Monday, January 29, 2007

ESL--English as a Second Language

I am in Sicily teaching English. Many people here and at home think I'm on vacation.

While I'm having a good time and meeting many old friends, I wouldn't call this a vaction. I teach every morning (except Sunday) in the local middle schools. (Hello to the students from Tisia D'Imera and Paolo Balsimo.) I start at 8:15 and go to 1:15.

Twice a week in the afternoon I go to one of the schools for a two-hour "conversation" with some of the more advanced students.

Three nights a week, from 9:30 to 11:00, (yes, that's in the evening) I teach a class for adults. The students range from people who know virtually no English to teachers of English and Greek. (This makes preaching to a diverse group on Sundays seem easy.)

In addition, I am giving a few private lessons.

As you might guess, I'm not getting much sleep. But I can sleep when I get home.

My reason for this post is not to complain about how hard I'm working. I came here to teach. I enjoy it, and some of the students seem to be benefitting from it.

But some of the students have no interest in learning English. Their parents don't speak English. Their friends don't speak English. They see no reason to invest the time and effort to do something as difficult as learning another language.

There also seems to be an attitude generated by the French teachers that English is not an important language. I've tried to combat this idea by explaining how many opportunities that English speakers have around the world which others don't.

One way I've tried to do this is by saying the following over and over again until someone figures it out or until I run out of time:
In my hand, I have a 1-Euro coin. The first person who comes to me and asks for the coin, in English, can have it.

When this is successful (about half the time), it usually takes at least 15-20 minutes. Some of these students are the equivalent of 8th-graders. They've been "studying" English for three or four years. Yet they cannot understand simple, slowly-spoken English.

Not only is the cultural environment unfriendly to learning English, but the classrooms are also hostile (to most any kind of learning).

The teachers try hard to teach, but they spend more than half their time trying to maintain order.

The rooms are constructed exclusively of hard materials (concrete and tile). The desks and chairs have metal legs. They make an annoyingly-loud noise when they are moved (even carefully). And the desks are tables for two. Two students sit shoulder to shoulder at the same desk. It doesn't take much imagination to see the potential for distractions.

And they never stop talking, at least not for long.

It reminds me of a Monty Python skit. The students make noise. The teacher trys to quiet them (sometimes by making an even louder noise). A few students yell, "Silenzio!" Evenutally there is quiet for a few moments.

Then the teacher resumes the lesson only for the process to repeat itself in a couple of minutes.

Some of the students are clearly bored. Some of them think that it is too hard to learn English, so they joke around and try to be "cool." Some of them have given up on learning at all.

But there are a few students that are truly interested in learning English. Unfortunately, they often get lost in the chaos.

So what's my point?

The world is filled with people who have no interest in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They invite people to commit the "unpardonable sin." They make fun of Christians who are hypocritical. They publish diatribes about the foolishness of believing in something you can't prove.

And many Christians spend their time and energy trying to answer these critics.

Of course, this needs to be done. But we must not focus our time and energy on these people. (I'm not advocating that we "write off" anyone.)

Instead, we must focus on the "good soil, those who are hungry for the truth. God is at work in the hearts of many people. (See 1 Kings 19.) We must be on the lookout for them, not the vocal critics. We must allow the Holy Spirit to use us to communicate God's love and grace to those who are desperate for it.

An intersting thing happens when the interested students start getting most of the attention. Some of the other students begin to develop an interest in learning themselves.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Friends of God

Nancy Pelosi's daughter has produced a film for HBO about "red-state evangelicals."

I can't speak for the documentary, but this report by Reuter's Hollywood correspondent Barry Garron reveals more about prevaiing attitudes in Hollywood than it does about Evangelicals.

Here's a quotation:
The parts of the film that were most troubling were not about abortion or gay marriage or even the incredibly pathetic attacks on evolution. Rather, it was the willingness of evangelicals, young and old, to accept as figurative and literal gospel anything and everything fed to them by authority figures. They appear as automatons, unable or unwilling to question the pronouncements of their leaders.

Mr. Garron gleefully announces that Pelosi's guide for much of the film was Ted Haggard. (The film was completed a week or so before the scandal broke.)

