the parish

Believing or Doing

Phil asked a fair question in the comments related to the previous post. He wanted to know if I haven't always, on this blog at least, maintained that faith is more an issue of doing the right thing as opposed to believing the right things. I assume the trajectory of that question is to lead me down the Socratic path to admit that I am a Christian in deed if not in belief. I don't disagree, but I guess I should parse the question and my response.

I don't necessarily believe that doing the "right" thing—regular readers will know what I mean here—is an exclusively Christian thing to do, and most people I know would agree with that, save the few fundies who will pull out the Isaianic reference to righteousness and filthy rags. In that sense, anyone who lives with integrity, honesty, compassion, grace, and forgiveness will qualify as a Christian: another reason I think the word is damn near useless except for exclusivist, sectarian, or political purposes. So, yes, if you're willing to accept that definition, then I am a Christian, but so is every atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, and Wiccan that lives in a way that exemplifies the shalom of YHWH. Again, that makes the word Christian worthless in terms of its function in defining a particular way of living. If you want to acknowledge that Jesus exemplified a way of living that communicated how we ought to be in the world, then I'll happily embrace the Christian label. Unfortunately, most Christians wouldn't sign off on that definition.

Christianity, especially the fundangelical variety, is hopelessly obsessed with the idea that soteriological benefits derive from believing the right things, often irrespective of consequent behavior. I acknowledge that action follows belief in some cases, but the obverse is almost equally true, and people believe what they want to believe and then proceed to justify their beliefs, especially in metaphysical issues. Belief is seldom based on any sort of rational or empirical investigation; far more often it is intuitive and emotive.

If believing is more important, even by a fraction, than doing, then I'll happily abandon any definition of Christian tied to that rubric. if Jesus is not trying to show a better way to live, then I don't know what he's allegedly doing. Even if the man never lived, and I'm pretty sure he did (contra Hitchens), the ideals demonstrated in his dealings with people in a literary read of Scripture are almost wholly redemptive. If doing is more important, and I think it is, then what does it matter what someone believes about God? If doing is more important, an atheist who lives redemptively is a better "Christian" than the Presbyterian or Methodist who believes "correctly" and lives incorrectly. I reject the notion that both are necessary. If you live right, what fucking difference does it make what you believe? The notion is completely absurd, and theology, especially the populist variety, only serves to obscure how absurd it is.

So, yes, I think that Christianity and Islam and Buddhism are equally redemptive and salvific inasmuch as they lead to living and spreading the shalom of God. That makes atheism, agnosticism, and any other -ism you can name equally salvific inasmuch as the practitioners of those -isms live redemptively. The fundangelical will ask at this point what the significance of Jesus is. If all faiths lead to God, then why prefer Jesus? I admit that I have no comprehensive answer to that question except to say that Jesus' ability to communicate the grammar of God and the ethics of shalom far exceed anyone else I've read about. That means, of course, that he needn't die on a cross to make things better, and that belief makes me a heretic. I can live with that. Peace.

What to believe...

You'll notice that posting has been sparse lately. I'm in the midst of an existential crisis of sorts. After spending thirty-two of my forty-three years in church, and after spending seven years and thousands of dollars on two religion degrees, I have reached a place where I simply don't know what to do next. The danger of ceasing to believe is that there is nothing to believe in immediately. It's not like I've traded Christianity for atheism, and could thus become a Dawkins-ish fundamentalist railing against the faith. No. I just stopped believing in much of what Christians hold to be true. What do I replace that with? Drinking? Not exactly constructive. Knitting? I don't like yarn. Food? I don't want to be a fat bastard.

I heard Lewis Black talking about the Pledge of Allegiance yesterday. It was funny, of course, but he makes a point that most atheists don't give a shit about the "under God" part because "they don't have the energy to have faith." (He also mentioned that it's only recited by elementary students who have no fucking idea what they're even saying. He also suggested that if atheists do have a problem with it, they might just have their kids say "one nation under dog.") I thought his point was funny, if sadly true. Not that atheists have no energy, but that having faith requires energy. I no longer have that sort of energy, but I find myself in a malaise because there seems to be nothing to believe in the absence of Christianity. I'm sure it's much the same for practitioners of other faiths who stop believing as well. Perhaps it's just as well. I don't want to be the AA dry drunk, who in the absence of drinking, finds some new cause to become zealous about.

