They came to learn to cross the street October 6, 2007
Posted by Zack in Georgia , trackback
I wish I could write faster and better, and tell you the whole story of everyone we listened to and met at this incredible, revolutionary gathering.
I’ll tell you one more quick story this morning before we get on the plane—not because it’s exceptional, but because it’s so typical of the church leaders who attended this conference.
A few years ago, “Matt” moved to a far-from-home state to become a lead pastor at a large church in a medium-sized midwestern city. By the time he had been there six months, the two most senior pastors in the church died, leaving a “new guard” (his words) of leaders in charge.
Over its history, the church had become more and more isolated—partly out of “doctrinal fears,” and partly out of fear of the changing geographic community around the church. Especially over the past couple of decades, huge numbers of poor people, displaced by gentrification, had moved out to the church’s inner-suburban neighborhood. Instead of embracing and finding ways to attract the new residents, the church had shrunk back into itself.
Matt and his new guard have a mission: open up the church, get the congregation outside of the “four walls,” and get them into relationship with the people in the community who are suffering and need help. In other words, do what Jesus did in the gospel! Where did the “new guard” of pastors get that mission? Partly, they got it from attending events like this one; reading theological books like the ones written by the speakers we’ve been listening to here; re-reading the Bible with new eyes that they gained through those experiences; and, ultimately, getting into relationship themselves with the poor and oppressed people who Jesus equated with himself over and over in the Bible. I don’t know the full history that created the conditions for all that—but it sure seems to be a very widespread set of experiences for pastors and other church leaders in their 20’s and 30’s.
So how will Matt and his new guard encourage conservative (and make no mistake, Matt is plenty conservative himself), upper-middle class, suburban, white people to “go across the street,” as he said, and “learn to accept, love and serve prostitutes, drug addicts and homeless people?”
The answer is exactly what’s so fascinating and thrilling about this revolution that is happening inside of evangelical Christianity. The answer is that he will use the culture that his people are already steeped in. He’s going to use a book that his people already believe is the “inerrant” Word of God. And he’s going to use the story of a man who they have already been worshiping all their lives as God.
In other words, as hard as it will be, Matt’s got a lot to work with.
The very last speaker to address the stadium gave a very serious, anti-pep talk about how hard it will be for the church leaders assembled to put all the utopian stuff they’ve absorbed at the conference into practice back in their churches. He talked about all the ways their colleagues and elders (board members) will oppose them out of fear and inertia. His main theme was that behavior change is primarily caused by systemic change. After three days of talking about the God, love and other matters of the heart, this was very practical stuff. He went through a dozen examples of specific changes to administrative structures that leaders might have to make in order to become churches that “look like Jesus.”
Most attendees came in small groups (very important organizational principle among this kind of Christian). A typical group might include a couple of pastors and several church staff and volunteers. During breaks and after each conference day, attendees gathered in their small groups to process and pray.
After that final session on leadership and systems, I saw one group right outside the stadium in a huddle, with their arms around each others’ shoulders in a big circle. To psyche themselves up for the difficult change-making process they’ll face back home, they were chanting, “We’re going to change our system, We’re going to change our system…”
As hundreds of church vans slowly filed out of the huge stadium parking lot, I was wondering: Can there be anything more powerful than a movement that systematically and self-critically strives to change and improve itself?
Tag: Catalyst conference
Comments»
Zach,
Thank you for starting this blog. As someone who grew up in the evangelical subculture, became a church planter, and subsequently began asking many of the questions that highlight this “revolution”, let me say that you are spot on with a lot of your observations so far.
It’s good to see this dialog started, because those of us who have been moving this direction in the evangelical world have mostly felt like red-headed step-children - dismissed by other evangelicals because of our questions, and ridiculed by secular progressives because our association with evangelicals. However, in some cases we have found bigger allies on the “secular” side of the fence, which gives us much hope and encouragement.
Indeed, there will be a struggle within evangelicalism, and the retrenchers will not go quietly. Conferences such as the one you attended will help to raise awareness, but the institutional hurdles to climb will be steep. Many of my friends have chosen to work with smaller communities trying to retrain the evangelical mind from underneath. After all, Jesus spent most of his time with 12 no-bodies who later turned the world upside down. But we are excited to see large churches / orgs beginning to ask the right questions and acting in the right direction.