He continues:
Also difficult to watch were those who, despite having elected a born-again president and established giant radio and TV networks and a political power base second to none, still feel they are a persecuted minority. If Pelosi's intent is to show that evangelical faith suffocates reason, the point is well-made.

I think that the commentary on this article writes itself. However, his distorted views are not only the result of his own naiveté (read ignorance). They are also generated by the naiveté (ignorance) of many who call themselves after the name of Christ.

I'd be interested in your reaction to this article.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Free of Charge

When I read a book, I highlight passages that I want to keep in my collection of quotations. I nearly used up my yellow marker on Miroslav Volf's book, Free of Charge: Giving and forgiving in a culture stripped of grace.

I like some books because they make me think about deep theological issues. They challenge my assumptions and force me to look at reality in a fresh way. Other books have more practical value. They deal with the details of life. They make me look at myself in the light of God's truth.

Volf's book succeeds on both levels.

I can't possibly include all the quotes I'd like. (For one thing, the publisher would consider that a violation of the copyright law.) But here are just a few profound thoughts from this work:

No life worth living is possible without generosity.

If we see the God of Jesus Christ as a negotiator, we'll experience the law of Christ as an even heavier burden than the law of Moses.

On the cross, God is not setting up the terms of a contract that humans need to fulfill in order to get what they want. Neither is God saying, "I died for you, now you've got to do what I tell you."

To live well as a human being is to live in sync with who God is and how God acts.

God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.

The world is sinful. That's why God doesn't affirm it indiscriminately. God loves the world. That's why God doesn't punish it in justice. What does God do in this double bind? God forgives.

God doesn't make deals. God gives.


Volf reaffirms some of the things I've thought or felt but never articulated clearly. But he also challenges me in several points.

Out of context, some of these quotations seem to repeat familiar Christian "talking points." But this is a book free of cliche. And Volf expresses familiar truths in way that makes them seem like new discoveries.

Buy the book--and some highlighters.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be."

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Objections 11–12

(The first post in this series of my responses to the pamphlet by Chaz Bufe called 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity. The text in blue is from Mr. Bufe’s pamphlet. I have used ellipses to show where I have condensed the original.)

11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality. Christianity not only reduces, for all practical purposes, the question of morality to that of sexual behavior, but by listing its prohibitions, it encourages an "everything not prohibited is permitted" mentality. So, for instance, medieval inquisitors tortured their victims, while at the same time they went to lengths to avoid spilling the blood of those they tortured—though they thought nothing of burning them alive.

I can understand why some might react to Christianity with the superficial opinion that it is narrow-minded and legalistic. There certainly have been many people throughout history who have used the label "Christian" who fit that description.

But a serious critique of Christianity must address what it actually teaches.

Here is objection 11 in list form:
  • Christian morality is legalistic.
  • It does not take into account the full range of real life.
  • The only thing that Christian morality is really concerned about is sexual behavior.
  • Christianity is a rule-based morality.
  • There is inherent in Christianity a tendency to hypocrisy.
I want to take Mr. Bufe's objections seriously. But these kinds of statements make that difficult. There have been many people who call themselves Christians who have been legalistic and hypocritical. And there have also been some who have acted as if sexuality were an embarrassment to God.

But anyone who invests a minimal effort in understanding Christianity would know that these are abberations. They are, in fact, the opposite of what Jesus taught.

The church must take charges of hypocrisy seriously. But these tendencies are not inherent in Christianity. They are an expression of the human condition. They are an illustration of the truth of Christian teaching, that there is something fundamentally wrong with all humans, something that can only be corrected by the grace and power of God himself.

The first mistake here is to reduce Christianity to a system of morality.

Christianity is not a guide for better living. It is the instrument through which God transforms broken, twisted people into whole, authentic human beings. It is how God remakes us into the people we were created to be. When some behave in a way that inconsistent with truth and justice, it does not invalidate the Christian enterprise. It simply demonstrates how much it is needed.

Christianity is exactly the opposite of a rule-based morality. A careful reading of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) should make that clear. Christianity is more even than a principle-based morality. Christianity is a character-based morality.

The strategy of Christianity is to make people good and then to let them do what they want.

Anyone who sees loopholes in the requirements of Christianity completely misses the point. Jesus systematically closed all the loopholes in the Sermon on the Mount. He said that it is not enough to keep from killing others. Now we must also avoid wishing bad things to happen happen to them.

