In Real-Time

This morning's first post at the Horse's Mouth blog was about President Bush's recent discussion of the Iraq War being "just a comma." It seems to be a reference to Gracie Allen's quote "Never put a period where God has placed a comma" which relates to the UCC's "God is still speaking," identity campaign. I left a comment, and hope that more discussion with Greg's audience will follow.

Bush Again Says Iraq Will Be "Just a Comma" by Greg Sargent.

The Horse's Mouth is a media watchdog I frequent; "a blog about the reporting of politics - and the politics of reporting."

Stay tuned - if Bush is appropriating the success of "God is still speaking," as a tool for justifying the Iraq War, we need to howl. -h

This Must Be a Sign

This is it for BattleCry, but they just don't understand the First Rule of Holes*. Another email was waiting for me this morning:

Christianity in America will not survive another decade. How is that possible? At the current rate of evangelism, it is estimated that only 4% of this generation of teenagers will be Bible-believing Christians by the time they reach adulthood. 34% of adults today are Evangelical believers. Imagine an America at 4%:

- Church attendance dwindles
- Tithes and offerings are at an all-time low
- New church buildings sit empty
- Life-giving sermons go unheard
- The role of a church leader becomes irrelevant

This is an unthinkable crisis. We cannot let this trend run its course.

- BattleCry email, "Imagine an America with only 4% Christians" of 9/26/06

What are the big concerns here? First, church culture - to the exclusion of the Love Commandment, following Jesus' path, serving the world and strengthening each other, etc. Second, the egos and job security of clergy - a clear case of a professional caste closing ranks and protecting its own interests. This is to be expected; it is typical (nay, universal) human behavior and pastors are people. But it is not a "crisis," and is not much relevant to following Jesus or to the purpose of church.

Friends, the reason I raise this for comment is that by its own words and actions, cultural and institutional Christianity in America is broken. Not irredeemable, not evil, not worthless; but wandering aimlessly and obsessed with minutia.

There are wonderful sprouts of fresh growth all around, including here at St. Peter's, and much to be encouraged by. I hope by attempting to shine a little light on BattleCry and its out-of-order values, as an example of cultural Christianity, you may consider unplugging from it and exploring the territory along a less-traveled path. -h

*When you're in one, stop digging.

BattleCry Update

See my previous post on emails from the BattleCry organization...

Received a new one this past week about "National Youth Awareness Sunday" (if you're wondering, yes, there are youth in this nation. Were you aware?).

Imagine a United States of America where only 4% of the population is [sic] true, Bible-believing Christians... Many European countries are already there with dwindling congregations of believers and where churches have been converted to bars; where mainstream television depicts nightly erotica and open nudity.

- BattleCry email, "Unite the Nation on Youth Awareness Sunday Sept 24th!" of 9/15/06

What are BattleCry's big concerns? The pressing issues facing people of faith in a troubled world? The major questions of life and ethics? Alcohol, and naked people on TV.

Not war, or the ongoing genocide in Darfur, or the future of the planet we share.

Do you wonder why, as a people, we are preoccupied with the superficial and the trivial? With contrived left/right - blue/red divisions and tired debates that lead nowhere? (With drink and nudity, which are not evil but I think are quite fine in appropriate contexts?) Why we swim in a sea of satire (not necessarily bad) but cannot manage to make a statement of faith, or even substance, with a straight face?

Perhaps if our faith as a people spoke to our real concerns and fears, challenged our ideas about ethics and led us to re-evaluate our priorities, and confronted our certainty with holy questions, doubt, and humility... we would find ourselves engaged in meaningful service to the world, in the image of Jesus Christ. God, I hope. -h

KC Star FaithWalk

My first column for FaithWalk was published Saturday.

Here is a scan of the print version (1.0).

Below is version 1.1, which I turned in last week but not in time to make the paper. -h

I had no idea how much land and water is required to sustain my lifestyle. A small apartment, healthy food, recycling, and carpooling when possible; I assumed my life was Earth-friendly.

Then a friend sent me to www.myfootprint.org to take their quiz. After answering questions about what I eat, what I throw away, my driving habits, and my home, I discovered that if everyone lived as I do, we would need five planets. Five! Viewed from that angle, my lifestyle feels like a daily exercise in arrogant self-centeredness.

I hold my survey results in real tension with my idea of Christian stewardship of Creation, expressed in Affirmation 3 of the Phoenix Affirmations. "Christian love of God includes celebrating the God whose Spirit pervades and whose glory is reflected in all of God's Creation, including the earth and its ecosystems..." ( www.crosswalkamerica.org ).

