Maybe I'm Just Old Fashioned

I have been thinking recently about the idea of sanctity and marriage. Not so much with gender issues but around the role and nature of the person officiating and when it is appropriate to declare a marriage sacred (thus the sanctity of marriage).

            I have officiated a number of marriages for people who are not a part of this church community and I always ask the couple why they want a minister and/or to have their wedding in a church. Invariably it is because of a sense that God is a part of their relationship and they want to acknowledge God’s presence. I cannot promise the presence of God, but when I officiate I am aware that I represent a sense of Christianity, the idea of the church, and an awareness of the activity and presence of God. When God is brought into the ritual we are made aware that there is something deep, something significant and sacramental about the commitment they are making. The bride and groom are claiming the presence and activity of the holy and sacred about their marriage (or they are just trying to please the parents/grandparents). This is an example of a sacred ritual and sanctity in marriage.

            While I cannot judge the intentions of people getting married, when using a Justice of the Peace (JP) I cannot say with certainty that there is an awareness of something holy or sacred happening in that relationship. Instead it seems to me to be more of a legal, contractual agreement between two parties. Maybe I am missing something, but a JP represents the courts and the legal system thus driving my assumptions that the ritual is not sacred but civic. While I would not describe the marriage as invalid or the commitment less than one made in a religious context, I wonder if there is a sense of sanctity in that relationship.

            What I find most egregious are the online ordination services. Places like the Universal Life Church Monastery claim that they want to make ordination available for all who feel called by God. On their website is a short video of Conan O’Brien getting ordained; I think they are missing the satire. What the Universal Life Church offers, in the name of tolerance and equality, is a quick, easy, and shallow way for someone to claim to be a minister for the sake of officiating a wedding. Yet there is no relationship with a spiritual community, no depth towards a sense of calling, and no endorsement by a spiritual/religious community. Putting all of that aside, what does it say when someone gains the electronic ordination for the sake of officiating a marriage ceremony? Can we say that this individual truly brings an awareness of the divine to the ceremony? Does the couple have a sense of sanctity of their relationship when there is no true connection to a church community? Again I cannot judge the intentions of people, but a simple observation of the practices suggest much less then an awareness of the holiness of the relationship (to say nothing of the offensive idea that a five minute ordeal equals the years of training and work of one ordained through a “traditional” church community). I wonder if a marriage officiated by an online minister can be considered sacred.

            I am not saying that all weddings need to occur in a Christian church to be consider holy, or have to have a minister. Nor can I suggest that God’s presence is restricted to marriages run by clergy. What I am suggesting is that it is hard to consider any sense of sanctity in a marriage that occurs void of any faith community. There is nothing wrong with a marriage done with a Justice of the Peace or an online minister. I’m not saying the love shared between the two is any greater or less then others. I only question if we can consider those relationships holy, blessed, or maintaining a sacramental nature. After all, that is what sanctity means, to have a holy, or sacramental nature.

            The term, “sanctity of marriage” has been bandied about recently. Let’s really consider this term and ask if it is a value of our society (common practice would suggest that it is not), and what it means to us as a people of faith. I hope you enjoyed my rant and sorry I did not get into many other aspects of this topic. I’ll let you work on everything else pertaining to marriage; let me know what you think.

RIP Walter Wink

RIP Wink, you no longer have to work to engage the powers, live in the victory of Christ.

He was a true prophet - I'll write more later

Come Back Shane!

A whole bunch of people seemed to be all worked up about gay marriage, marriage rights, homosexuality, and stuff. I should jump on the bandwagon and add my two cents, but why go with the flow? I don’t think it would improve my readership so I won’t make the effort.

Instead I want to talk about the church and church stuff (gasp). Another blogging Baptist and budding scholar wrote an interesting bitin his blog about leaving the church (do I get a prize for alliteration?). He makes a very good and impassioned argument about leaving the church when it is necessary to do so, specifically when one is put down, insulted, hurt, and made to feel worthless. I agree with my friend but in a nuanced way – that’s how I roll.

What gets me is the way he refers to “the church” in a universal kind of way as if it is an experience of everyone. I know he is not making such a claim, but I read the subtext in such a way. It may be because I hear in his comments a kind of hip, po-mo jargon that we need to be beyond the church and into the “new” (or nu) Christianity. Picture the beard adorning person saying:

We don’t do church, we are beyond church, we are beyond religion, we are only about Christ.