I want to start by saying that I think what this conference and this blog are aiming for is admirable. You are correct that 100 million people should not be dismissed or derided by progressives, and building bridges between the two camps is important.
*However*, any building of bridges between two movements should involve honest, rational discussion. I’m concerned (I hope I’m wrong) that progressive atheists like myself and progressive evangelicals like those at this conference will never be able to actually debate with each other in a forthright manner. There will be some topics that I would simply not be allowed to touch with logical argumentation because evangelicals feel the matter is settled by the bible. So, Matt and I might agree that we should help the poor (albeit for different reasons), but what happens when I talk to Matt about teaching evolution in schools, or my belief that all adults have the right to engage in any consensual sexual activity and choose any partner for marriage? Can we debate this? Or, would his answer simply be, “The bible says x, therefore you are wrong.”
Maybe I’m being too cynical here, certainly the earlier posts ‘God did it’ and ‘unChristian at Catalyst’ suggest some evangelicals may be willing to discuss these issues with the likes of me. But, I also got the impression from those posts that they would, unfortunately, be the minority… most stick to the concept of biblical infallibility.
I’ll sum it up with this question: If someone is sure that they are right simply because the bible says so, then how can you actually have a debate with them?
Blake - I can’t speak for “Matt” or all the other Matt’s I met there. And I think there’s a huge diversity of opinions. But here are a couple of responses:
First, they don’t believe what they do about homosexuality, evolution and pre-martial sex “just because it says so in the Bible”. It says a lot of things in the Bible that they don’t do. And the big surprise to me was that they’re not just ignoring those apparent contradictions. Rather, they’re very consciously *interpreting* the Bible as the mysterious and allusive “Word of God”. They acknowledge that it’s a book, a physical book, that’s been translated and retranslated, and that has a specific historical context. i.e. the Bible was written down by humans (inspired or directed by God — and there are a lot of slightly different nuanced positions there) in a particular place and time.
Part of how they interpret the Bible is to apply their own living experience (and the collective experience of their communities). And so, for example, on the pre-marital sex stuff, they can give you a ton of really good reasons behind their belief. So, yeah, their belief is based in the Bible. But they certainly can debate the issue with you in terms of their *interpretation* of the amazing stories in the Bible, written by real people encountering real life problems, and how those stories have instructed them.
Some Christians have decided that they should try to legislate their morals on others. And some rich ones have backed high-profile campaigns. But this new “revolution” is *totally and completely* opposed to that. They say, “Jesus never did that, and it’s the exact opposite of what he DID do.”
Perhaps the main thing to know is that — even in most really conservative “non-revolutionary” churches, the gay stuff, evolution and even abortion are so far down the list of what people are thinking about and engaged with day to day that they’re almost not relevant.
What we saw with all those anti-gay ballot initiatives was one group asserting itself. And what we saw at Catalyst, I think, was another group asserting itself by saying “Would you guys stop?! Not only are you behaving un-biblically, but you’re also driving people away from the church.”
Mark,
Just letting you know that your blog really encouraged me. You don’t know me, I just ran upon your blog and read. Keep it up and stay strong.
Be well,
Jacob
Zack,
What are you hearing in the way of political participation? Directly: Who are the people they are debating about for the next presidential election?
Thank you and praise be to whatever spiritual guides you may hold dear! I’m having a moment of real joy. One that you’d take on the huge chore of trying to establish some common ground and dialog between very different cultures, and also that you found EXACTLY what you were looking for already happening in Christian churches.
As a Unitarian Universalist, this movement within the evangelical church is so incredibly welcome to me. Our congregation is full of people who come from strong church traditions but have turned away their churches or origin because those churches weren’t Christ-like. What a wonderful thing to know that there are increasing numbers of evangelical Christians who want to express their faith through social justice.
I pray that the secular humanists and the social activists on the Left can embrace these Christians exactly as they are. It’ll be hard, though.
