And then I found this

http://branthansen.typepad.com/letters_from_kamp_krusty/2006/12/we_quit_going_t.html

CWA blog, "Certainly Uncertainty" - and Update

Merry Christmas season. Here are two things to get your read on. -h

Bill Kinnon UPDATED:

Marketing the Church, Part 1
Marketing the Church, Part 2
Marketing the Church, Part 2b
Marketing the Church, Part 3
Ed B on Marketing the Church

----

From the CrossWalk America blog, "Certainly Uncertainty," 25 December.

Excerpts from "The Devoted Student" by Mark C. Taylor, published by the New York Times, Dec. 21 (requires free registration - link expires two weeks after publication).

More college students seem to be practicing traditional forms of religion todaythan atany time in my 30 years of teaching... Indeed, it seems the morereligiousstudents become, the less willing they are to engage in criticalreflectionabout faith.


...For years, I have begun my classes bytelling studentsthat if they are not more confused and uncertain at theend of the coursethan they were at the beginning, I will have failed. Agrowing number of religiouslycorrect students consider this challenge adirect assault on their faith.Yet the task of thinking and teaching, especiallyin an age of emergent fundamentalisms,is to cultivate a faith in doubt thatcalls into question every certainty.

More"uncertainat the end" sounds like a good description of not just Prof. Taylor'sclasses,but my own faith journey to this point. I think it would apply tothe disciplesas well, even post-Easter. In terms of my loose theme of aGospel that subvertsour expectations, my story, tradition, and communityhave always been catalystsof relentless questioning and a doubt that callsme forward.

My uncertainty is... certainly :-) ... in tension with my reflection on Mary's "Magnificat" from last week;thatthe Gospel's promise, fulfilled in Christ, is that love overwhelms power.For me, it flows likes this. I hear the message, and I choose to respondbytrying to follow its implications in my living. But looking around onmyway, I am never sure that I have placed my wager on a true promise. Thereistoo much work between us and a Realm of Love to ever make me feel likeitsarrival is inevitable.

Perhaps my only certainty is that such a vision is worth working for.

If we fail to appreciate the complexity and diversity within, and among, religioustraditions,we will overlook the fact that people from different traditionsoften sharemore with one another than they do with many members of theirown tradition.


...Until recently, many influential analysts arguedthat religion, a vestige of anearlier stage of human development, wouldwither away as people became moresophisticated and rational. Obviously,things have not turned out that way.Indeed, the 21st century will be dominatedby religion in ways that were inconceivablejust a few years ago. Religiousconflict will be less a matter ofstruggles between belief and unbelief thanof clashes between believers whomake room for doubt and those who do not (howie; my emphasis).

Oneofthe most common expressions the CWA walkers heard on the road were variationsonthe theme "I thought I was alone - the only progressive/compassionate/liberalChristianout here!" Maybe even feeling more in common with Buddhists, Jews,agnostics,atheists, Wiccans, or someone else than with other Christians(I know I haveat times - the connection itself is good, but feeling so distantfrom my owncommunity isn't).

Prof. Taylor has brought to light one possible reason for that feeling; our different stances towards doubt. In a slightly different context, author Blake Staceyhasdescribed the difference as between "nostalgic" (backward-looking) and"progressive"(forward-looking). I know my dad likes nostalgia, old stuff,and retellingthe stories of the past - which is great! - but he knows thatwhen it comesto making decisions about how to live, we strive to be informed by the past but looking towards the future.

This Christmas Day at my house there is joy for how God came among us two thousandyearsago, and reflection on what part we will play as the story continuesto unfold.

----

Merry Christmas! Below is a link to an mp3 of my arrangement, featuring Scott Morris, of "O Come O Come Emmanuel." -howie

O Come Thou Dayspring - howie&scott, from XMAS.

CrossWalk Blog and Must-Read/Listen Links

I am joining the CrossWalk America blog, and will be posting on Mondays there from now until Easter.