But even this is not a new system of moral guidelines. Jesus said that a bad tree can only produce bad fruit and that a good tree can only bear good fruit. The goal is to make the tree good and to let the fruit take care of itself. (And this is a job that can only be accomplished by divine power.)

12. Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils. Organized Christianity is a skillful apologist for the status quo and all the evils that go along with it. It diverts attention from real problems by focusing attention on sexual issues, and when confronted with social evils such as poverty glibly dismisses them with platitudes such as, "The poor ye have always with you." When confronted with the problems of militarism and war, most Christians shrug and say, "That’s human nature. It’s always been that way, and it always will."

Again with the talk about sex. I wonder who it is that is obsessed about this topic. With the exception of his favorite objection, Mr. Bufe makes some valid points in this section.


Much of what he says is true. But even here we must distinguish between Christianity and Christendom.

Christendom is the conflagration of Christian teaching with human power and politics. And the official Church has been guilty of many of the things Mr. Bufe mentions. The Church has often become a champion of the status quo. But Christianity is at its heart, and has been from its inception, a revolutionary enterprise.

When the Church "sells out" to the "powers that be" it violates its charter and renounces its founder.

That's what I think. What do you think?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Sono molto occupato

Sorry I haven't been able to post more frequently. I've been very busy teaching. I'm teaching every morning (Mon-Sat) at the middle schools.

I'm also teaching three nights a week with a group of 30 adults. They range in ability from school teachers and physicians who understand English well to people who know virtually no English. It is difficult to keep the advanced students interested without losing the beginners.

My Italian continues to improve. I can use the correct verb forms. But I still talk slowly.

I'll try to respond to the comments soon. I have to go now.

Ciao,

Rod

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Objections 8–10

Here’s the first in the series in my response to the pamphlet by Chaz Bufe called 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity.

(The text in blue is from Mr. Bufe’s pamphlet. I have used ellipses to show where I have condensed the original.)

8. Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific. For over a millennium Christianity arrested the development of science and scientific thinking. In Christendom, from the time of Augustine until the Renaissance, systematic investigation of the natural world was restricted to theological investigation—the interpretation of biblical passages, the gleaning of clues from the lives of the saints, etc.; there was no direct observation and interpretation of natural processes, because that was considered a useless pursuit, as all knowledge resided in scripture. The results of this are well known: scientific knowledge advanced hardly an inch in the over 1000 years from the rise of orthodox Christianity in the fourth century to the 1500s, and the populace was mired in the deepest squalor and ignorance, living in dire fear of the supernatural—believing in paranormal explanations for the most ordinary natural events…. When scientific investigation into the natural world resumed in the Renaissance—after a 1000-year-plus hiatus—organized Christianity did everything it could to stamp it out…. More lately, the Catholic Church and the more liberal Protestant congregations have realized that fighting against science is a losing battle, and they’ve taken to claiming that there is no contradiction between science and religion. This is disingenuous at best. As long as Christian sects continue to claim as fact—without offering a shred of evidence beyond the anecdotal—that physically impossible events occurred (or are still occurring), the conflict between science and religion will remain. That many churchmen and many scientists seem content to let this conflict lie doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist…. No matter how much fundamentalists might protest to the contrary, there is a world of difference between “faith” in scientific theories (produced using the scientific method, and subject to near-continual testing and scrutiny) and faith in the entirely unsupported myths recorded 3000 years ago by slave-holding goat herders.

While I will concede that many Christians are anti-intellectual, I would argue that Christianity (along with Judaism) formed the foundation for rise of science. The resistance to new discoveries during the Middle Ages was not a direct result of the teachings of Christianity. It was a result of the human drive to acquire and protect power. One could argue that the conversion of Constantine was not a postive development for the Church.

Dallas Willard has
an interesting take on the conflict between science and religion. His position is that they will always find themselves in conflict. This is not because they cannot be reconciled, but because human nature causes science to relegate religion to the group of things that have nothing to do with what is real.

Mr. Bufe assumes that the correct definition of miracles is "physically impossible events." This "definition" contains several assumptions that could be labeled either arrogant or naive (or both).