So because I “do” church am I not about Christ? Perhaps that isn’t fair, but such is the nature of discourse. You can't control the way I read things (but I can control the way you read things... muwhahahah). I suggest we look at the terms in a different way.

My friend is describing churches that oppress, that discriminate, that tell certain kinds of people that they are not welcome, and that use scripture to bully people, and these churches exist in great number. These are churches that have become so human, so devoid of the spirituality of faith and the presence of the Holy Spirit that it can lead one to a grief. Here is what I suggest: these places aren’t churches any more. These gatherings, worship centers, multipurpose preaching factories, praise producing places of anger, fear, and manipulation have left the church (in a universal sense). So instead of leaving the church, leave those institutions and return to the/a church where Christ can be known and experienced. I guess I like the approach of embrace over rejection.

This isn’t to say that everyone in those fiendish institutions are not Christians, but the nature and ecclesiology of those institutions fall into a place that is so foreign to the Gospel that I would argue that they are no longer churches.

I know my friend would agree that there are many real, authentic churches in the US and the world. I don’t think he would deny that for a minute. I would cede that every church will have its own brokenness, will not be perfect, and will be as Augustine suggested, a mixture of sinners and saints. I’m not even really arguing with him, just doing the snob thing and offering a nuance. If I want to really be dic*ish I would write:

“What you meant to say was…”

How about this for an image:

There is that little boy or girl who grew up in the oppressive communities, or who sees the humanity reality of the brokenness of the church and watches the institution go further and further into the distance, into the horizon. That little boy or girl watches these institutions get farther away and yells with all innocence, “come back church! Church, come back!”

I Was Young and Foolish

Once again there is a bit of a church and state scuttlebutt in Rhode Island. Just when we thought I could relax, drink my coffee milk, and sip my clear Rhode Island chowder, I see that a group in Wisconsin (the Freedom From Religion Foundation) is threatening to sue the city of Woonsocket for a veteran's memorial in front of a fire station that has a cross on it. 

I am a very proud supporter of the separation of church and state. I believe in the freedom of religion and freedom for religion. A public memorial on public grounds should not have overt religious symbols. So I agree with the Freedom From Religion Foundation… if the memorial was built today.

This memorial was constructed in 1921 to remember servicemen killed in France in World War I. That was a different time. I am not saying that it is right, but at the same time there is something to historicity that we need to take seriously. The FFRF is taking a hard core, angry, and almost vindictive approach to the place of religion in America which doesn't help. I think we should remove the phrase "under God" from the pledge and the phrase, "in God we trust" from our money but these are things that are currently being made and used. A memorial is not an active symbol.

Beyond that, our collective understanding of the clause of separation has been changing and will continue to change. Right or wrong, in the 1920's many people assumed that a cross was not an offensive symbol and did not question its placement. Today we are at a different place and believe that a cross can be offensive to many people who are not Christians. We need to be aware and have some charity towards our ancestors for what we consider "antiquated" ideas (like gender exclusivity in writing, racism, and making monuments with crosses).

Our country has had a close tie with Christianity in one way or another. I will not say that we are a Christian nation, far from it, nor are we founded on Christian principles… more enlightenment than anything. Yet the Christian church has been connected with the ebb and flow of the nation from the moment of inception. The crosses and other religious symbols on the monuments of the past are a part of our history. Our history should be offensive at times. It should irk us at times, but we cannot erase any reminder or sign of its existence.

If the FFRF wanted to have a positive approach it could look at the memorial in Woonsocket and use it as a reminder to be sure that such a symbol would not be used today.

Otherwise, leave us alone in Rhode Island. We have enough problems as it is giving people bad directions, weird drinks (cabinets?), and flagrantly misusing our "r"s.

She's my Mother! She's my Sister! (Truth and Fact)

Every now and again someone asks me if the Bible is "true." That is such a tricky question to answer because "true" is such a vague and un-precise term. Calm down all you empiricist realist fanatics. What I mean is if something is not true that doesn't necessarily mean that it is false. Make sense?

Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I can read Greek or Roman mythology and walk away claiming that they are great stories but they aren't true. Thousands of years ago someone else would have heard (or read) these stories and said that they were, without a doubt, true. I could say that we have advanced, that we now know much more than we have in the past and are much smarter than to be duped for such silly stories of gods and humanity. Yet if I say this then I have nothing to stand upon when I claim that now we know better, now we know that there is one God (in three persons), etc., etc. Instead I would probably have to rest in a place believing that one thousand years from now we will look back on the stories of Christianity and claim that they are good stories but we now know that they are not "true."

