Good Sin / Bad Sin

I had to take a break from reading Freud – he was driving me crazy! (ha?) So I decided to turn to the easy read of Michel Foucault, specifically Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. I’m only two chapters into it so far so I can’t really offer a full response/reaction to Foucault’s work, but so far I am enjoying the book and I don’t think I’m crazy (I’ll have to go back to Freud to see if that is the case).

While reading Foucault’s work I am keeping in the back of my mind the notion of sin in Christianity and how the way sin has been and continues to be used in areas of discipline and punishment. I am curious to see if there are points of correlation or similarity between the discipline and punishment that Foucault outlines and practices of Christianity. I haven’t done any digging to see if anyone else has considered such an approach to sin, mostly because I don’t want to add more things to my reading list right and because I am lazy.

Such an approach to sin is important because Christians and churches have a wonderful history of manipulation and shame around theological terms and ideas. The Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter is one of the many works of literature that look at shame in a faith-based society and there are a bevy of others (the 2009 German film The White Ribbon [Das Weisse Band] is another great example). Sin is a construct that has been used and continues to be used to control people, to silence people, to overpower people, and to take away people’s freedom. Various notions of sin continue to be used to demean, dehumanize, and destroy individuals. This is not good… maybe even sinful.

There are those who have excised the word (and notion?) “sin” from their general lexicon. Maybe you attend a softer, gentler church that offers a softer, gentler Christianity and would say that such practices around notions of sin are not a part of your faith experience. Perhaps. Maybe you go to a church/faith community where the notion of sin is never brought up. In your community it may be a sin to talk about sin or to even mention the word “sin.” So the whole question of how sin works in your faith community is moot, right? We don’t need to worry bout that idea and word any more.

Yet I bet ideas of shame and guilt and doing “bad things” are a part of your community. I bet your community comes out of a history that at one time or another did practice naming and dealing with notions of sin in a very public way and those practices may still be a part of who you are. I bet there are people in your softer, gentler community who struggle with shame and guilt and cannot discern where God and Jesus might fit in that picture. I would argue that the construct and concept of sin, whatever that may be, is still a part of your community even if you are tying to hide or ignore it. It is under the rug, but still very much present.

I think we need to keep the notion of “sin” and even the word “sin,” alive in our language, devotion, and practice (that’s right, we need to sin… or maybe I’m talking about acts of penance and cries for forgiveness that come out of an understanding of sin). There are times when we do sin (again, whatever that means). There are times when we fail as individuals or as a community or as a society. There are times when we need to name what we have done as a sin. We may say that we messed up, or that we didn’t do what we hoped to do, but will we say that our actions negatively effected our relationship with God as well as our relationships with others? Are we willing to say that we have sinned?

I think it is important to have a grasp of the word and concept of sin. I think it is important to be able to name brokenness, but we need to do it in a way that does not break or dehumanize the individual. If we are to continue to address sin in the lives of individuals as well as the actions of institutions we need to do it in a way that is humane and compassionate. Churches are human institutions and are prone to sin just as much as any other institution or human. So we need to be vigilant that our churches do not bully and beat people with manipulated ideas of perfection and piety all cloaked around the notion of sin.

If Foucault can’t help me with this, then who can?

I Don't Play Well With Others

                      I have tried to avoid interfaith work. I have tried to avoid interfaith worship services, dialogues, and get-togethers. Yet for some reason I find myself again and again mired in one interfaith endeavor or another no matter how hard I try to hide (I was a regional hide-and-seek champion). For all of my liberal, progressive, and non-Christian friends please realize that it is not you, it is me. Don’t be offended. At least don’t be offended over my reluctance to engage in interfaith work. Here is a list of some of the reasons that I shudder at the notion of interfaith work:

