Super-Freak Christians!

I have been struggling with my identity as a Christian. Not so much if I am a Christian (I think I am, I think I am, I think I am…), but more what kind of Christian I am. Here are some options that are before me:

Progressive Christian

Liberal Christian

Conservative Christian

Fundamentalist Christian

Bible Believing Christian

Evangelical Christian

Progressive Evangelical Christian

Emerging Progressive Evangelical Christian

Orthodox Christians

Neo-Orthodox Christians

Annoying Christians

Shouting, Annoying Christians

Etc…

As you can see there are a lot of options before me. The struggle is that I don’t feel like fully I identify with any of these labels. I come out of a progressive background but I have eschewed much of that tradition (but not all so don’t freak out). I am part of a traditionally evangelical movement, but I’m not welcome in many of those circles unless I do not mention certain things (guess what those things might be). The emergent folks make me feel squeamish, self-conscious, and a little to gimmicky. Plus I never like a worship service where you might be asked to take off your shoes and worship in your socks or barefoot .

Fellow theologian (although he is a professional!) and friend Scott Paeth posted this comment on the Facebook recently

So my question is: If I no longer feel at home among "normal" mainline Christians, and I can't take self-identified evangelicals, where's the church for the freaks?

For me Scott hit the nail on the head – where is the church for the freaks?

I have recently been listening to some HomebrewedChristianity podcasts which are ok and which also have piqued my thoughts and struggles on the topic of identity. They offer a podcast that claims to be for progressive Christians but overall something seems to be amiss. It may be the flagrant use (and misuse) of culture. For example, I heard that there will be a show about how pirates can offer us a good example of discipleship because they were working class folks rising up against the rich. Maybe, but they were also robbers, murderers, and overall troublemakers. This is an example of letting culture guide one’s theology to one’s determent. Or it is because there is such an effort to shock people with ideas that really aren’t very shocking, or to critique tried and true tropes of mainline Christianity which seem to be tired. Honestly I can’t say just what it is, but something jars me.

It feels like sloppy theology.

I think this is what bothers me; sloppy theology. I guess that is why I have taken the name “theosnob” for this blog. My experience of progressive Christians is that the theology is based primarily on experience, on making sure no one’s feelings are hurt, and thus the theology is sloppy. On the other hand, I can’t find a place to belong with the conservative’s theology – it may not be sloppy, it is just wrong (can I say that? Sure, it is my blog after all). So I’m with Dr. Scott looking for the freaks – the people who believe the gospel is for everyone, who believe that God’s love is for everyone, and at the same time want to be sure to have a well thought out, consistent theology that does not sacrifice core understandings of Christianity for the sake of inclusivity (for example holding to the ideas that means all roads do not lead to the same God, that all religions are not basically the same, and that the Trinity is an important, basic part of Christian faith and doctrine).

Something like this may emerge in different ways – these are our freak flags. Many like to embrace the high-church traditions and rituals. I don’t think we have to become a church that gets all prettied up with liturgical garb unless that is your freak flag. Mine is an evangelical language with a broader, non-atonement focused theology than one might normally find in an evangelical church. That is my freak flag so far. I am calling all other freak Christians to speak out, to say who they are without apology and to be articulate and clear without holding back.

Its time to let our freak flags fly!

With Those Prices He Must Be Insane!

I'm contemplating a different kind of evangelism than what I am doing now. Let me explain my brilliant, aggressive evangelism that I am currently involved with. I sit and work at coffee shops, I don't tell people that I am a pastor unless they ask, and then I don't push any ideas or extend any kind of invitation. If someone actually wants to ask me a question I answer but don't engage for further conversation. This is good, solid New England evangelism that produces maybe 1 person a year to the church (with a margin of error of 3). 

I have been contemplating a different kind of evangelism because I don't think what I am doing is working. Sure, a lot of people know who I am, but I don't know if folks feel comfortable approaching me with "religious stuff."

I saw an article on Facebook a couple of weeks ago about some Episcopalians who stand in front of their church and offer to pray with people on the street. Sorry, I don't have the link, so take my word for it.

Here is what I am thinking. Putting up a sign that says:

Free Prayers - Written or Spoken

My hope is folks will be interested in such a sign and might ask a question or engage in some way or another. On the other hand, I may end up in a conversation with a crazy, conservative, fundamentalist nut. Or, people may see me as a crazy, conservative, fundamentalist nut. This would not be good.