We have some fun little arguments about truth happening today that I think raise the issue even more. There are some (billions) that believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth at one time. We have found bones, eggs, poop, and many other signs of previous dinosaur existence. There are others who argue that the bones, eggs, and poop were placed here maliciously by Satan to trick us into believing that long ago dinosaurs roamed the earth. What is true? Both and neither. Both are looking at "facts," observable evidence of something, and then deriving at a truth - Satan is a tricky S.O.B., or dinosaurs once walked all over our backyards.

There are those who will accept the idea that dinosaurs did exist, but they lived with "man"in the garden of Eden under good terms. This is a very different "truth" that is trying to bring the "truth" of the creation story of the Bible with the "truth" of the existence of dinosaurs.

There are "facts" and there are "truths." Problems arise when we conflate the two and then demand that we be right.

"The earth was created in six days, it is a fact, it says so in the Bible." - no, that is a truth

"God does not exist, there is no evidence, that is a fact." - no, that is a truth

So is the Bible "true." To me it is (although to what level and what degree and in what way is all up for grabs).

To others, it is not.

To some it is a truth that I am going to hell for suggesting such things.
I'm okay with that.

One, Two, Three, Four, I Declare A...

This is my first post-Easter post. If that is supposed to mean something, I’m not sure what it is.

On Good Friday, while I was minding my own business in a local coffee shop, working on the sermon for Sunday, someone told me about some kind of brewhaha about a mural at a local high school. Apparently some wedding rings were painted over and that action was seen by many as an attack on Christianity. This individual then told me that Christianity is under attack in our fine country, assuming that I already knew this vital bit of information. I was as non-committal in my response as I usually try to be.

On the way out I asked the individual where he or she would be going for Easter worship. This person told me, “Oh, I don’t go to church. I think it is more important to believe than it is to follow rules.”

Whaaaa!

First, I do not think there is a well-organized war against Christianity in our country. We do see examples of people over-reacting and examples of people being insensitive, but there is not an orchestrated push to eradicate Christianity from every mind and heart of Jesus lovin’ folks in our nation. What we do see is an exaggerated interpretation of events forced to fit a certain narrative that suggests that Christianity is under attack.

Second, I would argue that Christianity is at risk in our country (and in the world). It is not from some nefarious group plotting and planning to take churches down one by one, but is due to those who claim to be Christians. When someone gets up in arms about the “war against Christianity,” but does not even attend church on a regular basis, then something is wrong. I’m not suggesting that church attendance makes one a good Christian, but it does give some credence to one’s desire and sincerity to be a Christian. We need a community to pray with us, to hold us accountable, and to walk with us in our faith.

I did not ask this individual which version of the Gospel he or she would be turning to for the resurrection story; I did not want to assume that there would be regular Bible reading by this individual. I did not ask this individual about his or her prayer life, again I did not think it would bear much fruit.

Christianity is plagued by a lot of half-a**ed Christians and that is what is bringing churches down. I know I will catch some flack for this – some may think I am suggesting that there is a certain level of expectation one should have of oneself to be a “good” Christian. What I am suggesting is that people should have the desire and to act on that desire to be a “good” Christian. We are all in different places. We all live out our faith in different ways. The desire pushes us to avoid complacency with our faith, and to think that it is ok to sit on our duff, and say that we are good Christians.

Lay off the war on Christianity stuff, especially all you who don’t even practice Christianity (note, “practice” is an active word). Don’t get pious and judge people’s actions, but rather encourage their desire. For in our desire there is much fruit for our faith.

Now I’m going to declare war on those who declare that there is a war on Christianity. Ha!

Temperance and Truth

I received some very interesting information in the mail yesterday from the Women's Temperance Union. That's right, the Women's Temperance Union, the very group that your great-grandmother or your spinster great aunt belonged to fueling the fire for her anti-drinking, righteous, attitude.

Fun group that I thought was long gone. Well as it turns out the group is still alive and kinda active. They have great material for a church group of 1958, so they are a little behind the times.

One particular pamphlet listed the 22 national benefits of Prohibition as compiled by E. Deets Pickett (Associate Editor, American Prohibition Yearbook). Here are some - the italics are my comments:

1. Wife beating and lack of family support decreased 82% - doubtful

2. Drunkenness was down 55.3% - maybe in churches

3. Assault was down 53.1% - was this before the St. Valentines Day Massacre?

4. Vagrancy decreased 52.85% - really?

5. Disorderly conduct decreased 51.5% - how do you measure that?

6. Many correctional institutions were closed - how many, what is the percentage?

7. Crime throughout the nation, excluding Chicago, was down 38% - guess you didn't check out Rhode Island, Boston, Philadelphia, New York, etc., etc.