My first post, "Magnificat," is up today (edited Wednesday, 7:00 a.m. -h)

----

Bill Kinnon has a thought-provoking series going:

Marketing the Church, Part 1
Marketing the Church, Part 2
Marketing the Church, Part 2b
Marketing the Church, Part 3
Marketing the Church, Part 4 (coming soon)

----

Listen to the CrossWalk America podcast with Brian McLaren.

Eric and Brian discuss Kingdom-centeredness (and its opposition to church/worship "style"), worship participation (opposed to spectating), the breakdown of a "sacred/secular divide," community-based (versus hierarchical) leadership, and Christianity for the coming 500 years. They touched on colonialism (!!!), transcending absolutism/relativism, and "theological anthropology" (the way we define and understand "human being" from a religious perspective. Brian rightly sees that most Christians are living with an oudated Platonistic/dualistic idea of what it means to be human, and describes the struggle we're going through as we reach for a new understanding).

The Lady Macbeth Effect / Pilgrimage Wks 6 and 7

From the NY Times Sunday Magazine; "The Lady Macbeth Effect" by Clay Risen, Dec. 10.

Virtually every culture and religion draws a link between moral and bodily purification. “Out, damned spot!” Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth famously says, racked with guilt over her complicity in murder, wringing her hands to remove a hallucinated bloodstain. Now two researchers — Chen-Bo Zhong, a behavioral researcher at the University of Toronto, and Katie Liljenquist, a graduate student at Northwestern — have published a paper in the journal Science arguing that the connection is more than metaphorical.

In one set of tests, the researchers asked participants to recall an ethical or unethical act, and then asked them to fill in the missing letters in a series of incomplete words, like W_ _H and SH_ _ER. Those subjects who had recalled unethical acts mostly returned WASH and SHOWER, while the others returned a variety of words, like WISH and SHAKER. Another test offered a choice of object: a pencil or an antiseptic wipe. Three-quarters of those who had recalled an unethical act chose the wipes. Only about one-third of those who recalled an ethical act did so.

Zhong and Liljenquist then tested whether physical cleansing had any effect on feelings of guilt. After asking all the participants to recall an unethical act and type a description of it into a computer, they gave half the subjects the opportunity to wash their hands (telling them the keyboards were dirty). The researchers then asked all the test subjects if they would help out a desperate researcher who needed unpaid subjects for a study. Those who had washed their hands were about 50 percent less likely to volunteer — suggesting that, newly cleansed, they felt less guilty and thus had less need to absolve themselves.

Zhong has considered the implications of his research. "If cleanliness is related to moral purity," he says, "then the cleanliness of one’s environment could have an impact on moral behavior." But he stresses that he is unsure whether a clean environment would reduce unethical conduct or, by providing a sort of perpetual psychic cleansing, promote it.

I had not known that the connection between moral and physical cleanliness was nearly universal among human cultures. It certainly puts a quite different spin on all of the "washed in the blood of the Lamb" imagery, doesn't it?

Why does this link exist? In the environment of our evolution (i.e. African steppes) did dangerous moral actions often make a person dirty, forging an association? Is the effect a by-product of conscious/subconscious awareness of moral falling-short? I've learned that subconscoius psychological desires and fears often play out through physical gestures in ways we're not aware of.

It's very interesting that subjects who completed a small act of physical cleaning were then less likely to help another person (paragraph 3). On one hand, the physical act apparently reduced feelings of guilt. On the other, the act of cleansing made an act of repentance (if I may introduce Christian language) less likely. That challenges how I would hope we operate; that letting go of guilt would lead us to turn around and head in Jesus' way. The researchers are dealing with small, isolated acts; in the long run, I still hold that absolution ought to point us back towards our path.