From personal experience, I have found that one of the deepest drives for an born-again Christian is to lead the unsaved to Christ. Most of the ones I have met honestly, deeply believe this is the greatest gift they could give anyone. But it’s an incredible turn-off to a lot of liberals. Both sides will have to learn to tolerate some preaching (yeah, from the secular humanists, too) and to moderate their evangelism (again, some of the social activists I have met are some of the most impassioned preachers I know).
One of our UU traditions is to share our joys and concerns each Sunday. I can’t wait! I just hope I give your blog and the Catalyst Conference justice.
Zack,
Thanks for your reply. It gave me pause to think… Here is how I would respond:
1. If what you say is true, then the public image of American Christianity has been dominated by those Christians who have “…decided that they should try to legislate their morals on others…” , and I wonder why progressive Christians have allowed this to happen.
2. I suspect that you are being slightly disingenuous when you say that Christians “…don’t believe what they do about homosexuality, evolution and pre-martial sex just because it says so in the Bible”. Clearly, the beliefs that have been passed down in Anglo-American culture on these issues *are* rooted in the bible. I don’t think this can be denied. Whether a person believes these things simply because their parents told them, or whether they actually came to these interpretations personally, I think the bible is likely the original source. I admit that I find it hard to imagine how a person could come to any anti-evolution or anti-homosexuality opinions through sheer ratiocination, so I am assuming they got it from their parents or personal bible study. Of course, I am surrounded by a secular, scientific community, and I rarely encounter anyone who would present me with arguments to the contrary. Perhaps I will encounter them in the future…
3. I cannot pretend that I find arguments based on any ancient mythology, be they interpretive or literal, terribly relevant. Of course, that’s my personal bias, and one I recognize I cannot enforce on others.
Perhaps it is one that will change…
4. I do find it very encouraging when you say that “…the gay stuff, evolution and even abortion are so far down the list of what people are thinking about…” I look forward to seeing far more of Jesus’ moral teachings on poverty and pacifism reflected in the political campaigns of Christians in the future.
Thanks for making this blog. It is very interesting.
Zack wrote: “Some Christians have decided that they should try to legislate their morals on others. And some rich ones have backed high-profile campaigns. But this new “revolution” is *totally and completely* opposed to that. They say, “Jesus never did that, and it’s the exact opposite of what he DID do.” ”
I agree completely. I find that to be one of the more obvious contradictions on the religious right.
Blake wrote: “1. If what you say is true, then the public image of American Christianity has been dominated by those Christians who have “…decided that they should try to legislate their morals on others…” , and I wonder why progressive Christians have allowed this to happen.”
I agree, Blake. I think that last sentence is key. That is a mystery to me. What’s that story? I have read other sites that give some kind of message that (I think) is similar to this site. In those kind of posts/sites (although not here, I’d like to say,) there is typically a veiled accusation that my fear of christians who are trying to legislate morality, or my belief that christians are trying to legislate morality, or some variant, is best attributed to my “hostility toward religion.” I don’t know…i guess I don’t feel like that belief is a misperception on my part that is founded in some hostility I have. I think it is a legitimate fear based on a factual assessment of the christians I have come into contact with through a variety of media (including watching them on television, etc.) I guess it’s what always gets my goat about “hostility to religion” comments that are used to include me in some typically shrouded way. I think I accurately perceive a very real hostility toward my way of life and my belief system by American christians. I think many on the left perceive that hostility as well. But that hostility doesn’t even have a name.
I’ll be honest with you, I feel bad if there are evangelicals who feel excluded and ridiculed by the left when they have goals in common with members of the left. I do feel bad about that. Bur I beseech them to look at it from my point of view. The issues I’m facing with regard to organized religion in this country are not about feeling excluded or ridicule. It’s a fear, a legitimate one, I think, that my way of life is going to be taken away from me by people who are dismantling this country with full-throated vocal support of what appears to me to be a large part of the American evangelicals. I’m sorry if you’re feeling excluded, but I don’t know of any progressives who are writing video games in which evangelicals need to renounce their beliefs or be killed, and then marketing that video game to soldiers through the pentagon. I think it’s unfair to characterize my, I think, very legitimate fear that American christians might turn on me in a potentially murderous manner to your hurt feelings from being excluded. I think hostility means a lot of different things, but making a video game in which I am the target to be converted or killed I think counts for hostility in a very real, tangible way that–I’m sorry–kind of transcends a few comments posted at Huffington Post.