  • Reality is entirely described by what can be observed by the senses.
  • If science cannot "operate" on something, it is not real.
  • If the current level of scientific understanding cannot explain how an event could happen, it cannot happen.
  • Science requires belief in materialism.
I wonder if Mr. Bufe is familiar with the unpredictable world of quantum physics. A world where


  • things can suddenly appear out of nothing
  • light can be a wave and a particle at the same time
  • two subatomic can be connected in a mysterious manner known as quantum entanglement
It appears that faith is in the heart of the observer. It seems odd that scientists can produce scholarly articles about the entire universe being generated from a quantum vacuum, about the spontaneous generation of life from this gratuitous matter, and about multiplying universes that never interact and cannot be detected, and yet the idea that the universe could have been created by an eternally existing being is considered an "entirely unsupported myth" and dismissed out of hand as manifestly silly.

9. Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex. For centuries, Christianity has had an exceptionally unhealthy fixation on sex, to the exclusion of almost everything else (except power, money, and the infliction of cruelty). This stems from the numerous "thou shalt nots" relating to sex in the Bible. That the Ten Commandments contain a commandment forbidding the coveting of one’s neighbor’s wife, but do not even mention slavery, torture, or cruelty—which were abundantly common in the time the Commandments were written— speaks volumes about their writer’s preoccupation with sex (and women as property). Today, judging from the pronouncements of many Christian leaders, one would think that "morality" consists solely of what one does in one’s bedroom.

From my perspective, it is not the Bible or Christianity that has an unhealthy preoccupation with sex. In the biblical view sex is a significant aspect of human life to be enjoyed in a proper manner and protected from abuse and misuse. It is the modern view that seems to consider sex all important.


I will admit that the Church has its share of prudes. But the libertarian view has clearly been shown to be bankrupt. If something is valued, its use is generally restricted.

10. Christianity produces sexual misery. In addition to the misery produced by authoritarian Christian intrusions into the sex lives of non-Christians, Christianity produces great misery among its own adherents through its insistence that sex (except the very narrow variety it sanctions) is evil, against God’s law…. Given that human beings are by nature highly sexual beings, and that their urges very often do not fit into the only officially sanctioned Christian form of sexuality (monogamous, heterosexual marriage), it’s inevitable that those who attempt to follow Christian “morality” in this area are often miserable, as their strongest urges run smack dab into the wall of religious belief.

Who is the miserable person? Is it the one who enjoys the intimacy that can only flourish in a long-term exclusive relationship? Or is it the one who sleeps with a different person every night never finding intimacy?


Is happiness achieved by surrendering to every bodily urge? Is the potty-trained child somehow dimenished by his or her parents unable to enjoy true freedom?

I realize that these answers are incomplete. What would you add? What do you take issue with?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Sono in Italia

On Sunday afternoon, I left for Italy. I will be in Sicily for a few weeks. I am teaching English at a couple of middle schools in Termini Imerese. It is the Sister City for Elk Grove Village. I was here for a few weeks in 2005 doing the same thing.

I intend to continue my series on the Reasons to Abandon Christianity. But I will also include a few personal posts from time to time. I apologize in advance if I don't respond to your comments in a timely manner. It doesn't mean that I'm not interested in what you have to say.

I'm staying with some dear friends who treat me as part of their family. Their daughter is expecting a baby girl in April. I feel like an uncle.

The people here know how to enjoy good food, friendship and life in general. Every time I come here, I am convinced that we need to slow down in America. We spend too much time on things that are not terribly important.

Hospitality is an art form in Italy. Coincidentally, I'm reading a book by Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. I'll have to post some of his excellent comments about generosity and forgiveness.

There are few things that make me feel more truly human than when someone's face lights up in recognition and he or she comes toward me with a huge smile and outstretched arms. Hugging is good for the soul. These people value me just for being here, without me doing anything for them. We should all give this gift to the people in our lives.

I appreciate all of you who pay me the honor of caring about what I write here. I especially appreciate the double honor you grant me when you take the time to offer your own comments.

May God bless you and encourage you to share his love with those you meet today,

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Friday, January 05, 2007

Reasons Christianity is Bad 2

In my previous post I addressed the first three assertions by Chaz Bufe from his 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity.

(The text in blue is from Mr. Bufe’s pamphlet. I have used ellipses to show where I have condensed the original.)

