Going Back to Church
I accompanied my 98-year-old mother in law to the Sunday Service at St. Stephen's, a "high end" middle-class urban church in Qualicum Beach on Vancouver Island. Dianne, the newly-minted graduate of a Baptist Theology College, expertly designed and conducted the service. She is is an excellent speaker with an intelligent, engaging, sincere manner. In many ways, she's the best that this denomination has to offer. I urge you to listen to her sermon here. If you don't have time for it, please skip this entire blog post since it is a meditation on that sermon. My remarks are irrelevant to anyone who lacks a soft spot in their heart for "old-time religion." Dianne can take the credit for getting me to think about the sermon for days. Definitely a good omen for her career in the pulpit.
When I left the Church in 1980, I resolved to stop using religious language. I felt that "Christianity" could easily just be a private language that was intelligible only to the "in group". Can Dianne's message be re-cast without "God talk"? Eventually, I would arrive at a view almost identical to Dan Dennett's: Christianity is 99% talk.
The first thing to note is that the sermon (and Paul's letter) seems to depend on the idea of "God." Most preachers toss this word around as if everyone knows what that word means (the mark of an "in-group" language). But is this true?
You can certainly say that there is a huge difference within the Christian community as to what "God" is and specifically what "God wants" (Dianne confidently informs the congregation of what she thinks God wants - how does she know?). In Russia (now 90% Christian) and much of the Christian world, God wants homosexuals to be put to death. According to Paul, "God wants" women to keep silent in Church, and Paul himself knew that God wanted the stoning to death of Dianne's Church's namesake: St Stephen. Presumably, Paul was always confident in his ability to figure out what "God wants." He shows no doubt on that score in the passage quoted above.
Among Western intellectuals and (secretly) among the professional clergy, "God" has become a kind of cloudy metaphor signifying nothing in particular. As Dennett points out, this is effectively a kind of agnosticism. Why do so many people say they believe in God? This is a different issue than actual belief. In my year in Seminary, studying for the career path Dianne has chosen, I didn't encounter any instructors who took the idea of God literally or who considered the Bible to be magically endowed with veracity. Only a handful of students did so, and they were quickly cured by the second week. Such beliefs were for the masses. Welcome to the sausage factory.
Many people stay in the pews and push all this to the back of their minds, clinging to the tradition and ritual of the Church. Many pastors do the same since they have invested many years to earn their position are not trained for any other profession. Dan Dennett refers to this as the Concorde Fallacy.
We may also remark that, in this service, the Bible itself is treated as the word of God and afforded a special reverence if its own, effectively ruling out questions such as, Is Paul right in what he says? Ministers in the United Church are not trained to regard the Book as infallible, but they go on to create the impression among the congregation that this is the appropriate attitude. Dianne's training was in a Baptist seminary so she may lean a bit toward a more "fundamentalist" view on this issue. What is easy to see, however, is that professional training makes it virtually impossible to guess what Dianne thinks about the Magic Book.
But does Dianne's message mean anything at all without "God"? Maybe ...
The world is full of suffering, but we can do what we can to reduce it. Sin is any thought, word, deed, occupation or intent that increases the suffering of any entity or reduces the happiness of any entity. In particular, we must take care to guard against thoughts that undermine our own happiness and create suffering for ourselves. The very core and cause of suffering is our own self-deception.
That's a pretty direct definition that lines up well with what we intuitively regard as sin or "evil". It goes a bit beyond to warn us of evil thoughts and intention as well as expanding our area of concern to all creation, not just close relatives or people like us.
You will not find anything this clear in the Bible. Even so, I would claim that this would have been a better definition than the one Dianne used, even when speaking from the Christian pulpit. This is because what she said is an interpretation (or rather a spin on an interpretation of an interpretation). As a "prophet" or ordained teacher, she has the authority to interpret. She should do better. There is nothing stopping her from making the idea of "sin" more clear and relevant to her congregation, especially since it is unlikely that more than a few of them know what, if anything, she means by "what God intends." For that particular group of senior citizens, what God "intends" is very likely a return to the rituals and attitudes of the past. For these folks, God is Judge Judy and Jesus is a lot like Dr. Phil. Sin is what other people do. The kind of self-examination that Paul is doing in the reading will not be taken as a recommendation to do the same, although this may have been Dianne's intent, buried deep in a thicket of misdirection.
Buddha also saw the difficulty in doing the right thing, but his advice was different. Paul doesn't offer a solution - only a vague hope of "salvation" from external forces (Jesus). The theological mechanics of Paul's "salvation" not presented in this sermon and, I suspect, never will be.