I would like Zack to talk about hostility toward nonbelievers. Then maybe I’ll be willing to listen to a few more lectures about my “hostility to religion.”
Thanks. Zack, Elizabeth, thank you for this blog and what you’re trying to do. I do appreciate it. This hits a bit close to home, and I’m trying not to be close-minded about it. But I put the question to you: What about “their” hostility toward “us”?
Interesting read. It’s hard to think of a Christian church following the words of Christ. They talk a lot about service to the community and feeding the poor…. I wonder what the admission cost was for the conference? I wonder where THAT money is going. There were vendors set up there selling their wares (money changers in the Temple??). I bet they made a bundle. I wonder whose pockets that money is lining?
He does dance around the gay issue. It is still a Christian meeting. I wish the learned ones who compiled the Bible had included at least one manuscript that talked about Jesus’ views on gays. He was a “love your brother as yourself” kind of guy. All the anti-gay verses people quote are from the Old Testament. It’s funny how they will scream those verses from the rooftops, but not even whisper about the ones that talk about selling your daughters into slavery or the penalty for wearing clothes made of two kinds of cloth. Talk about selective hearing. They are worse than the average teenager who can’t hear you shout to clean their room, but can hear a whispered “let’s go for pizza” loud and clear.
I used to be a Christian until I started questioning my beliefs and looking at other Christians around me. I just couldn’t stand the hypocrisy and “holier than thou” attitude. I remember once I was a young single mother struggling to pay the rent on a meager Welfare check. The pastor was preaching about tithing and gave an example of how he had to give to the Church before he could pay the country club fees… that was the day I walked out of the church and never went back.
I am much happier NOT being a Christian. And, I still follow the words of Jesus. I’m just not willing to align myself with the Church or to claim the title Christian.
I am also very happy to run across this blog. I hope to find quite a bit of illumination here.
I think you have really hit on the right name too, the revolution will be fascinating to watch.
Prairie, one point of correction: Not all the “anti-gay” scriptures are from the OT. NT examples are Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10
“I would like Zack to talk about hostility toward nonbelievers. Then maybe I’ll be willing to listen to a few more lectures about my “hostility to religion.””
duus: This is one of the biggest misunderstandings I see between seculars and christians. Christians feel a need to share a joy that they have with other people, a want to save them from a bleak future, to give people the understanding they have. Non-christians often interpret this as hostility, or aggressive behavior. Possibly ‘trying to meet a quota’ or something of the sort. Sometimes that interpretation is unfortunately correct, but I believe (hope) that the kind of ‘new guard’ christianity represented here does not have that sort of hostility in their outreach, and that they will share out of love, and in doing so respect your beliefs when you refuse theirs.
Plus we all know that Super 3D Noah’s Ark didn’t sell very well
“marketing that video game to soldiers through the pentagon”
Are you referring to a specific game? which one? I must not be up to date with my christian video games.
Hello Luke. I don’t think I’m interpreting proselytizing as hostility. I think I’m interpreting hostility as hostility:
you wrote: ‘“marketing that video game to soldiers through the pentagon” Are you referring to a specific game? which one? I must not be up to date with my christian video games.’
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959
“Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission — to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is “to conduct physical and spiritual warfare”; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life.”
That took me about 10 secs, googling “christian video game marketed toward soldiers”
duus: yes well, I not *all* christians are as open-minded as we might hope. But I know some of them are, and they don’t necessarily agree with people like Rick Warren.
luke: I understand & respect that. I’m really not trying to paint all christians with the same brush. I’m trying to say that I feel like i’m often told that, as a non-believer on the left, I am “hostile toward religion,” and it’s something I should watch out for. What of the hostility I feel directed toward me? I don’t see people on the left, who are explaining to me what I’m doing wrong, discuss how I should feel about the hostility toward me. It seems asymmetrical.
Zach, the “movement” that you are only beginning to uncover is much larger and older than you can imagine right now. Thanks for telling our (evangelical’s) story a bit. Media often paints us as self-righteous bigots but most of us are anything but that.