4. Christianity is extremely egocentric…. Perhaps Christianity’s strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, like frightened children, that it must be true…. Another manifestation of the extreme egotism of Christianity is the belief that God is intimately concerned with picayune aspects of, and directly intervenes in, the lives of individuals…. Again, it’s very difficult to see anything spiritual in such egocentricity.

This one is difficult to deconstruct.

He seems to be saying that it is egotistical to think that God, if he really exists, is interested in the daily lives of individuals. And the hope for eternal life is nothing more that a selfish desire to avoid nonexistence. However, he also seems to believe (though he never really states this in so many words) that Christianity contributes to a low view of the individual because of the emphasis on morality.

Christianity does have a complex view of the importance and value of individual humans. In the first place, humans are created in the image of God. And each human has enormous value as a bearer of that image. However, we have also rebelled against God and have a serious flaw in our basic natures.

Some see this “fallen human nature” doctrine as anti-human. They believe it enslaves people and makes them susceptible to manipulation by “the church.”

As to Mr. Bufe’s stated point, it seems to be irrelevant. If Christianity is false, then it really doesn’t matter whether we can label its doctrines as egotistical. If they are true, then they may be surprising. But they can hardly be dismissed as egotistical. In other words, if Christianity is false, labeling its teachings egocentric is just “piling on.”

And here is the most important point. Calling Christianity egotistical in its basic assumptions is of no help in determining its validity. Either it is true or it is not.

5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. It’s only natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have a direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God’s people," "the chosen people," "the elect," "the righteous," etc., while nonbelievers have been labeled "heathens," "infidels," and "atheistic Communists" (as if atheism and Communism are intimately connected). This sets up a two-tiered division of humanity, in which "God’s people" feel superior to those who are not "God’s people."
That many competing religions with contradictory beliefs make the same claim seems not to matter at all to the members of the various sects that claim to be the only carriers of "the true faith." The carnage that results when two competing sects of "God’s people" collide—as in Ireland and Palestine—would be quite amusing but for the suffering it causes.


Yes, some Christians are arrogant. However, to the degree that they are arrogant they have demonstrated that they do not understand the basic teachings of Jesus. It could be argued that the cause of the arrogance is basic human nature rather than something inherent in Christianity itself.

At the heart of Christianity is an awareness that we all are “equal before God.” And followers of Jesus are called to love others and are warned not to think that they are superior.

There have certainly been many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. But I would argue that these have always been done in spite of the teachings of Christianity, not because of them. This does not mean that Christians bear no responsibility for these actions. It simply means that Christianity itself is not to blame.

The reformers who have spoken out against these offenses have called people to a more faithful practice of Christian teaching, not an abandonment of it. This is profound.
The answer is “more” Christianity not “less.”

6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism. Given that Christians claim to have the one true faith, to have a book that is the Word of God, and (in many cases) to receive guidance directly from God, they feel little or no compunction about using force and coercion to enforce "God’s Will" (which they, of course, interpret and understand). Given that they believe (or pretend) that they’re receiving orders from the Almighty (who would cast them into hell should they disobey), it’s little wonder that they feel no reluctance, and in fact are eager, to intrude into the most personal aspects of the lives of nonbelievers. This is most obvious today in the area of sex, with Christians attempting to deny women the right to abortion and to mandate near-useless abstinence-only sex "education" in the public schools. It’s also obvious in the area of education, with Christians attempting to force biology teachers to teach their creation myth (but not those of Hindus, Native Americans, et al.) in place of (or as being equally valid as) the very well established theory of evolution. But the authoritarian tendencies of Christianity reach much further than this…. If your nonintrusive beliefs or actions are not in accord with Christian "morality," you can bet that Christians will feel completely justified—not to mention righteous—in poking their noses (often in the form of state police agencies) into your private life.

I’m not a Freudian psychotherapist, but I get the sense that Mr. Bufe’s main objection to Christianity stems from what he perceives as its oppression of his “right” to live out his sexuality in whatever manner he chooses to practice it. We’ll come back to this later, when he addresses this issue more directly.

I will agree that there is a vocal group within Christianity who see their mission as shaping culture to reflect Christian morality. They would like to enact laws that conform to the Ten Commandments and the moral teachings of Jesus.

