In his weekly, free, e-mail question and answer post, John Shelby Spong responds to a lengthy question from a man from Norway, that wonders why the church, and especially clergy types in the church, are often so resistant to new insights and ideas. Among the things Bishop Spong says (the emphases are mine:
"We need to understand the role organized religion plays in the lives of most people. It is part of the human security system. Most people seek security, not truth, in their religious pilgrimage. The trouble with security is that it never lasts. In the words of the poet James Russell Lowell, "Time makes ancient good uncouth." Yet we continue to make idols out of yesterday's consensus. This is true in science, as Niels Bohr discovered when Albert Einstein could not embrace quantum weirdness. It is true in politics and was quite visible when both the Roosevelt revolution on the left and the Reagan revolution on the right disturbed the status quo. It is also true in religion when we constantly define religious truth as unchanging, infallible, inerrant or external. It is the nature of self-conscious human life to be insecure. Religion, when it seeks security or peace of mind, is actually violating our humanity. So religion and religious leaders will always be conservative, resistant to change and highly critical of those who have new insights or who walk to the beat of a different drummer.
As we mentioned in previous posts, Bishop Spong publishes a free weekly e-mail newsletter, as well as another online weekly reflection on one topic or another that you have to pay for to get. You may view them and subscribe to them by going to http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/. If you want the free e-mail newsletter, be careful to follow the instructions and links carefully to get the free stuff instead of the paid subscription.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Pop Quiz
Joerg Rieger is Professor of Constructive Theology at Perkins School of Theology. In the early summer issue of The Progressive Christian, he presents a reflection on"power and religion" in the form of a multiple choice quiz. Rieger seems to suggest that when important questions about "what would Jesus do?" are rephrased as something like "what would Jesus be doing right now given the choice?" the whole enterprise gets more challenging and interesting. He says that multiple answers are possible in some cases, and not in others. For each question, he offers a hint from the Gospels.
What are Jesus’ interests?
1. Attends the annual meeting of American liturgists.
2. Attends the annual meeting of American Working Class Studies and take the side of workers.
3. Attends a self-help workshop.
4. Attends an inspirational seminar for investors.
What are Jesus’ interests?
1. Attends the annual meeting of American liturgists.
2. Attends the annual meeting of American Working Class Studies and take the side of workers.
3. Attends a self-help workshop.
4. Attends an inspirational seminar for investors.
Matthew 25: 31-46
What is Jesus’ view on economics?
1. Supports the free market economy, because “capitalism is here to stay” (Margaret Thatcher).
2. Addresses economic inequalities by promoting welfare.
3. Promotes an economy in which each is treated according to their needs and abilities.
4. Only shows interest in economic matters that affect the church.
Matthew 20: 1-16
What does Jesus think about human rights?
1. Declares the primacy of property rights.
2. Supports the rights of “the least of these” against the rights of the status quo.
3. Rejects the idea of rights altogether since they are “modern liberal inventions” (according to some contemporary ethicists and theologians).
Luke 13: 10-17
What is Jesus’ view on worship?
1. Seeks alternative power and truth wherever it can be found and “worships in spirit and truth.”
2. Worships with hands raised up in the air.
3. Worships sitting in a pew.
4. Makes sure never to miss the one hour on Sunday morning since this is the main event that connects us to God.
John 4: 23; Mark 7: 1-8
What does Jesus think about politics?
1. Votes Republican because of family values.
2. Votes Democrat because of a concern for welfare and health care.
3. Votes, but keeps working for the “kingdom of God and its justice,” which is neither owned by Democrats or Republicans.
4. Doesn’t vote because heaven is more important than earth.
5. Leaves the business of politics to the First Person of the Trinity who enjoys power play.
Matthew 6:33; Mark 3: 31-35
What does Jesus think about culture?
1. Prefers highbrow because this is where people truly care about culture.
2. Prefers lowbrow because it is livelier and more fun.
3. Prefers cultural expressions that follow the beat of a different drummer and dares to be different, rather than aiming at popularity or sales figures.
4. Goes with current opinion about what’s cool so as to be more relevant and to attract more followers.
Mark 12: 38-40
How does Jesus feel about religion?
1. Defends religion in general because it is human nature.
2. Rejects religion because it is too human.
3. Prefers theism because we need an omnipotent universal deity in order to save “Western Civilization.”
4. Evaluates religion according to what difference it makes in real life and whether or not it contributes to the kingdom of God.
Luke 4: 16-21
(From The Progressive Christian, Volume 183, Issue 4, p. 21-22)
What is Jesus’ view on economics?
1. Supports the free market economy, because “capitalism is here to stay” (Margaret Thatcher).
2. Addresses economic inequalities by promoting welfare.
3. Promotes an economy in which each is treated according to their needs and abilities.
4. Only shows interest in economic matters that affect the church.
Matthew 20: 1-16
What does Jesus think about human rights?