I’m a fifty-something who has been working at this for half my life. We don’t look for publicty. We are simply trying to be faithful to Jesus. In that faithfulness, God has seen fit to allow us to start a health clinic, a food pantry (22 tons last year), a clothing closet, housing counseling, job training –all focused on the poor. But there is so much more that we want to do, need to do.
Thanks again.
I’m sorry, but Duus, Blake, You’re asking for discussion, but all I’m hearing is moaning about the status quo. There needs to be talking before things will change.
So to try and turn this back into a debate:
In reply to question no. 1 - why did we let it get like this?
Its a hard one but probably mostly apathy. Probably the same reasons americans let corruption get this bad. The same reasons people let any more powerful entity get more powerful.
It takes real effort to change things, especially when you are the voice of the minority. It’s human nature to sit back and wait until it gets too bad.
So yes, we screwed up. We let a vocal minority twist the words of our beliefs into something that portrays us as something we’re not. Pretty much the story of religion in general - theres always going to be someone who tries to take advantage of other people - human nature again.
Whats important now is how we change the situation. Thats why I welcome this blog. Its an open minded and more fair look at whats happening.
Christians aren’t going to respond to angry and hostile rants about their beliefs. It’s frankly insulting. However most of us would love to engage on an intellectual level.
Zack…A post at Open Left by Matt Stoller recommended checking out your blog, which I just briefly did. It seems important, exciting and encouraging. Thanks for doing it, and please keep it up. I don’t have time to read more now, but plan to do so later, and to comment if I have something to say.
You are, distinctly, not a secular progressive. You are a Christian disguised as a secular progressive and you’re clever enough to couch everything you say in a language that secular progressives will understand and sympathize with. Your purpose in doing this is likely evangelical, but only you can know that for sure. Much will depend on your blog’s future course. How long can you maintain the sense of impending revolution and excitement about the future before you have to report about someone *actually doing* something? Sooner or later something big will have to happen that all this has been leading up to, and I suspect that happening will be your conversion. It may be spontaneous or it may have been planned from the beginning, but when it happens the text of your blog will become a powerful propaganda weapon for the Christian right, which finds its most powerful enemies not among evil-doers but among liberal intellectuals who are smart enough to understand what it’s really up to.
There can be no reconciliation with those who acknowledge the infallibility of *any* authority, because the condition of recognizing infallible authority is slavery. However noble their intentions may be, these people are deluded, and it is a mistake to encourage them because the more powerful they become the more they bring our culture and our future under the sway of their delusions. They must not be coddled, nor studied with benign anthropological amusement–they must be resisted. Organized religion is and always has been nothing more than a means of organizing political power, and secular intellectuals who forget that do so at their peril.
Thank you for providing a forum for these comments.
Sean Ragan,
As a seminary student and an evangelical, I was surprised that you and I had come to the same suspicion. I hope you and I are both wrong. If what is happening here is a contrived and scripted attempt to “create” a media conversion then it is nothing but underhanded and is to be pitied.
I hope that is not the case. I also hope that a conversion takes place as a result of Zach’s interaction within the community of believers. If it does, and it is real, then the glory belongs to God. If it is just a pre-scripted ploy, then it is as hideous as any other contrived news story.
You said, “the condition of recognizing infallible authority is slavery.” I would say, and Christian orthodoxy maintains, that the notion of freedom is a myth. We are all slaves to something. We are either slaves to the dark gods of our own wisdom, or slaves to the Living God. One involves bondage and misery, the other bestows sonship and life. Such is the Christian position. We misunderstand our own importance when we see ourselves as “free” beings that stand unfettered between two possible life choices. We are ever identified with one master or the other.
As my study of Hebrew is still a year and a half away you might have to fact check this statement, but I heard it said recently that there is no Hebrew word for spiritual. The implications of this, if true, are quite mind blowing. To assert that portions of life could be labeled “spiritual” is to imply that there are parts of life that are inherently NOT spiritual. Our relationship with God is not just a part of our life, but the cornerstone and capstone, no, the entirety of the structure. It permeates every aspect of our life. Christians are called to reject the greek philosophy that pits the spiritual (ideal) versus the physical (material). This is not to say that we actually do this, but it IS the core of how we are to see the human life. The God of the soul is the God of creation. He proclaimed his physical creation good, and the crowning work of his hand, mankind, to be very good.
