Vacuums, Sex, and the Christian Life

As most readers of this blog will know, I listen to Drew Marshall on a regular basis. In fact, I get email updates on what's coming up for the next Saturdays broadcast. The other week nothing really interested me other than the regular segment called God Blogger. Every week he interviews someone who blogs on spiritual matters. I like to see who's out there in case there's someone interesting to follow. So far I haven't really come across many. Even some that seemed interesting on the show turn out to be ho-hum: probably like most people think of my blog. The other day at work things were quite slow, so I looked up the God Blogger for the next Saturday. He seemed more fundamentalist than I was prepared to invest any energy into, but one thing led to another and I ended up looking at material that was actually about one of the other guests that Saturday.

The other guest was a couple who had written a book on marriage. The particular article I was reading contained the 8 tips to a better marriage in their book. It turns out that the guy had been the pastor of a fairly successful church, but then he had an affair which ended his ministry, and just about ended his marriage.

The whole thing got me thinking about a time many years ago when the Promise Keepers phenomena was just starting. I went to a couple of events including a very large one in Minneapolis. There were lots of very dynamic speakers there, but truth be told, I don't remember very much other than, for some reason, that there were several on marriage. Most of the marriage topics went along the lines of, “Once I was an asshole, but I'm not anymore - let me tell you about it”. Which, if you are an asshole, should be very enlightening, and maybe even life changing.

For example, one of the speakers told the story about the time his wife was out of the house and it suddenly occurred to him to actually pick up the vacuum cleaner and start helping out around the house. Apparently when his wife came home she was so shocked and appreciative that they made out right there on the living room next to the vacuum cleaner. Obviously the only natural response to this kind of revelation is to go on a national speaking tour, and maybe write a book - it's all perfectly understandable.

You may have picked on the vibe that I don't care for programs like Promise Keepers, or Forty Days of Purpose, or, even books like the one that was written by Drew's guests, and the reason is very simple.

They're all missing the point of Christianity.

With all the talk, and teaching from the pulpit, of Jesus being our Saviour so that we can go to heaven when we die, we've forgotten the point of Christianity. As Peter Rollins says, the point of Christianity is not about having a life after death, but a life before death. It's about becoming fully human in the way that we were originally designed to be. It's about becoming the new people of God whose purpose is to be a blessing to the world. It's about following Jesus into a life of self sacrificing love. If you lack purpose in your life, I would suggest, you haven't come to know the one true God as incarnated in Christ. The life of Jesus has given all of us more purpose than any of us can possibly fulfill in a lifetime. If you call yourself a Christian and you're having trouble keeping your promises, maybe you need to reevaluate if you actually believe all that stuff you say you believe. As Gandhi said, if Christians were to act like Christians the whole world would be saved in a matter of years.

We don't need Promise Keepers to show us how to keep promises - we just need to believe that Jesus is actually Lord. We don't need Forty Days of Purpose to give us purpose - we just need to do what Jesus told us to. We don't need books on marriage that tell us how not to be an asshole, that should be a given if we call ourselves Christians.

If we are the Christians we claim to be, it's time to start acting like it, or stop calling ourselves Christians. If we don't, we are denying Christ, the Resurrection, and trivializing his crucifixion.

Christianity as Poetry

Martin Buber is quoted as having said; "All of us have access to God, but each of us has different access. Our great chance lies in our unlikeness. God's all-inclusiveness manifests itself in the infinite multiplicity of the ways that lead to him, each of which is open to one person."

In Dueteronomy 30:14 the commandments of God are described as; "something very near to you, already in your mouths and in you hearts; you only have to carry it out."

In the parable of the two sons, Jesus says that the one who does the will of the father is the one who originally says he won't do it, but eventually goes out and does it anyway, not the one who says he will do it, and then does nothing.

I have often said that heaven will either be filled with a lot more people than we imagine, or a lot less. I'm beginning to lean towards the former. I think there are many, many people out there who don't call themselves Christians, but who are actually more 'Christian' than those who do. Somewhere along the way they've figured out that acting the way Christians are supposed to act is, in fact, the right way - it is something 'already in their mouths and in their hearts'. But that doesn't mean that those who call themselves Christians - even though they may be doing it badly, or different from us - are wrong. As Martin Buber says, they're simply coming to God in their own unique way. Peter Rollins argues that the sheer number of variations of Christian denominations and traditions out there is a testament to the fact that God cannot be known in his entirety, and that this is the way God wants it, so we don't end up making an idol of our particular brand of theology.