Anyway, that's the long explanation for the sparse posts. I just can't get up the energy to give a shit. Just driving by a church makes me weary. I think I'll turn my attention to caring for flying foxes or pygmy goats. Fainting goats would be fun too. I wonder if Micah and Kristen would let me keep fainting goats on their farm. Then I could go over to the End of the Road Farm and scare the little bastards into a faint whenever I feel perverse. Kind of cathartic, you know?

Fake Pastors are the best kind

Got a press release today about this site. There is some funny stuff over there, especially the Ed Young, Jr. blog about Miss Teen South Carolina visiting fellowshipchurch.com.

How do you spell awkward? Bib lit?

I was involved in two discussions at school this week—one with a student, one with staff—in which I had to utter the phrase: "I am not a Christian." I think people come to believe that because I can talk about faith, and because I like to talk about religion, and because I report on religion, and because I have two degrees in religion, I must be some sort of religious person. Alas...

The student is about my age. Southern Baptist. Nice guy. Really had a life-changing experience with Jesus (or whatever). We were discussing his ministry history, and it turns out he's worked with a few folks I know, including a SBC pastor here in town at a "new" church who has turned over his staff about ten times in ten years because he's the most conflict-averse, passive agressive pastor I've ever met. At some point the student decides I'm "on the same team," I guess, and he says: "If it weren't for the veracity of Scripture and the resurrection, I wouldn't be a Christian anymore." Ignoring the whole "veracity of Scripture" thing, I said, quite nicely, I think, "You know I don't believe that stuff anymore, right?" He looked a bit shocked. The conversation came to an awkward conclusion right there.

The staff story was less problematic. Someone just assumed I'd be interested in taking the evangelical side in a discussion about the Bible. I said, "I'm not a Christian." Consternation. Concern. Awkward silence. Where do people get this idea?

For one class we were reading Randall Kenan's "The Foundations of the Earth." If you haven't read Kenan, you should, especially this story. It's a parable about sabbath-breaking and homosexuality; specifically, how the church has de-emphasized a commandment and over-emphasized a few verses from Moses. The Church does not come off well in Kenan's stories. He is an amazing African American and gay voice in American literature. Anyway, the story is full of Biblical allusions to Job (as well as direct quotes), biblical names (the pastors is Hezekiah, the arrogant king, and the gay, white character is Gabriel), visions, dreams, and oblique references to specific Bible stories (Jacob's dream, Peter's dream, David's men picking wheat on the Sabbath, etc.). I have a half dozen Christians in a class of 27. None of them, not one, could identify any of the biblical allusions.

Back in the day when I was an evangelical I lamented the fact that churches did a horrible job of teaching literature for the sake of teaching shitty philosophy (read that, apologetics). It's never been more apparent to me now that the greatest problem the Church has when it comes to instilling critical thinking and robust values in their offspring is in their inability to perceive their own holy book as literature.

A New Wrinkle

Just found out Madeleine L'Engle died on September 7 in a nursing home. I remember being captivated by A Wrinkle in Time when I was a wee lad. Seems an anti-climactic end for someone whose imagination wasn't bounded by convention or orthodoxy. Go in peace, Madeleine, and thank you for the pleasant dreams and daydreams.

The Abundance of Books Won't Be Diminished

A friend has suggested I write a book. Most of you know that I’ve been working on writing a book-length work for a few years now. The problem is I keep refining what I believe and so think that I can’t really say much that isn’t subject to change before the next chapter is done. I wrote an entire thesis on the Church rediscovering practices from primitive Christianity, Anabaptist communities, and Methodism, only to decide by the time it was finished that I no longer believed substantial portions of what I’d written. Then I toyed with the idea of writing a memoir, but the persistent question of “who the fuck am I and why would anyone care” kept bugging me. I moved to some sort of work on Christian agnosticism next, and I haven’t given up on that one yet, but this new suggestion is interesting, if unpublishable.

The suggested book would be a long-ish “letter” to the Church from someone who used to be inside but is now outside, tracing that process and commenting on the things that made me crazy while I was in, out, and trying to get back in the last time. It’s not a bad idea, but I don’t know any publisher that would touch it. It’s too churchy for non-specialty publishers and too angry/critical for Christian publishers. No one that I know, with few exceptions, wants to hear someone tell them what he perceives to be wrong with their community of reference from outside that community of reference. Memoirs usually take the form of “I was lost but now I’m found,” or “I was found but now I’m happily lost.” The latter form rarely offers anything worthwhile in terms of a constructive critique of a faith tradition. The first rarely offers anything worthwhile, period; it’s usually a record of a conversion that could happen in any faith tradition, but is used by a particular one to buttress the “truth” of that position.