At any rate, friend, I pray that you are blessed and well, and that you someday find yourself a slave to the Living God, set free in Christ, and proclaiming the grace and Lordship of the one who called you to be His before the beginning of time. In short, I hope to call you brother.
Coram Deo,
Rob
Important point I forgot:
If Zach is simply who he says he is, and he is simply doing what he says he is doing, then he is to be commended regardless of the outcome. It takes guts to step outside of your own “camp,” and to engage the other side with goodwill and a genuine sense of seeking.
I wish evangelicals (me/I) would do more of the same.
Rob
Zack, you talk about how the “gay stuff” is far down the list of important things to evangelical Christians.
In response to that statement I have to ask two questions.
First: On what planet is “gay stuff” far down the list of important things to evangelical Christians.
Second: WHY is “gay stuff” far down the list? We’re talking about a significant number of God’s children being treated as criminals, perverts, second-class citizens and enemies of the State/Church/Family. How can ANY Christian, fundamentalist, evangelical or otherwise, see an issue of oppression, exclusion and discrimination as unimportant.
I disagree with you that “gay stuff” isn’t important to the average evangelical Christian but it seems to be important to them for ALL the WRONG reasons. Jesus ALWAYS reached out to the oppressed, dispised and outcast and he never demanded that they do a, b and c before he would love them or spend time with them.
It was the religious leaders of the day and the self-righteous who drew his ire.
The problem with too many Christians today isn’t that they are fundamentalists. To the contrary the problem is that far to many people who profess to be Christian act FUNDAMENTALLY UN-Christian.
I love your Christ. I don’t like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ. — Gandhi
I think it’s fine to remind people that all Christians are not fundamentalist or hateful or oppressive (I know that. I am UCC. We were progressive Christians when progressive Christianity wasn’t cool) but you are being disingenuous to act as if the right-wing brand of Christianity hasn’t been ruling the day and running the show for the last 30 years and you are being naive if you are claiming that the homophobia, islamaphobia, immigrant-phobia and liberal-phobia has simply been a manifestation of spiritual purity rather than a movement strongly influenced by personal fear, political posturing and good old fashioned bigotry disguised as righteousness.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist family in Mississippi in the 60’s. I know how the Bible and faith can be used to excuse and even promote just about any kind of evil. I also saw, first hand, how racist, segregationsist and bigots were given passes because it was considered inappropriate to challenge their “legitimate” and “deeply held” religious beliefs. It wasn’t right then with racism and it’s not right now with homophobia.
Peter B,
I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that I engaged in an “…angry and hostile rant…” about Christian beliefs. Despite my confidence in atheism, and my desire to be honest about this with Christians, nowhere in my comments did I label Christian beliefs as bad or worthy of contempt, and I certainly didn’t write anything in anger.
I think your reaction illustrates some of what concerns me: I find it difficult to express myself honestly without some people feeling insulted, because when it comes to religion many beliefs are simply not considered fair game for debate.
Nonetheless, I would *love* to see the public image of Christianity change, and for the secular left and progressive evangelicals to collaborate on the elimination of poverty and militarism. That is why I also think this blog is great.
In the end, here’s what I would add to the discussion: one way in which I think Christians really could help to change their public image and to help effect real change is to start supporting leftist politicians, even if those politicians are not Christian. I have voted for many Christians in my life, yet it is a political death knell in most parts of North America for someone to declare themselves an atheist. That is a real shame…
There is so much here in the comments! — it will take me a while to respond to all this. And I’m in a conference all day today, so I won’t be able to right away.
Zeke:
The Christians you are talking about are doing the same thing everyone does — they pick the sin they are least likely to commit and bang away at it. That does not make it right — on the contrary, we should be focusing on the sins that we are more likely to commit (envy, coveting, lusting, etc.) I was too young to remember, but when Jimmy Carter said that he lusted in his heart and therefore was guilty of adultery, he was on to something.
Of course, you would probably disagree with the assertion that being gay is a sin. Being gay in my books is in the same category as hetero co-habitation. I am not going to march in the street against it - and in a world with limited time and energy, the gay marriage issue certainly does not energize me.