The poet Kathleen Norris in her book, The Cloister Walk, makes the point that Christianity is more like poetry than prose. And that when we take that poem, and start to break it down and analyze it, and turn it into dogma, that we lose the essence and beauty of it.

I must admit that I'm a bit like an ex-smoker who is the most critical of those who smoke. Because, as an ex-fundamentalist, it is fundamentalists that drive me the most crazy. But I'm starting to see Jesus' point when he said that those who aren't against us, are for us. And I'm starting to see that Christianity is more like poetry than prose, and I have to embrace the essence and beauty of it in all it's variations and differences. And I'm starting to see that no matter how right I think I am, I could still be wrong. And I'm starting to embrace the essence of Christianity wherever I find it: be it in the actions of someone who doesn't call themselves a Christian, the prostelizing of a fundamentalist, or the liturgy of the more traditional.

I think that the gospel, and God's love, is way bigger and more encompassing than any of us can imagine.

I sure hope it is, because my version is pretty puny.

Denying the Resurrection

"...we were having an argument about the resurrection, whether or not it had happened and whether or not it could be proved. One of my friends shared the story of how she had asked a liberal bishop if he actually believed in the resurrection. "Believe it?" he answered incredulously. "I've seen it too many times not to!"

This story comes from Diana Butler Bass' most recent book, "Christianity After Religion". She goes on from there to explain how we often get tied up in arguments about what we believe about the resurrection, and end up completely missing the more important question of "Do you trust in the resurrection?" What does she mean by that?

The cross is the most recognizable icon of Christianity. It wasn't always that way, but it is now. We see it in our churches, we wear it around our necks, we get it tattooed on various parts of our body, we put it on our bumpers - it's everywhere. Despite the many artistic variations of the cross, they can all be broken down into 2 basic forms: one depicting Christ on the cross, and one where the cross is empty. It seems protestants prefer the empty cross, while Roman Catholics and Orthodox prefer the the one with Christ on it - and each has their reasons for their preference. One emphasizes the death of Christ and Good Friday, while the other emphasizes the resurrection and therefore Easter Sunday. But I think this emphasis, as subtle as it is, is a mistake. It is a form of dualism, where we choose one over the other, when we should be embracing both equally.

Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom of God, and showing us what that meant. He turned the rules of the day upside down with self sacrificing love. And when they nailed him to the cross for it, God vindicated him by raising him from the dead - in effect saying "See, I was right". Jesus on the cross shows us how much we are to love our neighbour, while the empty cross confirms that it's the right way to live.When the bishop says he has seen the resurrection too many times not to believe it, he is saying that he has seen people who's belief in the way of Jesus is so strong that they are willing go beyond normal forms of sacrificial love; that they are willing to embrace the radical, self sacrificing life of Christ. And when they believe in this way, their lives are raised from the death and decay of self destruction and emptiness to something beautiful and transformative.

The empty cross is the reason we believe, while Christ on the cross is how we live in response to that belief.

When Peter Rollins is asked if he believes in the resurrection, he answers "No". Then he goes on to explain that whenever he thinks a bad thought about someone, or whenever he fails to help a person in need, or whenever he acts in a selfish way - when he doesn't go the extra mile, or treat his neighbour as himself - he denies the resurrection. He is in effect saying, "I don't really believe in the resurrection, because if I did, I wouldn't do these things".

Do you believe in the resurrection? Do I?

Predestination and Old Souls

Predestination: the idea that some people are somehow chosen to be children of God while others aren't, has been debated and argued for centuries. What if this is yet another example of something the church has profoundly misunderstood? What if people on both sides of the argument have missed the point completely?

The other night there were several people at our house. I was in the kitchen doing something and the rest were in the living room just chatting when suddenly everyone burst out in laughter. This is not an unusual
thing with this particular group, but when I came in, my wife explained to me that one of our members - who is more concerned with social justice than the rest of us - shared the fact that when she was younger, she thought that she wanted to marry a black guy to show that there was nothing wrong with that sort of thing. In and of itself there is nothing funny about this, but the reason it was so funny to everyone else is because it is totally in keeping with her personality, and that even at a very young age it was evident.