1. Declares the primacy of property rights.
2. Supports the rights of “the least of these” against the rights of the status quo.
3. Rejects the idea of rights altogether since they are “modern liberal inventions” (according to some contemporary ethicists and theologians).
Luke 13: 10-17
What is Jesus’ view on worship?
1. Seeks alternative power and truth wherever it can be found and “worships in spirit and truth.”
2. Worships with hands raised up in the air.
3. Worships sitting in a pew.
4. Makes sure never to miss the one hour on Sunday morning since this is the main event that connects us to God.
John 4: 23; Mark 7: 1-8
What does Jesus think about politics?
1. Votes Republican because of family values.
2. Votes Democrat because of a concern for welfare and health care.
3. Votes, but keeps working for the “kingdom of God and its justice,” which is neither owned by Democrats or Republicans.
4. Doesn’t vote because heaven is more important than earth.
5. Leaves the business of politics to the First Person of the Trinity who enjoys power play.
Matthew 6:33; Mark 3: 31-35
What does Jesus think about culture?
1. Prefers highbrow because this is where people truly care about culture.
2. Prefers lowbrow because it is livelier and more fun.
3. Prefers cultural expressions that follow the beat of a different drummer and dares to be different, rather than aiming at popularity or sales figures.
4. Goes with current opinion about what’s cool so as to be more relevant and to attract more followers.
Mark 12: 38-40
How does Jesus feel about religion?
1. Defends religion in general because it is human nature.
2. Rejects religion because it is too human.
3. Prefers theism because we need an omnipotent universal deity in order to save “Western Civilization.”
4. Evaluates religion according to what difference it makes in real life and whether or not it contributes to the kingdom of God.
Luke 4: 16-21
(From The Progressive Christian, Volume 183, Issue 4, p. 21-22)
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
"If God is For Us..." (Notes on the end of Romans 8)
Fear not.
The New Testament's most consistent invitation is "Fear Not." Sometimes it's translated "Do not be afraid."
If the TV coverage of the health care debate isn't enough to convince you that we live in fear, maybe the massive e-mails suggesting that our entire western civilization is tanking because Muslims are having more babies than white Europeans might. We are always being encouraged to be afraid... of reactionaries or communists, of fundamentalists or atheists, of identity theft or depressive personal isolation, of countless other things
In his book Lifesigns Father Henri Nouwen wrote:
We are a fearful people...It often seems that fear has invaded every part of our being to such a degree that we no longer know what a life without our fear would feel like...There always seems to be something to fear: something within us or around us, something close or far away, something visible or invisible, something in ourselves, in others, or in God. There never seems to be a totally fear-free moment.
Echoing Nouwen, Lewis Thomas:
We are,perhaps uniquely among the earth's creatures, the worrying animal. We worry away our lives, fearing the future, discontent with the present, unable to take in the idea of dying, unable to sit still.
I wonder if the Jungians and Paul Tillich weren't right about fear. Tillich said that all fear came down to fear of non-being. The Jungians say that every fear is a fear of death. Both argue that no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape that kind of "existential anxiety."
Which brings us to what I think (not everybody thinks this, but I do) is the most important paragraph in all of Paul's letters. Though Paul would never say "existential anxiety" (the word "existential" wasn't even made up until the 20th century), he seems to know that "fear and trembling" that we just can't seem to shake. He tries to address these most often non-rational anxieties with a rational argument that might not always convince, but can, to use Tillich's metaphor, "here and there, now and then" can comfort and maybe inspire to move beyond them without ever being completely free of them...
What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us...Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril of sword?...No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The New Testament's most consistent invitation is "Fear Not." Sometimes it's translated "Do not be afraid."
If the TV coverage of the health care debate isn't enough to convince you that we live in fear, maybe the massive e-mails suggesting that our entire western civilization is tanking because Muslims are having more babies than white Europeans might. We are always being encouraged to be afraid... of reactionaries or communists, of fundamentalists or atheists, of identity theft or depressive personal isolation, of countless other things
In his book Lifesigns Father Henri Nouwen wrote:
We are a fearful people...It often seems that fear has invaded every part of our being to such a degree that we no longer know what a life without our fear would feel like...There always seems to be something to fear: something within us or around us, something close or far away, something visible or invisible, something in ourselves, in others, or in God. There never seems to be a totally fear-free moment.
Echoing Nouwen, Lewis Thomas:
We are,perhaps uniquely among the earth's creatures, the worrying animal. We worry away our lives, fearing the future, discontent with the present, unable to take in the idea of dying, unable to sit still.