Too many Christians want their Jesus to be a triumphal one who comes in to save the day by slaying the dragon. That isn’t the Jesus of the Bible as you have pointed out. And while Jesus did hang out with hos and tax collectors, he never shied away from calling a sin a sin.
I’m a person who doesn’t believe that any particular religion is the “true and exclusive” path to “God” or “the kingdom of heaven” or whatever higher power and highest good they believe in. Instead I believe that all religions share a common source based on an experience (inner first, then outer) that Jesus and others (Buddha, Nanak, etc.) manifested very strongly, though sometimes with different attributes and aspects of the experience and message emphasized in different ways and to different degrees at different times and places in human history.
I’m not opposed to people choosing to “worship” these individuals or having a belief system about who they are and their role in one’s life. But I also believe that none of this is necessary to achieve the experience religious people are seeking, and also that there are significant risks in relying on religious theologies and selective holy-book quotations as one’s primary guide for spiritual growth.
I find I can enjoy the company of many Christians, as long as we remain focused on experiencing and sharing the love, joy and gratitude that comes naturally with attunement to this inner experience. If the conversation moves toward “this is the one and only way,” it typically doesn’t last much longer, since I have my own direct experience that tells me that it is not the only way (at least for me). So trying to convince me otherwise eventually become insulting, because the other person chooses to put their beliefs above an experience of mutual dignity and respect (which to me is one of the key qualities all religions are based on).
This unfortunate step is one of the risks I see in relying on theology rather than one’s own experience of prayer and meditation, and a genuine humility before the power that all religions claim to worship, but too often try to fit into concepts and theologies that are inherently too limited to contain it (this, I believe, is the basic nature of God and of our limited thinking mind).
My view is that God created us in His image, and we should be careful to avoid trying to create a God through our own limited concepts, regardless of how lofty and righteous they may seem. My experience has always been that my connection to God is strengthened, not weakened, when I let go of my concepts…after all, the miracle of my breath coming and going occurs without need of these concepts…why then can’t my conscious connection to God also continue without them? So, to me, God’s love and guidance is found first in the heart, not in the mind and its theologies and concepts.
Theologies have value if they help a person find their inner sense of worship, humility, gratitude and love. But they are less than useless if they more often than not guide a person in the opposite direction, which seems pretty common in the space where religion and politics intersect—not just in this era, but throughout history.
To the extent Christians (or people following any religion) can manifest joy, love, gratitude and kindness, and their religion helps them experience this, then I’m all for it. That’s why I find Zack’s stories so heartening. The same is true for sincere efforts to manifest these qualities, even when there’s some tendency to feel “you need to be saved” or “my path is the only true path.” We are all human, after all, whether our tendency is to push too hard concerning religion, politics or some other beliefs we hold dear. It’s the sincere and humble effort to grow and serve, not whether we are perfect, that I’ve found is the key to experiencing what religions call “Grace.”
When I read some of Zack’s stories, I can’t help but see some parallels to the 60s, when the younger generation (many of whom, including me, were raised in the suburbs, where many of today’s mega-churches have sprouted up) found itself crying out for a more authentic connection to spirituality, one that impacted our everyday lives and choices (and our nation’s politics and policies), not just a once-a-week attendance at church
or synagogue. One that sought to transcend hypocrisy, rather than to hide behind it. To some extent, that same passion seems to be driving these young evangelicals, though there are real differences between the two eras and “movements”, including some (e.g., abortion, sex, gay rights) that remain relatively “hot button” and potentially contentious.
If that’s what’s happening, then I share much of Zack’s enthusiasm for it. We need more, not fewer spiritually inspired and idealistic young people in this world.
My hope is that Christians and those who follow other religions will come to realize that we are all children of God and brothers and sisters in this world. Though I’m no expert in the Bible, I believe Jesus said: “The kingdom of heaven is within you…Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God…. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself…Love is the fulfilling of the law…Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.”
These statements seem like a good foundation for building dialog, and also for building meaningful and fulfilling lives and communities. If the people Zack has been writing about are sincerely trying to do that, than I salute them and pray for their success.
Those statements sound awfully evangelical. By this I mean that you seem to be trying to persuade us to your way of thinking. Your beleif isn’t that amorphous all accepting belief system you are making it out to be. You say that it isn’t concepts and doctrine, but that is all that it is. Count how many times you say “I believe.” Heck, you have more doctrinal belief statements then the Apostle’s Creed just on this blog posting.