Christianity is supposed to have a presence in the world; in part that is why the buildings look different than the rest of "normal" architecture. This does not mean I should go around with my arms over my head pretending to be a steeple. Instead, there is something about engaging the world and at the same time holding onto your identity as odd as that may look.

I am very much in the world, but I don't know if I am interjecting into the world in a way that lets people know who I am. Plus, who wouldn't want a free prayer?

So those of you in Rhode Island, keep an eye out for someone who might be offering free prayers - I wonder if this would reduce worship attendance if people did not have to attend church to receive prayers?

I Like Everybody (As Long as They are Just Like Me)

This morning I woke up with a strong sense of determination to write a post for my blog. Yet I did not know what to write. Everything I'm reading is a little too esoteric (meaning I can't understand what I am reading), and I haven't seen enough to grab my attention. Luckily I came across the following article on the NPR website:

Fears About Shariah Law Take Hold in Tennessee

Wow! It is like an answer to my prayers, if I ever really found myself praying to God for a blog post inspiration  There are so many things to say about this story.

First, the dentist and anti-Shariah law activist Lee Douglas points to a Muslim woman being hired by the governor as evidence of an "infiltration" of Islam into the Tennessee government. Douglas claims that Islam is directly opposed to his faith (which I am assuming is Christian). Here is the kicker quote from Douglas:

"I don't want anybody to persecute any religion including Islam, but we have a duty as Americans to understand that they intend to take us over and compel us to become Islamic."

Douglas claims that, "government is showing a deference and is accommodating one single religion - Islam, Shariah." According to the NPR article, Douglas continued to say that deference should be shown to the religion of the country's Founding Fathers.

Wow. And again I say, Wow. There are so many things to say about just this one person's thoughts and ideas. First, I would never want him to be my dentist. Not because he is Christian or conservative, but mostly because he is an idiot.

Let's start with the constitution and the idea of deference. Just in case you weren't aware the First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" (for the full text see the following link)

I may be missing something, but I don't see anything in there about showing "deference" to any religion. The point of the clause is that the government will not favor one religion over another. Thus the government should not be showing deference to the "religion of the country's Founding Fathers." For this post I'm not going to get into the question of the what the Founding Fathers faith might be considering the diversity of the religious backgrounds of the Founding Fathers (Quaker, Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Diest, Methodist, etc., along with a strong backing of a Jewish congregation). 

Second, allowing someone to build a place of worship is not showing deference to that group.

Third is the gem of the quote that Douglass made, "I don't want anybody to persecute any religions…" and at the same time criticize the governor just because he hired a Muslim woman. So Douglass is ok with Muslims as long as they do not have a place to worship and they are not allowed to hold any government jobs. Seems rational, right?

Douglas also believe that Islam is "diametrically opposed to his faith." Islam, a Monotheistic faith finding its roots in the Hebrew scriptures, specifically Abraham is diametrically opposed to Christianity, a monotheistic faith finding its roots in the Hebrew scriptures, including Abraham.

Maybe Douglas doesn't understanding the meaning of words like "diametrically opposed," and "persecution."

One other reflection from the article. Further on in the article we read how Rep. Diane Black was pressured to show her toughness against Shariah law. She states:

"I understand the devastation that Shariah law could mean here in our country, and I'm a sponsor of a bill that will once again say that the United States Constitution is our law and that it is the supreme law." It is that phrase, "supreme law," that bothers me.

If you are not a religious person, then such a phrase should not cause any problems, but if you are a believer of some kind and practice with some kind of tradition then you should be a worried about such a statement. The phrase "supreme law" suggests that it is above any and all other laws. This means it is above any religious laws including scripture. If you are really a Christian, and I wonder if these people who make such claims really are, then you would want at least the two great commandments to be the "supreme law"

Love the Lord you God with all your heart, mind, and soul

Love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:29-31)

Secular, constitutional law is good to have as a law of the land but not the "supreme law." Constitutional law is a law that people of various faith traditions can find agreement, but it is not the "supreme law."

I think I might push for a law that states that all people who push a law against Shariah law be forced to take lessons in grammar, world religions, and vocabulary.

 And they can't be dentists.