1.    It is difficult enough to work with other Christians.

There are a bevy of Christians of diverse stripes and identities (Baptists alone are growing new spores Baptist typologies every day) and we do not all get along. Trying to get evangelicals and progressives and charismatics to all gather in the same room and have a civil conversation is no small thing. If we cannot have an internal conversation, then how on earth are we (the Christians) supposed to have a broader conversation? Which type of Christians are doing the talking and to what end. Even the purpose of interfaith work is up for grabs as some would argue that it should be towards conversion and others would argue that it is towards understanding and some (the kooky ones) would claim that it is towards a one-faith kind of synthesis of religion. Each Christian will have their own idea as to what the purpose and point of such conversations might be making the conversation difficult. I imagine it is similar for other faith traditions as well.

2.    Trying to get people to commit to one faith and saying at the same time that all faiths are good is annoying

The idea of faith and commitment is waning in our culture. People are not committing to a dedicated, hard-core following of Christ, much less one of commitment to a particular church (I cannot speak to the levels of commitment in other religious traditions, they may be doing fine). If I could just preach a strong message of condemnation, telling people that if they do not commit 100% to Christ then they are going to hell, then I might get some traction. But that is not my style. And while I believe faith in Christ calls for a desire for 100%, I do not believe in the punitive nature of God in connection to commitment. I just took a day off which is not something someone who is committed 100% will do. So when I talk to people about faith and Christ I can encourage and push and cajole, but I cannot put an ultimatum on the table. Somehow I have to convince people that following Christ and being a part of a community (which is an essential part of following Christ) is very important for their life without stressing the hell part.

So add to that nebulous mess other faiths. When someone says, “well, I’ve been reading a lot about ‘x’ and have been thinking about trying that out,” what can I say? I can’t say, “follow that path and you will burn in ponds and puddles of sulfur!” (there is a sulfur shortage in hell right now so no more lakes) because I don’t believe it. There is good and value in many different faith traditions and they may work for other people. So all I can do is smile and say, “good for you, stay with it. Hooray.”

So I have a weak sell with many other faith traditions around me in a society that is not really excited about the idea of committing to any particular religious traditions. Fun.

3.    Mushy theology

Here is where the progressive/liberal types drive me nuts (full disclosure: I come out of a progressive/liberal context and find a home within such a community around many issues – and this is where you all should be offended). This is when people say things like: God is bigger than one religion or one faith. Sure, that could be the case, but then how can we offer any truth statements? How can we say anything about anything if we keep falling back to the “that which cannot be spoken of” response?

Or that we should just look to the similarities between different faith traditions and celebrate those. This approach reduces God to the filled out portion of a Venn diagram and takes away those things that makes one faith different from the others. Again, what about contrasting truth statements? Are we to throw those out?

This theology is mushy because it works hard to avoid all of the distinctions and differences. It looks to avoid variety, the spice of life, and life without spice is boring, mushy, and blah.

4.    I might be wrong

This is something that no one wants to admit but is a very real possibility. If two faith traditions have competing truth claims then one of them might be wrong. Note, I didn’t say it has to be wrong because I’m post-modern and have moved beyond the necessity of only one truth claim existing at a time. See, I can be open-minded when I have to be. Yet we need to take seriously the challenge of opposing truth claims and how to wrestle with such things. One of us might be wrong.

This could mean that maybe Jesus is not God incarnate. Or maybe reality is what it is and not the extension of the imagination of a divine being. Or maybe the Koran is not the word of God. Now we are cutting to the quick and making people uncomfortable. Yet I think this is a very real part of interfaith dialogue that needs to be addressed. Someone might be wrong. I don’t see people excited to embrace such a stance. We would rather respect each other’s difference than actually suggest that someone is crazy and needs to reconsider his or her entire system of belief. We are too nice.

All this said does not mean I am a crank who will not do any interfaith work. Some of my best friends are people of other faiths! I think dialogue is important as well as gaining an understanding of the other. I think it is important to work with other people for the good of society. Just please do not ask me to hug someone, hold their hand, and sing, “let there be peace on earth,” to some amorphous, vapid understanding of a deity. Ugh.