You also confess that whenever anyone presents their beliefs to you you quickly end the friendship. They have put their beliefs above an experience of mutual dignity might be better stated as, “they refuse to do it my way.”
My friend, the only difference between your belief system and the Christian belief system is that Christianity relies on the collected wisdom of over 4,000 years of history. You seem to be relying on inner experiences that can’t date back more than 70 years. How is following one’s own decietful heart somehow wiser than pursuing the collected wisdom of hundreds of generations?
You say there are many paths to God, and your way is ABC. Great. What if my way is blowing up buildings full of people? Is that just another way? Or do you all of a sudden have the insight needed to decide for us what ways are profitable and which are not? How do you know? Are you a prophet? Did your heart tell you so? If you’re anything like the rest of us your heart has told you to do some pretty dumb stuff in the past, so how can you trust it?
We all have to “believe” something. I’ll grant you that. My beliefs are based on my experience, listening to people who strike me as wise and good, and asking God for help.
You misunderstood my comment about ending conversations. When someone can only insist on convincing me that their way is the right way for me, there’s really not much to talk about, is there? Especially when they repeatedly deny the value of my experience because its different from their’s, as you seem to be doing. If all someone’s got to tell me is that what feels right to me is the work of Satan, there’s not really much to discuss. And, to be frank, when it comes to these kinds of claims, I don’t find selective Bible quotes very credible.
I could argue about all the bloodshed, violence and pain that what you call the 4,000 years of collected wisdom has caused, but I don’t think that conversation would get very far, and that’s not my purpose here. Your comment also seems to disregard the collective wisdom of other religions, which I see no valid basis for.
As to your last point, I think “Know them by their fruits” is a pretty good standard for evaluating paths and actions.
If you can’t trust your own heart, tempered by humble prayer and the advice of those you trust, then I feel sorry for you. I don’t claim to be a prophet, just a human being who is learning to distinguish what parts of me are worthy of trust, and what parts aren’t. I’m sorry if that upsets you, as it seems to. Remember, I’m talking about me being responsible for my own choices and my own life, not imposing my path on you. I’m not sure the same can be applied to what you’re arguing here.
Mitch, no one is denying the value of your experience anymore than you are denying others. My “experience” is that the Bible is God’s revealed narrative to the world about how he has redeemed it to himself through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of his only begotten son, Jesus Christ. You spent a considerable amount of time and energy denying the value of that. (I think, if you don’t feel you did we should go have a beer and figure out what’s really been said).
Also, what exactly is the point of sharing your path if you don’t think it is one we would all benefit in following?
My only point is that you only seem to be offering your own subjective experience/ inner reasoning as an alternative. Why should we listen to you? You say there is truth in facets of all religions? Great! How did you arrive at this wonderful realization?
You haven’t much time for people that “selectively” quote from the Bible. YET!!! At the end of your first post you did just that very thing! I am not picking and choosing. I believe every word of it. I believe him when he says that the peacemakers are blessed, and when he claims to be God. You only believe him when what he says tickles your ears, or seem to based on your selective quotes. I’m not going to tell you that what feels right to you is the work of Satan, but you should need a better argument then “it feels right” to convince yourself that it is acceptable to God.
I don’t hate you my man, and I haven’t once tried to force my beliefs on you. I care enough about you and sound logic, however, to let you know when your theology sounds like it has been filtered through a horse.
BTW, do you like beer? I sure do. The local brewery filters theirs through Clydesdale horses but they sponsor some great baseball. We should go grab one sometime and beat the crap out of each other. (That’s a joke about the fighting, I’m serious about the beer) I’m part french so there is a good chance I’ll run away.
I appreciate the invitation Rob, but arguing about these things and discussing scriptures has no interest for me. I shared my perspective on this blog mainly to express enthusiasm for some of what Zack was reporting, and to be upfront about where I’m coming from.
I encourage you to find your peace, joy and love (the primary “fruits” I’m concerned with), and manifest them to the best of your ability. I’ll do my best to do the same. I sincerely wish you well in that regard.