Buddha offered the eightfold path as a guideline (not a set of rules).
This is what is so starkly missing in Dianne's sermon: any indication of what to do in response to the teaching.
Having had some small experience with one member of the congregation (my mother-in-law), I suspect that she could surely come up with a "to-do" list of sins that could be banished from her life with a bit of Biblical understanding. She is frequently agitated into a state of fury over things that her relatives did 80 years ago. Dead relatives.
"Judge not lest ye be judged". "... as we forgive others ...". "Love keeps no score of wrongs ..."
On the other hand, there is an essential element of Dianne's sermon: you can let go of the past and accept forgiveness. But I don't read it in quite this fuzzy way. To me, the message of Jesus is to repent and start over. It's an urgent message. Don't wait for New Year's resolutions. There was no hint in Dianne's message that anyone might need to examine themselves as Paul is doing in his letter and change things. It was just a lesson in fuzzy theology. "I'm OK, You're OK".
"Letting go" is a central theme in Buddhism and their understanding of what we need let go of is much more comprehensive. The message is not absent from Jesus' teaching, but Jesus does not seem to give a reason to let go. This is partly because He is (seen as) the ultimate authority in Christianity - you need to just do what He says. Buddha must simply persuade.
Dianne struggles with the metaphor of slavery and doesn't quite come to terms with it. The battle Paul talks about is not unique to Christians. Paul is distressed that he is somehow breaking "the Law" (he doesn't say how). But we are all unable to be the best we know we should be. Buddha agrees that to reach the ultimate spiritual goal, we must contend with human nature. Spiritual growth doesn't come naturally. This is most clearly brought out in the discipline of mindfulness (which borrows a lot from Buddhism). Our minds and our lives are naturally a mess. It takes an effort to get ourselves on the right path.
Strangely, the very title of Dianne's sermon (and Paul's letter) invites us to stop trying and turn it all over to God, whatever that means.
Article VII. Of the Lord Jesus Christ.
As a former insider, I should comment that it is also dangerous to speak as if the doctrine is true! Such behavior invites criticism of the Church's "liberal" credentials and encourages craziness in the congregation. For example, the minister must keep a tight lid on expectations that prayer will do anything and cast a patronizing cloak over any hint of miracles in the lives of the people. I'm not sure why this is done, but I think the core of it is that the professionals are, for all intents and purposes, atheists. To them, any hint of the miraculous seems like mental illness.
Those who have chosen to be Ministers in the United Church are not to be envied.
-----------------
My views on religion in general and Christianity in particular, are extensively documented in this blog. There is no need to repeat them here. In this post, I am asking what to think about other folks who believe what they believe and act the way they act beyond the range of anything I might say. In the one case, there is my 98-year-old mother in law who, due to no fault of her own, is more or less locked in a pattern of thought that she can no longer change. On the other hand, we have a fresh young Theology School graduate who has been trained to speak a language that that expressly encourages evasion and vague ideas. The congregation is expected to find the meaning. I know from experience that it takes many years to overcome this kind of training, made more difficult if you are employed to be the "Magic Christian" seven days a week. Like all big bureaucracies, the liberal church of 2017 is a minefield for employees who speak plainly.
Sam Harris has an interesting comment on how Judaism has also turned away from the "spooky stuff" at 30:40 in this podcast. This applies even to Rabbis who, in Sam's estimation, are for all intents and purposes, atheists.
Romans 7:15-25Amplified Bible (AMP)
15 For I do not understand my own actions [I am baffled and bewildered by them]. I do not practice what I want to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate [and yielding to my human nature, my worldliness—my sinful capacity]. 16 Now if I habitually do what I do not want to do, [that means] I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good (morally excellent). 17 So now [if that is the case, then] it is no longer I who do it [the disobedient thing which I despise], but the sin [nature] which lives in me.18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh [my human nature, my worldliness—my sinful capacity]. For the willingness [to do good] is present in me, but the doing of good is not. 19 For the good that I want to do, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want to do, I am no longer the one doing it [that is, it is not me that acts], but the sin [nature] which lives in me.
21 So I find it to be the law [of my inner self], that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully delight in the law of God in my inner self [with my new nature], 23 but I see a different law and rule of action in the members of my body [in its appetites and desires], waging war against the law of my mind and subduing me and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is within my members. 24 Wretched and miserable man that I am! Who will [rescue me and] set me free from this body of death [this corrupt, mortal existence]? 25 Thanks be to God [for my deliverance] through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind serve the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh [my human nature, my worldliness, my sinful capacity—I serve] the law of sin.