Critiques of faith traditions abound, and for the most part, they are dismissed as the angry ranting of disaffected former members, people with an axe to grind. After all, having left the community, why would someone want to say anything constructive to that community, and how could the community listen to that sort of criticism without some painful self-reflection that might require change? It’s far easier to dismiss the criticism; it’s far easier to not give a shit about my former community. Still, I have friends who make their living in pastoral ministry, as well as friends who are faithful members of local churches. To the degree that we have a good relationship, they either endure my rants, or, on occasion, take me seriously. I’m not sure how someone who doesn’t know me could hear me without making assumptions about my current level of anger, bitterness, or cynicism that would preclude a fair hearing. Some people that know me think I don’t actually believe anything and that I’m simply engaged in a process of deconstructing everything so that I can be happily free of responsibility to “truth.” They might be right; I don’t know. Again, I think it’s a good idea; I’m just not sure it’s a publishable idea. Whaddaya think?

Kiva on Oprah

I received notification today that one of our loans on Kiva had been repaid. I went to the website to try to reloan the money, but there is a message that says the servers are getting hammered due to Kiva being on Oprah today. I admit up front that I'm an Oprah fan; although, I will also admit to not watching the show unless someone like Cormac McCarthy is on there. I'm a fan because she strikes me as disproportionately generous, and she actually uses her "power" to try to improve the lives of other people. Here's to you, Oprah. Thanks for featuring Kiva.

If you haven't been to the site, you should go loan someone some money. There is a link on the right navigation bar as well. If you don't know, Kiva allows lenders to make small (as small as $25) or large loans to people in developing nations who are borrowing money to improve a business or start one based on a business plan. The borrowers all work with financial institutions that have reviewed and approved the plan, and that monitor the repayment. Once the loan is completely repaid, the funds are disbursed to the original lenders who then have the choice of donating to Kiva's general fund, reloaning, or withdrawing the funds. It's a great program.

Happy Birthday to the Hot One, Funny Stuff, and Two Movies

Today is the hot, 38-year old, hairdresser wife's birthday. And, yes, at 38, she is still amazingly hot. Can I get a witness? Amen. We went to the McCarty farm (End of the Road Farm where the owner brews a hell of a nut brown ale) Saturday night for our annual celebration with the farmer family and the Nerudas (Cheeks, actuall, but we prefer Neruda). For whomever is acting as my conscience this week, I had a couple glasses of wine and then stopped drinking so that I could drive the wife home. She had enough margaritas that she jumped on top of Leanne and gave her noogies (nuggies? Who knows?). I wish I had a picture. Anyway, we're celebrating all weekend, and she'll happily accept gifts as late as Halloween that will still count toward your "worship and adoration" as she calls it.

As we were leaving, Micah gave us a copy of Patton Oswalt's Werewolves and Lollipops. He then warned us, "You'll have to pull over when he talks about the bowls at KFC." I thought Micah was overstating his case. In fact, we had not made it off their dead-end road before I had to pull over because I was laughing hard enough for tears to be running down my face. I had to pull over twice more on the drive home. I was laughing too hard to drive safely. I'm not kidding. This is one of the funniest routines I've ever heard, especially "America has Spoken," "The Miracle of Childbirth," "Physics for Poets," and "Wackity Schmackity Doo." Don't miss him "dealing with a retarded heckler" either. What is it about people that makes them believe they will do well against a professional comedian?

We went to see Stardust yesterday. It was the second Gaiman book I ever read. I loved the adaptation. It felt a bit long in places, but Robert Deniro and Michelle Pfeiffer were perfectly cast. Every once in a while the British humor snuck in, very dry, very subtle, and I found myself laughing, along with three other people in a full theater. Ahh, Oklahoma, how I love thee. I also tried to watch The Lives of Others, the film that the Academy inexplicably awarded the Best Foreign Film statue last year instead of the far superior Pan's Labyrinth. Folks, I watch some pretty slow movies; I even survive some of them, like Gus Van Sant's tediously slow, grossly anticlimactic, Columbine film Elephant. I fell asleep three consecutive nights trying to wade through The Lives of Others. The Academy must have been feeling all anti-Bush and anti-wiretaps when they decided to make a political statement by voting for a stupendously ridiculous choice. If it's on your queue and you haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth, replace it immediately. In the future, I hope the Academy will simply not vote for Bush, rather than screw an excellent filmmaker out of a much-deserved Oscar just to make their painfully transparent protest.