8. Crime in Chicago was DOWN 25% - did you not read the above fact?

9. Families were better clothed - have you seen the outfits people wore back then?

10. Attendance at church and school improved. - Probably because they wanted the wine from the Lord's Supper

and on and on

I'm not trying to mock the idea of temperance. There are people who struggle with alcoholism and there are families who suffer because of its abuse. What irks me is this flagrant throwing around of numbers and playing them off as facts. Percentages are given, lists are made, and we are then supposed to accept them as irrefutable facts. Deets was someone who wrote during the push for Prohibition and afterwards, so he is not a neutral party. His numbers are biased (if they are based in reality).

This continues today. So many are vying for "truth" and do it with concocted facts. One of the "facts" that I love is when Christians say the crucification and resurrected must have happened because it is in the Bible and the Bible is true. That's a fact.

Wait, what?

There is a difference between truths and facts. 

Truths are statements of meaning, convictions that speak to values and ideals shared by a community.

Facts are supposed to be things that are observable and empirical.

Truths can vary, but what about facts?

What I have noticed is that facts have adopted a functionality of convenience. We believe what we want to believe and discount what we want to discount.

Then what happens to truth? If facts become subjective then truth becomes so relative to each community that any shared discourse seems unattainable.

I need a drink.

"Knock, Knock"

The other week I took our baptism class to a Mosque for a visit. I am secretly trying to convince the kids that they should become Muslim instead of Christian – as it is we already have too many Christians. Kidding. We went because I wanted to kids to have the exposure to other faith traditions and to compare and contrast different views of God.

I was thrilled that the people at the Mosque were willing to host us, talk with us, and share a part of their lives with a bunch of teenagers who probably have never been in a Mosque before and may have never seen a Muslim up close in real life. My thoughts were confirmed when the kids all crowded around the Imam, poking him, and trying to see if he was really real.

What surprised me was the way the way the Imam and others in that community acted towards us. It was in a way that made it very clear that they were thankful that we were there. It was almost as if we they were imposing on us by our being there.

Think about this. When we go to someone’s home we are imposing on them. Sure, they are happy to have us there (we hope), but they are doing the heavy lifting, cooking, etc. We are thankful for the invitation, hospitality, etc.

Yet in this case the tables were turned. In fact, the Imam and I got into a gratefulness-off, seeing who could bow lower, seeing who could say, “we are so thankful for…” and finally who could prove the other was inconvenienced more.

In Rhode Island there is not a large Islamic community and it is not an obvious part of the culture. In the United States Islam continues to struggle to be accepted as a faith equal to Christianity, Judaism, and those who follow the path of the Jedi. A friend of mine told me that the Islamic community in Rhode Island is constantly struggling to figure out how to be connected with the community in a positive and helpful way. When a pastor of a church calls and asks to bring his Baptism class to visit what they may be seeing is the community (or a part of it) working to be connected with them in a positive and helpful way. On one level, we were the guests visiting them. On another level, they are the new neighbors and we were “welcoming them.”

This is what I will call an “active hospitality.” A passive hospitality is one where the neighbors say to the newcomer, “stop over anytime, let me know if you need anything,” and waits for the new neighbor to take the initiative. An active hospitality says, “why don’t you come over on this day, I would love to help you with x,” and shows an active interest in the person’s life.

In this case, the onus is on the people in the “norms” of the culture to look to the people on the margins and to take the initiative. It is to put yourself (the norm folks) into a place of the unknown and vulnerable with those on the margins. It would be easy to invite folks from the Muslim community to our class in our building on our terms to talk to the students, but for us to go to their place of worship, be in their space, and witness their prayers puts the “norm” folks in a place of vulnerability. We were in a place of the unknown and that is always a risk. It is a way of saying, “I want to know about your life, values, cares, etc., on your terms.”

This is a form of hospitality that is very difficult to practice; it calls for a good deal of courage and sensitivity. It is a form of hospitality that my baptism class and I practiced unknowingly.

Now will you invite me over to your house? Or should I invite you over to mine? Or maybe I will invite myself over to your house for some apple pie. Yum.