However, I would argue that the idea of respect for the ideas and beliefs of others grows out of Christianity. Furthermore, I would argue that any other basis of societal morality will necessarily lead to oppression.

I don’t have the space or time to make a complete argument here. But “tolerance” is intolerance in disguise. It is an underhanded way for one group to force everyone to adopt its values in the name of tolerance.

In contrast, Christianity is transparent. It is open about exactly what it believes. And one of those beliefs is that people have the right to believe what they choose to believe.

The other problem with Mr. Bufe’s argument is that he fails to recognize that everyone seeks to impose his morality on others. Even libertarians seek to impose their morality on others. The idea that it is wrong to regulate what people do in private is a “morality.”

7. Christianity is cruel. Throughout its history, cruelty—both to self and others—has been one of the most prominent features of Christianity. From its very start, Christianity, with its bleak view of life, its emphasis upon sexual sin, and its almost impossible-to-meet demands for sexual "purity," encouraged guilt, penance, and self-torture. Today, this self-torture is primarily psychological, in the form of guilt arising from following (or denying, and thus obsessing over) one’s natural sexual desires…. Given that the Bible nowhere condemns torture and sometimes prescribes shockingly cruel penalties (such as burning alive), and that Christians so wholeheartedly approved of self-torture, it’s not surprising that they thought little of inflicting appallingly cruel treatment upon others…. While the torture and murder of heretics and "witches" is now largely a thing of the past, Christians can still be remarkably cruel. One current example is provided by the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. Its members picket the funerals of victims of AIDS and gay bashings, brandishing signs reading, "God Hates Fags," "AIDS Cures Fags," and "Thank God for AIDS."… Christians are also at the forefront of those advocating vicious, life-destroying penalties for those who commit victimless "crimes," as well as being at the forefront of those who support the death penalty and those who want to make prison conditions even more barbaric than they are now. But this should not be surprising coming from Christians, members of a religion that teaches that eternal torture is not only justified, but that the "saved" will enjoy seeing the torture of others.

Here are some of the assertions Mr. Bufe makes:
  • Cruelty is one of the most prominent features of Christianity.
  • Christianity has a bleak view of life.
  • Christianity is preoccupied with sex.
  • Sexual desire is good and should be expressed in whatever manner the individual is inclined to indulge it.
  • Christians who are cruel are cruel because of the teachings of Christianity.
  • Christians want to impose “vicious, life-destroying” penalties for violating moral rules that should never be implemented in the legal code.
  • Christians want to make prison conditions “even more barbaric than they are now.”
  • Christianity teaches eternal torture.
While I will acknowledge that people who call themselves Christians have engaged in cruelty, cruelty is not consistent with the teachings of Christianity. To the extent that people have been cruel, they have been acting in opposition to Christianity. And there is no evidence that Christianity indirectly encourages cruelty without openly advocating it.

While some Christians seem to have a perpetually dour mood, Christianity has a very positive and encouraging view of life.

I wonder who is the one who is obsessed with sex. Does anyone really think that there should be no moral restraints upon sexual desire? What about bestiality? Or pedophilia? The question is not whether we should draw lines but where those lines should be.

I don’t think that there really is such a thing as a victimless crime in the sense that he suggests. Commonly offered examples are prostitution, pornography and drug use. (I am not advocating oppressive laws in these areas.) But these all have real victims. We can argue about how rigidly society should proscribe each of these. But to argue that society has no business regulating these matters is either naïve or dishonest.

I wonder where Mr. Bufe got the idea that Christians want to make prisons more brutal. This desire, if it exists, certainly doesn’t grow out of Christian teaching.

While many Christians do understand “hell” as consisting of eternal torture, it is not the teaching of the Bible. The Bible is clear that God takes no pleasure in the suffering of anyone. Hell is a terrible place, but not because God tortures people there. (Maybe I’ll address this more fully in a future post.)

I’ll pick up with Mr. Bufe’s eighth point in the next post.

Let me know what you think.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Reasons to Reject Christianity?

I ran across this pamphlet by Chaz Bufe called 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity.

I had several general reactions to it.