I wonder if the Jungians and Paul Tillich weren't right about fear. Tillich said that all fear came down to fear of non-being. The Jungians say that every fear is a fear of death. Both argue that no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape that kind of "existential anxiety."
Which brings us to what I think (not everybody thinks this, but I do) is the most important paragraph in all of Paul's letters. Though Paul would never say "existential anxiety" (the word "existential" wasn't even made up until the 20th century), he seems to know that "fear and trembling" that we just can't seem to shake. He tries to address these most often non-rational anxieties with a rational argument that might not always convince, but can, to use Tillich's metaphor, "here and there, now and then" can comfort and maybe inspire to move beyond them without ever being completely free of them...
What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us...Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril of sword?...No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
What Does the Bible Say About ...?
In their neat little book, The Bible Tells Me So: Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture, Jim Hill and Rand Cheadle try to argue that ideologues and provocateurs of every ilk have always used the Bible as a "proof-text" for their political, moral, or philosophical positions. They cite literally dozens of themes, ranging from slavery to pacifism to demonstrate that people on every side of every issue have appropriated and accommodated the Bible to "authorize" and explain their point of view.
Of course, they are correct. But they leave the most basic question unanswered:
"What does the Bible really say about issue X, or Y, or Z?
For almost all the issues, the answer is, "not much." In order to get a sense of how a biblical writer might respond to, say, an inquiry about a woman's proper role in family, church, and society, you'd have to cobble together a wide range of opinions, stories, anecdotes and admonitions, and depending on whether you were already an ardent feminist or a stolid traditionalist, you'd be thrilled or appalled by what you found.
But the way we generally tend to do it is just the opposite. We are already the ardent feminist or the stolid traditionalist (take any issue and think up people on opposite ends for complementary metaphors), and we appropriate what we like and dismiss, or worse, explain away what we don't like.
For example, there is no denying that during the millennium and a half that material was being collected, edited, and canonized into what we now call the Bible, the world in which all that collecting, editing and canonizing was being done was a patriarchal word. It is ludicrous to deny that, but many do. It is similarly absurd to say that God simply had these or other intentions for these old texts, so it only goes to follow that some rotten so-and-so or some group of rotten so-and-so's got hold of the texts the way God intended them to be and out and out changed them for the sole purpose of perpetuating a misogynous patriarchy, or any other thing that we now find offensive or difficult.
It comes down, at least for me, to whom you choose to listen when you read the Bible. If the Bible says one thing one place about issue x, y, or z, to whom do you choose to listen? Who is most authoritative? The oldest text? Moses? The prophets? Paul? Jesus?
For me, the answer is Jesus. Yes, I know that there is controversy and discussion about what Jesus really said, or maybe said, or maybe didn't say, and I think that conversation is crucial. All that being said, believing that there are few if any uniform "positions" about virtually everything except loving God and caring for the broken, lost, and poor, focusing on what the Bible says Jesus says has been the most helpful thing for me, at least as far as personal ethics and behavior are concerned.
Of course, they are correct. But they leave the most basic question unanswered:
"What does the Bible really say about issue X, or Y, or Z?
For almost all the issues, the answer is, "not much." In order to get a sense of how a biblical writer might respond to, say, an inquiry about a woman's proper role in family, church, and society, you'd have to cobble together a wide range of opinions, stories, anecdotes and admonitions, and depending on whether you were already an ardent feminist or a stolid traditionalist, you'd be thrilled or appalled by what you found.
But the way we generally tend to do it is just the opposite. We are already the ardent feminist or the stolid traditionalist (take any issue and think up people on opposite ends for complementary metaphors), and we appropriate what we like and dismiss, or worse, explain away what we don't like.
For example, there is no denying that during the millennium and a half that material was being collected, edited, and canonized into what we now call the Bible, the world in which all that collecting, editing and canonizing was being done was a patriarchal word. It is ludicrous to deny that, but many do. It is similarly absurd to say that God simply had these or other intentions for these old texts, so it only goes to follow that some rotten so-and-so or some group of rotten so-and-so's got hold of the texts the way God intended them to be and out and out changed them for the sole purpose of perpetuating a misogynous patriarchy, or any other thing that we now find offensive or difficult.
It comes down, at least for me, to whom you choose to listen when you read the Bible. If the Bible says one thing one place about issue x, y, or z, to whom do you choose to listen? Who is most authoritative? The oldest text? Moses? The prophets? Paul? Jesus?
For me, the answer is Jesus. Yes, I know that there is controversy and discussion about what Jesus really said, or maybe said, or maybe didn't say, and I think that conversation is crucial. All that being said, believing that there are few if any uniform "positions" about virtually everything except loving God and caring for the broken, lost, and poor, focusing on what the Bible says Jesus says has been the most helpful thing for me, at least as far as personal ethics and behavior are concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)