in that church I shouldn't become one of it's services' consumers.
I run another real risk because I also know how supportive a caring community can be in difficult times. I am also aware that if or when those times befall me and my family (and I pray they won't) that I can expect little or no support. After all, I chose not to pay into this system - I chose not to pay my "spiritual insurance premiums". Is that why we're to go to and support our local churches? Is it really nothing more than a disguised insurance company? I know it shouldn't be.
I believe in the business of church.
I just don't believe in Church as Business.
The institutional church needs to abandon the Economic Business Model.
What are some of the more practical and mundane “tools of the trade” (for pastors/church leaders)? A cell phone, a computer with Internet, an email account, a telephone, an office, and a vehicle. What would the monthly expense for these things be? How do you afford these things? (And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that you also need to pay your mortgage and feed your family). In a word, parishioners. There exists a very real, very practical aspect of church today that necessitates a Business Model. It’s a simply fact of economics. Bills need to be paid. Money needs to be made. Take away the money and the bills don’t get paid. Take away parishioners and you take away the numbers. Take away the numbers and the money goes away.
I find this disturbing. I hear talk about trying to emulate church leadership after the New Testament times with its pastors and elders, and presbyters, etc., but what I repeatedly see is the Economic Business Model. I don’t believe Jesus and His Disciples’ ministry was based upon this model.
Before we can even begin to entertain how church is “done” and before we can begin even asking the question, we must first look at changing how the most basic, practical, and mundane issues of how it is managed is done. How do we pay the rent? Or, maybe, even that’s asking the wrong question. Should we even be paying rent? The church does not need a roof over her head. The church is a Corporate Entity, but it is not a person like you and me.
But church, as this Corporate Entity, has a roof over her head while individual people are left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness. And I don’t believe this is what the Lord had ever intended.
Jesus said that He had sheep of other folds (John 10:16). He also repeatedly told Peter to “Feed my lambs”. “Take care of my sheep”. “Feed my sheep”. (John 21:15-17). So the question begs to be asked: Why does the church have a roof over her head while there are people left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness?
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)