On Hoarding and Including

I have a problem. It is not a debilitating problem, but it is one that does impact my life. I feel I have to read all of my subscriptions. All of the journals/magazines that I get I need to read. Cover to cover. This means I have issues of Harpers that are more than a year old, I have American Academy of Religion Journals from over two years ago, and my stack of Christian Century’s are piling higher and higher. Like I said, it is not a debilitating problem but one that may make a very interesting issue of “Hoarders": 

Host Psychologist - Jonathan, do you really need this 2004 copy of The Atlantic?

Jonathan - Yes! I’m going to read it! I’m going to get to it! Leave it there in that pile!

HP - What about this American Baptist Quarterly from 1997?

J - There is a very important article about different Baptists in upstate New York and how they were instrumental in starting churches in Utica and Westmoreland. It is very important that I read that article. It will make me a better pastor. Why can’t any of you understand this, it makes me a better pastor to read these things!

(I catch someone taking out a stack of Journals)

Hey! Put that down. Get the f**k away from my journals! I didn’t agree to this! I don’t need this!

(in the corner of the house my wife and children are crying – I look at the camera, swear out-loud, and storm away)

That will be an Emmy-winning episode. I’m calling the producers right away.

The periodicals pile up and I will not throw the old ones out until I read them cover-to-cover. See, I have a problem. Pray for me.

While reading a Christian Century from July, 2013 (not too old) I noticed two articles about the Southern Baptists Convention (SBC). One states that the SBC decided to agree to disagree over Calvinism (big sigh of relief) and the other notes the dropping membership and baptisms in the SBC in the last couple of years. I don’t normally comment on other people’s homes. It is not really my place to critique the Methodists, Lutherans, or Presbyterians (but given the opportunity I will), so on the one hand it may not be my place to comment on the house of the Southern Baptists. Yet they are cousins of a sort so I feel I can make some statements about such articles. In the article about membership drop is the following statement:

“Ed Stetzer, head of LifeWay Research, has suggested that the “Conservative resurgence” (in the 1980s and ‘90s), while affirming the convention’s commitment to the Bible’s truthfulness failed in the area evangelism.”

Probably because in the 1980s and ‘90s the SBC and other conservative evangelicals were busy drawing lines in the sand and making it clear who was welcome and who was not welcome. Other groups (the American Baptists included) were trying to figure out if they were going to let women preach and if they were going to accept gay men and women (or if they were going to fellowship with churches that accepted gay men and women). There were arguments, debates, and fights over hospitality and grace. In the SBC there were not arguments about grace and hospitality but instead sin and exclusion. So it is no wonder that Calvinism rears its head in the SBC.

Calvinism, as it is being experienced in this context, is primarily referring to the notion of predestination. In other words, some people are predestined for salvation and others are not. If you live a sinful lifestyle then it is very likely that you are not predestined for an eternity of bliss with God and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn’t that a happy, cheerful theology?

With Calvinism the perfect people end up being the chosen people who are predestined for salvation. There is not a lot of room for hospitality and grace when slogging through the mire of such theology. The SBC has spent a number of years drawing lines, throwing people out, making sure they are only made up of pretty, perfect Christians, that such an notion of salvation and exclusion was bound to emerge. Now there is tension because the Calvinists do not advocate evangelism (because if it is God’s plan for someone to be saved than that person will be saved so we should not get in the way and bring people to faith only to find that they will not be a part of God’s divine elect), and yet the numbers are decreasing.

SBC folks may look at other denominations (American Baptists included) and note the mess that they have had over homosexuality (it was not pretty) and women in leadership positions in the church and how there still is a very alive tension around such issues and say that they are better for simply taking an exclusionary stand. That may be the case, but I rather be in a messy house that strives to let others in and looks to live in the tension of a broad grace and welcoming hospitality than one that is pristine, organized, and stale. I believe grace flows in ways that we cannot know or understand and it is job of churches to help people experience that grace any way that they can. And while we sit in the mess of a house that tries to bring in all of God’s children I have some journals that people can read.