When I left the Church in 1980, I resolved to stop using religious language. I felt that "Christianity" could easily just be a private language that was intelligible only to the "in group". Can Dianne's message be re-cast without "God talk"? Eventually, I would arrive at a view almost identical to Dan Dennett's: Christianity is 99% talk.
The first thing to note is that the sermon (and Paul's letter) seems to depend on the idea of "God." Most preachers toss this word around as if everyone knows what that word means (the mark of an "in-group" language). But is this true?
You can certainly say that there is a huge difference within the Christian community as to what "God" is and specifically what "God wants" (Dianne confidently informs the congregation of what she thinks God wants - how does she know?). In Russia (now 90% Christian) and much of the Christian world, God wants homosexuals to be put to death. According to Paul, "God wants" women to keep silent in Church, and Paul himself knew that God wanted the stoning to death of Dianne's Church's namesake: St Stephen. Presumably, Paul was always confident in his ability to figure out what "God wants." He shows no doubt on that score in the passage quoted above.
Dennett explains why people "believe" in God
Many people stay in the pews and push all this to the back of their minds, clinging to the tradition and ritual of the Church. Many pastors do the same since they have invested many years to earn their position are not trained for any other profession. Dan Dennett refers to this as the Concorde Fallacy.
We may also remark that, in this service, the Bible itself is treated as the word of God and afforded a special reverence if its own, effectively ruling out questions such as, Is Paul right in what he says? Ministers in the United Church are not trained to regard the Book as infallible, but they go on to create the impression among the congregation that this is the appropriate attitude. Dianne's training was in a Baptist seminary so she may lean a bit toward a more "fundamentalist" view on this issue. What is easy to see, however, is that professional training makes it virtually impossible to guess what Dianne thinks about the Magic Book.
But does Dianne's message mean anything at all without "God"? Maybe ...
Buddha's Take on the Subject
Let's look at another word she uses: "Sin." I'm afraid her definition is hopelessly vague. Centuries earlier, an ordinary man with no claims to divinity, Siddhartha Gautama (aka the Buddha or the awakened one) boiled it down in terms more easily understood. Forgive me if I paraphrase:The world is full of suffering, but we can do what we can to reduce it. Sin is any thought, word, deed, occupation or intent that increases the suffering of any entity or reduces the happiness of any entity. In particular, we must take care to guard against thoughts that undermine our own happiness and create suffering for ourselves. The very core and cause of suffering is our own self-deception.
That's a pretty direct definition that lines up well with what we intuitively regard as sin or "evil". It goes a bit beyond to warn us of evil thoughts and intention as well as expanding our area of concern to all creation, not just close relatives or people like us.
You will not find anything this clear in the Bible. Even so, I would claim that this would have been a better definition than the one Dianne used, even when speaking from the Christian pulpit. This is because what she said is an interpretation (or rather a spin on an interpretation of an interpretation). As a "prophet" or ordained teacher, she has the authority to interpret. She should do better. There is nothing stopping her from making the idea of "sin" more clear and relevant to her congregation, especially since it is unlikely that more than a few of them know what, if anything, she means by "what God intends." For that particular group of senior citizens, what God "intends" is very likely a return to the rituals and attitudes of the past. For these folks, God is Judge Judy and Jesus is a lot like Dr. Phil. Sin is what other people do. The kind of self-examination that Paul is doing in the reading will not be taken as a recommendation to do the same, although this may have been Dianne's intent, buried deep in a thicket of misdirection.
Buddha also saw the difficulty in doing the right thing, but his advice was different. Paul doesn't offer a solution - only a vague hope of "salvation" from external forces (Jesus). The theological mechanics of Paul's "salvation" not presented in this sermon and, I suspect, never will be.
Buddha offered the eightfold path as a guideline (not a set of rules).
This is what is so starkly missing in Dianne's sermon: any indication of what to do in response to the teaching.
Having had some small experience with one member of the congregation (my mother-in-law), I suspect that she could surely come up with a "to-do" list of sins that could be banished from her life with a bit of Biblical understanding. She is frequently agitated into a state of fury over things that her relatives did 80 years ago. Dead relatives.
"Judge not lest ye be judged". "... as we forgive others ...". "Love keeps no score of wrongs ..."
On the other hand, there is an essential element of Dianne's sermon: you can let go of the past and accept forgiveness. But I don't read it in quite this fuzzy way. To me, the message of Jesus is to repent and start over. It's an urgent message. Don't wait for New Year's resolutions. There was no hint in Dianne's message that anyone might need to examine themselves as Paul is doing in his letter and change things. It was just a lesson in fuzzy theology. "I'm OK, You're OK".