  • Most of his objections seem to stem from individuals who called themselves Christians and yet who have acted in a manner inconsistent with the teachings of Christ.
  • Many of his objections are based on a misunderstanding of what Christianity really is.
  • Some of his objections are intellectually naïve or dishonest.
  • This appears to be a list of “reasons” developed “after the fact.” In other words, Mr. Bufe, for unstated reasons, rejected Christianity. This list is his attempt to justify his decision.
  • I have no illusion that he would change his mind even if I were able to answer every one of these objections with overwhelming evidence in support of Christianity.
Let me say that I am not dismissing these objections. I think that serious Christians must take them seriously. In fact, I want to address each of them in turn. (I plan to come back to revise and expand these comments later.)

Here is a brief statement about the purpose of Mr. Bufe’s pamphlet:

This pamphlet briefly looks at many of the reasons that Christianity is undesirable from both a personal and a social point of view. All of the matters discussed here have been dealt with elsewhere at greater length, but that’s beside the point: the purpose of 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity is to list the most outstanding misery-producing and socially destructive qualities of Christianity in one place. When considered in toto, they lead to an irresistible conclusion: that Christianity must be abandoned, for the sake of both personal happiness and social progress.
(The text in blue is from Mr. Bufe’s pamphlet. I have used ellipses to show where I have condensed the original.)

1. Christianity is based on fear…. Throughout almost its entire time on Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been—in addition to the fear of death—fear of the devil and fear of hell…. This is not an attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to appeal to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip the flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human nature—fear and cowardice.

This section asserts several different things:

  • Christianity is in essence motivated by fear.
  • Without this pre-scientific, irrational fear of eternal punishment, Christianity collapses.
  • Many Christian organizations and leaders have used and do use fear and guilt to manipulate people.
I can understand why Mr. Bufe might have this misconception about Christianity. But it simply is not true that it is based on fear. Yes, many leaders and institutions have used fear to manipulate people. This happened frequently in the Middle Ages. But that is not the essence of Christianity. Christianity is about redemption, reconciliation and authentic life. It is about love. Christians are too often guilty of reducing the Gospel to eternal fire insurance.

Jesus did not come to rescue us from eternal torture. He came so that we could enjoy truly human life, a life will not end even at death (John 10:10). In fact, love drives out fear (1 John 4:18).

2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians routinely terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless horrors and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian lives…. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of children ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this day.

I suspect that Mr. Bufe had some rather unpleasant experiences as a child. I’m sure that some Christian leaders have used some heavy-handed approaches with children. But there is no evidence that this is widespread.

There also seems to be an implication that children should not be troubled with religion until they are older. All children have a religion, whether they realize it or not.

The argument presented here goes something like this:

  • Christianity is false with no correspondence to reality.
  • Its foundation is fear and guilt.
  • It is abusive to trouble children with these issues.
Do we trouble children with environmental issues? Are not some of these issues framed almost entirely in terms of fear? It seems to me that the real issue here is whether Christianity is true. If it is true, it would be abusive not to tell children about it.

3. Christianity is based on dishonesty. The Christian appeal to fear, to cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian beliefs is far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth was immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians—including those who wrote the Gospels—would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic of using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief." ("Lip service" is a more accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) in place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic dishonesty of Christianity.
How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the most popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This "wager" holds that it’s safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were volitional!) than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will save "believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an appeal to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one wonders how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to this particularly craven "wager."

This contains so many assertions and assumptions that I need to list them in order:

  • The evidence supporting Christianity is far from compelling.
  • The Christian appeal is based upon fear and cowardice.
  • If Christianity were true then the evidence would be “immediately apparent to anyone who considered it.”
  • Pascal’s wager is representative of the arguments for Christianity.
  • Pascal’s wager is an appeal to “cowardice.”
  • Nothing is more important than “intellectual integrity.”
The idea that Christianity should be “obviously true” if it is true at all is a naïve view of faith. Everyone has faith in things he or she cannot prove—things that are not obviously true. Faith is inescapable. The question is not whether one will have faith. The question is what that faith will be placed in.

Pascal’s wager is not representative of the kind of calculation that one makes in coming to Christian faith. It is primarily a statement made for the benefit of those who do not believe to demonstrate the “reasonableness” of the choice to believe in Christ. Its utility is not in convincing anyone. Whatever utility it has is only to frame the issue in a different way.