Trying to reconcile this call to stewardship of the earth with my pattern of living is a big struggle. It seems just that I should live within a sustainable lifestyle; but how could I continue to function in Kansas City driving only 50 miles each week? I couldn't go to work and shop at the organic market and visit the recycling center. I'm starting to see just how thoroughly unsustainable practices are entrenched in daily life. Faith and reason are unified in telling me I have to start making changes.

I admit, so far my solutions are small: carpooling and buying gas in the evening (which cut carbon dioxide emissions), eating vegetarian a few days each week (plants take up less land and waste less energy than animals), things like that. I don't know how to live sustainably without dropping out of society, but I'm looking for a way. I'm sure that's what I'm called to search for, as one of more than six billion caretakers of this corner of Creation.

CrossWalk Blog

We made it!

-h

5 Fundamentals

Fundamentalism arose from a statement conservative Christians issued at the Niagara Bible Conference of 1895. These leaders were concerned about trends in the major denominations of North America that they felt were departures from biblical Christianity. The five "fundamentals of the faith" that gave fundamentalism its name are these:

1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity and the virgin birth of Jesus Christ
3. The substitutionary atonement (i.e., Christ died for our sins)
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus
5. The personal return of Christ

- from T.J. McTavish's A Theological Miscellany: Odd, Merry, Essentially Inessential Facts, Figures, & Tidbits About Christianity

Taken in the spirit in which they are intended, I'm 0-for-5. If allowed to qualify terms like "deity," "bodily," and "personal," I could be 2.5-for-5. Interesting stuff, though. I wonder how "loving God, loving your neighbor, loving yourself" was left off / overlooked / avoided. That would be my "fundamental," though I'd never use that loaded word.

By-the-numbers:

1. I don't find anywhere in Jesus' story statements indicating that scripture (that loose collection of various holy writings and letters) should be considered "inerrant." Jesus himself took a serious, respectful, but never dogmatic approach to the Hebrew scriptures.

2. I would say "deity" signifies God's presence, but wouldn't take it in any kind of dualistic way (as it's likely intended). I put no weight on "virgin birth."

3. Ish. Substitutionary atonement rests on an image of an angry, judgmental father God whose wrath is only placated by the bloody death/murder of his son (which was the Plan all along). It doesn't jive with Jesus' story for me.

4. Yes. Whose bodies? Ours!

5. Yes. Whose person? Yours and mine! Begin! -h

Today's short...

I was trying to address the notion that church splits are often caused by
people changing doctrinal statements ... like hell/no hell ... midstream. I
value unity and do not think that issues like hell have to be
dealbreakers.

So, what do you think about it? What are your deal breakers? Have you ever
left a church because of doctrinal changes? What do you think about protecting
unity in a local body?

This, from KansasBob's comments to the previous post. I'm keeping it short today, after a series of more in-depth posts; that's part of moving back to half-time at St. Peter's, which has meant much higher impact-per-hour-of-my-time but left me short for blogging this week. I'll also re-iterate that there's good stuff on Bob's blog, and I am of the sense that we are committed to many of the same things on this wild journey of faith.

Hell is definitely not a deal-breaker for me. It's more... inconsequential, as far as hell-believers don't try to threaten others with their belief. And harmful, as much as they do (which is often quite a bit. I remember FCA in high school... crackle crackle! Scary. Not helpful in helping me serve the world as Christ re-membered).

My church (the United Church of Christ) is without "doctrinal statements"; we are a covenant people. We promise to walk together in Christ, before God, with faith by the Spirit - within that covenant, no doctrine need separate us. That would be my ideal for the universal Church as well.

I've never left a church for doctrinal reasons, and can't imagine doing so within the UCC/DoC/mainline Protestant traditions. I'm enough at peace with radically different doctrines of the Pentecostal/evangelical sort to even be in that sort of community, if the community was focused on serving the world as Christ re-membered (Jody and I are tossing that phrase around lately as the purpose of church). In practice, this seems pretty rare for churches, though there are lots of individuals who are living exceptions (KansasBob, you may be one - the Internet Monk is - Ron on the Bill Tammeus blog comments - etc.).

"Protecting unity" - unity is valuable, as much as it serves the purpose of church previously stated. Unity for its own sake is just clubbishness, often at the expense of outsiders. In the Pearson example, it seems that hell was a deal-breaker for 90% of that congregation, though not for Carlton. I'm interested in unity in terms of practical working-together-in-service, not at all in terms of metaphysics (i.e. "I believe / don't believe in hell").

There's disjointed responses for a Tuesday. More good stuff is in the works, including my first column for the KC Star's FaithWorks feature - not this weekend, but the next I think. -h