"Letting go" is a central theme in Buddhism and their understanding of what we need let go of is much more comprehensive. The message is not absent from Jesus' teaching, but Jesus does not seem to give a reason to let go. This is partly because He is (seen as) the ultimate authority in Christianity - you need to just do what He says. Buddha must simply persuade.
Dianne struggles with the metaphor of slavery and doesn't quite come to terms with it. The battle Paul talks about is not unique to Christians. Paul is distressed that he is somehow breaking "the Law" (he doesn't say how). But we are all unable to be the best we know we should be. Buddha agrees that to reach the ultimate spiritual goal, we must contend with human nature. Spiritual growth doesn't come naturally. This is most clearly brought out in the discipline of mindfulness (which borrows a lot from Buddhism). Our minds and our lives are naturally a mess. It takes an effort to get ourselves on the right path.
Strangely, the very title of Dianne's sermon (and Paul's letter) invites us to stop trying and turn it all over to God, whatever that means.
Sympathy For The Theology Graduate
I have been in Dianne's shoes. Especially fresh out of the heady world of a seminary with a head full of all that hard-won knowledge of the "faith," it is almost impossible to appreciate the vast gulf that exists between the pulpit and the first row of pews. For many of these ladies (and they are almost all ladies), the ability to listen at all is an effort that increases exponentially with age. The very fact that they have taken the time to show up in church on a Sunday morning confirms that they are morally superior to the rest of humanity. They are confident in their ability to judge what is wrong with the world and use their ability to offer criticism of the "new" chairs and a little girl who "should not" be distracting the tiny congregation from the wise words being delivered by this lovely young preacher up front who is presumably telling us what we already know. The needs of the child must not disturb the slumber of her elders. Pulling out of the parking lot, they can confidently apply the lesson of the day to forgive themselves for perhaps being a tiny bit over-dressed.Article VII of the United Chuch official doctrine
For the record, here is article VII of the United Chuch official doctrine, drafted almost a century ago and still part of the official doctrine of the Church.Article VII. Of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We believe in and confess the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man, who, being the Eternal Son of God, for us men and for our salvation became truly man, being conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, yet without sin. Unto us He has revealed the Father, by His word and Spirit, making known the perfect will of God. For our redemption, He fulfilled all righteousness, offered Himself a perfect sacrifice on the Cross, satisfied Divine justice, and made propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, where He ever intercedes for us. In the hearts of believers He abides forever as the indwelling Christ; above Twenty Articles of Doctrine (1925) The United Church of Canada 2 L’Église Unie du Canada us and over us all He rules; wherefore, unto Him, we render love, obedience, and adoration as our Prophet, Priest, and King.Nowhere in the doctrine is there any claim that the doctrine is optional or metaphorical. The doctrine forms the basis of the Union itself, giving the entire United Church a backbone of smoke. The vast majority of ordained ministers in the United Church do not believe in the literal truth of this statement, yet the statement itself goes to some length to ensure that it is taken literally. In other words, ordination in the Church requires a life of hypocrisy. While the professional priesthood acts as if the doctrine is now somehow optional or subject to interpretation, it is not. For this reason, any minister who speaks frankly about what everyone knows is subject to dismissal for doctrinal reasons.
As a former insider, I should comment that it is also dangerous to speak as if the doctrine is true! Such behavior invites criticism of the Church's "liberal" credentials and encourages craziness in the congregation. For example, the minister must keep a tight lid on expectations that prayer will do anything and cast a patronizing cloak over any hint of miracles in the lives of the people. I'm not sure why this is done, but I think the core of it is that the professionals are, for all intents and purposes, atheists. To them, any hint of the miraculous seems like mental illness.
Those who have chosen to be Ministers in the United Church are not to be envied.
-----------------
My views on religion in general and Christianity in particular, are extensively documented in this blog. There is no need to repeat them here. In this post, I am asking what to think about other folks who believe what they believe and act the way they act beyond the range of anything I might say. In the one case, there is my 98-year-old mother in law who, due to no fault of her own, is more or less locked in a pattern of thought that she can no longer change. On the other hand, we have a fresh young Theology School graduate who has been trained to speak a language that that expressly encourages evasion and vague ideas. The congregation is expected to find the meaning. I know from experience that it takes many years to overcome this kind of training, made more difficult if you are employed to be the "Magic Christian" seven days a week. Like all big bureaucracies, the liberal church of 2017 is a minefield for employees who speak plainly.
Sam Harris has an interesting comment on how Judaism has also turned away from the "spooky stuff" at 30:40 in this podcast. This applies even to Rabbis who, in Sam's estimation, are for all intents and purposes, atheists.
Comments
Post a Comment