What I Meant to Say Was...

Summer’s over, rest time is over, and it is back to being super-productive, over-productive, and offering slightly better than average thoughts.

First, let me fill you in on the rest of my North-SouthTrail adventure. I stopped after day 4 (with one day left). It was the pavement. The pavement walking with the backpack was taking such a toll on my feet that it was painful to walk and was not worth it. So in Richmond, RI I made the phone call and left the trail. I am a bit disappointed that I did not complete the hike but even more disappointed with the trail itself. As far as time for reflection and listening to God while on my adventure, not much happened because on the pavement it was difficult to reflect and listen. My feet hurt far too much to be in a place of spiritual openness. So boo to the NST!

While on the trail I started to read Sigmund Freud’s Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. There are two primary reasons that I decided to delve into such a work. One is to read Freud as a writer. His writing is clear, precise, and easy to follow. This is not the norm for academic writing so it is good to read. Maybe I’ll pick up on something. The other reason is to consider not so much the findings and ideas of Freud, but the methodology and philosophy that Freud embraced and practiced. He was someone who observed human behavior in a hyper-critical way, asking “why,” and, “how.”

(The third, unspoken reason that I am reading Freud is because I have serious mother/father issues which I am refusing to acknowledge and thus I am being led, subconsciously, to read the teachings of one of the great psychologists.)

Back to his methodology. His first lectures are about parapraxes, which are the verbal (or written) slips of the tongue. It is when you say something but you meant to say something else. Today we may refer to this as “Freudian slips,” which Freud would find revolting. Freud notes that such a subject has been little examined because these moments are widespread and shared “healthy” people in general and thus in the eyes of many is not something that needs to be considered or analyzed. Everybody does it and therefore it is nothing that needs to be worried about. Yet Freud is pointing out that because it is widespread and seen to be the norm for “everybody,” that merits examination and consideration.

This is what I find interesting – because everybody is doing it, because it is the norm, we should look at it even more closely.

Consider this with religious speech. There are phrases that are often used without any further thought and are seen as harmless and benign. There are the phrases that are low-hanging-fruit referencing things like God’s plan especially in times of difficulty. I know I have railed about the poor theology that is implicit in such statements. Consider the even more common phrases like:

Oh My God!

My Goodness!

Good Lord!

And the list goes on. These are interjections of excitement and amazement that occur in the regular hustle and bustle of life and yet they specifically invoke the divine. I am sure a lengthy study could be done to consider the hidden meanings and societal subconscious implications found in such phrases but I am not going to do one here. For now I will consider the question: do people really want to bring God into the moments of excitement? Are they so religious that the first thing that comes to mind when encountering something amazing (or unexpected) is to remind oneself how wonderful it is that God is a part of their life?

Or

Are people looking to God for comfort and security when facing something in life that they are not prepared for or willing to embrace? Do people willing invoke God’s presence when they are at their wit’s end and are ready to scream?

Or

Have such phrases become normal parlance in our common language and have lost deeper meaning and connections with God?

Even if it is the case that such phrases are so commonly used that they no longer have any religious import, I would argue that this is only on the surface. Perhaps there is a longing for some kind of deeper connection. Perhaps there is a yearning for some kind of relationship with the divine especially in those moments of exasperation, amazement, and wonder. It becomes a question of theological anthropology – are humans wired to want to have a connection with God? If so then the language betrays any secular or non-believing claim.

Or

Is our society so ingrained with religious parlance because of the role of the church in Western culture that we have a communal yearning for a connection with something greater than?

Either way, I am going to try to pause and take note of those times when I am led to exclaim the excitement that I am feeling through the name of God or when others do the same.

Maybe we are all very, very religious people. Maybe.

(probably not)