I didn't really think much about this until a couple of days later when I was trying to work through some other perplexing scenarios in the bible, and my mind wandered to predestination. Somehow my mind tied

Smudges on the Window

I have just realized that having a blog is like wandering around your house naked with the windows open; it's all very liberating until someone looks in the window. However, while being caught unawares is one thing, it is quite another to stroll up to the window and press your naked, flabby body against the coolness of the glass in a hideous form of vertical prostration for all the world to see, which is what I seem to do at times on this site.

While I do not regret (so far) anything I have said on this site, because it was what I thought at the time, it is very much a record of my journey towards God which I hope never ends. I want to always be seeking and never arriving. If I ever state that I have arrived, then I know that I have missed God altogether and I hope someone loves me enough to shoot me.

Separating Eggs

I am currently reading a book by Peter Rollins called “How (Not) to Speak of God”. I first heard of him, and the book, on Drew Marshall. He was so fascinating that I immediately ordered all three of his books. So far I’ve just gotten through the introduction and the first couple of chapters.

In the foreword, Brian McLaren says that he is a raving fan of the book, so I was cautiously optimistic when I started reading. After having read a couple of chapters let me just say this; I do NOT recommend reading this book – unless your spiritual journey has taken you down a path that is similar to Brian McLaren et al, and you are comfortable in that spot. Because, if you aren’t, you will start to read and after a very short while you will put it down in disgust, and possibly never pick it up again - which would be a real shame. This book has the potential to take your spirituality to the next level in much the same way that “A New Kind of Christian” opened up the spirituality of many fundamentalists. In fact, providing that Peter doesn’t somehow screw up, I think that he, and those who are like minded, will be the force that causes the emerging church to explode in the coming years.

I am debating whether or not to write about the book as I fear that in my attempt to summarize some of the concepts I will overly simply things that he has taken great pains to explain. However, since a blog really isn’t written for those who read it, but is more cathartic therapy for the author, I probably will. In any case, I suspect it will influence my blogs for the next while.

In the first chapter his basic premise is that theology is man’s attempt to explain what can not be explained – God. In fact not only can God not be explained in any adequate way, but he actively resists any attempt to be explained. The danger in thinking that we can explain or define God, is that it creates a type of idolatry – conceptual idolatry as opposed to physical idolatry.

One of the examples of God avoiding explanation or definition is Job. I have never come across a wholly satisfying explanation of God’s response to Job, until now. Basically Job questions God, and God goes into the whole long tirade of how Job has no idea what he’s talking about, and how he can’t possibly know why God does, or did, anything and never does really answer Job. After which Job goes; you’re right, I have no idea what I’m talking about – and backs down.

You might think that if you are arguing that God can not be explained, you would come to the conclusion that you should just give up trying, but this is not the case. It is one of the things that I like about the book - it is actually very fair and balanced. What he is trying to say is that we can have our explanations – in fact we need to have our explanations – but we need to remember that they are completely inadequate, and that they may not be correct or complete. We must always remember that the points of view of others may be more complete or valid than ours, so we must not create an idol out of our beliefs.

I don’t know if you’ve ever separated eggs – the whites from the yolks – but there are basically two methods. One, you crack the shell in half and then slip the egg from one half to the other, and you keep doing this until the white has fallen off and you are only left with the yolk in the shell. The other way is to crack the whole egg into your hand and let the white slip through your fingers until eventually you're left holding just the yolk in your hand. The second way is a very tactile experience as you move your fingers back and forth trying to open them just enough for the whites to flow through, but not wide enough that the yolk starts to drop. You are always very conscious of the fragility of the yolk. Any wrong move and you will breach that microscopic barrier that holds the yolk intact, and the whole mess disappears through your fingers. This is a very good picture of how we should view our ideas of God. Yes we can have our concepts, but we must always recognize their fragility. That they are less than perfect and that they may disappear on us suddenly if we are confronted with different concepts that make more sense, or give us a more complete picture of God.