Einstein did not accept quantum physics. He maintained his intellectual integrity to the end. But that has absolutely no impact on the truth of quantum physics. It is either true or false. And it appears to be true as far as we understand it. We use it today in many technologies.

I would also suggest that there is indeed a volitional element to faith. One cannot just believe whatever one chooses. But reason only takes us so far. Beyond that we must choose what we will place our ultimate trust in.

(I’ll pick up with number four in the next post.)

So what do you think?

I would also like to hear from some who agree with Mr. Bufe. Do you take issue with my characterization of his argument? Do you want to reply to any of my answers to his objections?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Growing Community

Craig Dykstra has suggested 13 ways that the church cultivates community.

These “ecclesiastical practices” shape the nature and form of the communities of Christians that we call congregations. This is a much more complex enterprise than we generally realize.

Our lack of clarity about this creates several problems. One is that we are not as effective in cultivating community as we should be. Another is that we are building certain characteristics into our congregations that we are not aware of, characteristics that might be in conflict with the truth we believe.

Healthy Christian community does not just happen. We need to understand how this process works and how we can cooperate with the Holy Spirit in building true
koinonia.

To that end, I have paraphrased, reordered and grouped these 13 “ecclesiastical practices” into the following categories.

(This list comes from Dykstra’s book
Growing in the Life of Christian Faith, as quoted in Cultivating Missional Communities by Inagrace Dietterich.)

Commonly recognized practices
These are the practices nearly all Christians recognize and employ to “be the church.”
Worshipping God together: Worship is the primary way that most congregations shape their communities. This includes hearing the preaching of the Word and receiving the sacraments.

Praying: This includes both public and private prayer.

Commonly recognized but narrowly implemented practices
These are the practices most Christians engage in but often in a limited manner.
Interpreting the Scriptures together: This is usually a practice reserved for the clergy. But this should include more than woodenly applying the historical-grammatical method. The Scriptures must be understood in our present context.

Telling the Christian story to one another: This is usually done as preparation for evangelism or as evangelism itself. As Christians, we would do well to follow the example of the Jews who retell the stories of their past. It is the stories that shape their identities and values. We are the ones who need to hear these stories.

Carrying out specific faithful acts of service and witness together: When this is done, it is usually done as a chore or obligation. It is either performed with ulterior motives (as a pretext for evangelism) or with distance and arrogance. We should understand service as integral to “being the Church.”

Practices that either supplant the Gospel or are avoided for fear that they will supplant the Gospel
These are primarily done by “liberal” Christians who reduce the Gospel to social action. They are often avoided by “conservative” Christians because they seem insignificant compared to the “spiritual” matters.
Opposing the “powers”: This often takes the form of social action. It means standing against people and organizations that damage human life, that disrupt human community or that harm God’s creation.

Social justice: This is the positive aspect. It means working together to establish and maintain social structures which will sustain life in the world in ways that are in accord with God’s will.

Practices that rarely happen at the congregational level
When these activities take place, it is usually in the context of a small group. They seem too threatening for most Westerners.
Confession: This was a significant part of John Wesley’s weekly class meetings. It is not some legalistic ritual performed out of fear of condemnation. It is rather an expression of deep community. We confess our sins to one another and forgive those who have wronged us. The goal is not so much a “clean slate” before God as it is reconciliation with one another as well as God.

Hospitality: This is much more than having potluck dinners, as valuable as they are. We must not only extend hospitality to our friends but also to the stranger.

Dialogue: We must listen carefully to one another as they tell us their stories, not just wait for a break to jump in with our own story.

Solidarity: We are called to suffer with and for each other (and for all who are our neighbors according to Jesus’ definition).

Practices that are so rare as to be statistically nonexistent in the Church
These practices were common in the early Church but are virtually extinct nowadays.
Acceptance: This is practiced better in Alcoholics Anonymous than in the church. We need to see each other with God’s eyes as valuable right now, even with all our flaws. Then we can encourage and challenge each other as we pursue our own vocations. This requires deep knowledge of one another.

Awareness: This means understanding the context in which we live as well as the “timeless truth” of the Gospel. We must struggle together to become aware of that context and to understand how the Gospel of Jesus Christ takes shape in that context.

So what do you think?

Do you find this list helpful? Do you agree with my categories? Would you organize them differently? Did Dykstra leave anything out? Would you exclude anything from his list?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”