It seems that the "washed in the blood of the Lamb" guilt-and-substitutionary-atonement imagery meets a genuine human psychological need. (What does it mean that I don't need it?) In light of the study, I wonder if it's a need the church should engage and speak to (reducing guilt at a basic, act-by-act level) or challenge and seek to transcend. At least I understand better the reason that such imagery speaks to so many people. I note that Jesus doesn't appease human psychology, but teaches the universalization of our best tendencies (ex: from our natural "love your family/tribe" to "love your enemies") and announces that sin is forgiven and that guilt, fear, and violence have no part to play in our relationship with God from now on.

If Jesus meant to fulfill our natural, basic psychological desires, he would have been just another Simon bar Kokhba. Or the frightening, apocalyptic warrior of "Left Behind." Jesus is neither; he can be a thorn in our side when it comes to daily decisions (such as those the research subjects faced) and a teacher and example of truths that transcend our link between moral and physical cleanliness.

Zhong "stresses that he is unsure whether a clean environment would reduce unethical conduct or, by providing a sort of perpetual psychic cleansing, promote it." I'm sure it's not so simple. My guess is that a physically clean environment creates the subtle feeling of a positive ethical atmosphere, and people would react in accord with it (more so, the stronger the informal/formal enforcement of accountability to the "clean" standard) or take advantage of it opportunistically (if a person thought they could escape accountability).

This post is one angle on a subject I'm increasingly interested in; What is Christianity apart from human psychological desires and their fulfillment? This is not dualistic - I do not separate God's desires and human desires into white and black, and God's work is surely done through some of our deepest human needs. Yet, often not; how shall we tell the difference?

----

The Pilgrimage continues to practice on Sunday nights in a home in Lee's Summit, seeking to to discern and take on our role as full-time stewards of God's people and God's universe. The past two weeks we've come to understand the rhythm of our worship a little better, finding where the silences are natural and needed and where they are less so. The potluck continues to be a highlight of our week.

Brin and howie on Genesis and John's Revelation

I've entered the discussion on David Brin's post about Genesis (and also free trade). (I'm only talking about Genesis/Revelation.)

I recently exchanged some emails with a pal over theological points in the Bible that need to be brought forward and evaluated for fresh relevance in modern times.


My favorite is the profound (and profoundly under-appreciated) moment in Genesis when God asks Adam to “name the beasts”... to me this is not only an allegory to science, but an implication that we were meant, all along, to be apprentices who would help to complete the process of creation. (e.g. by setting forth and naming everything in nature... and then?)

Scattered Responses to the New Atheism

Cory sent me a link to this article;

Wired magazine - "Battle of the New Atheism"

It's an examination of several books by so-called "New Atheists." The "New" seems mostly to mean that authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett "condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God" (my emphasis). Their position is that "Religion is not only wrong; it's evil." It's a thoroughly evangelistic atheism. I point you once again to the article - it's a worthwhile read, and I'll assume from here that you read it.

I am not a new atheist ("NA" for the remainder of this post). I am influenced by the work of Dawkins, and Dennett especially. In Dawkins' naturalist/supernaturalist terms, I consider myself a naturalist. But what's most striking about this debate, and its current flare-up, is that it is over a God I don't believe in either.

The NAs (and As in general) argue against the existence of a God who: acts in our universe apart from physical processes, is magical, cares deeply about individual humans' metaphysical beliefs, and for whom the image of a human father is more than metaphorical. But not all concepts of God adhere to this image; for example, the possibility that God is panentheistic does not seem to have been addressed by the NAs.

The NA's position that religion is evil in itself seems misguided; from Mother Teresa to John Doe in the fourth row to my own self, great good is done and evil is resisted religiously. There must be something else about religion that is evil - a tendency to justify violence, a tendency to use the fear of God to oppress others, the sum total
of religious influence in a utilitarian sense over human history, etc. - but
those things are not "religion" in itself. The NA's argument seems flawed there, unable to clearly identify the problem/evil.

----

Everyone, from fundamentalist to New Atheist, seems to accept the premise that religion is primarily about belief in a supernatural God. I don't accept the premise. I accept science and reason as the primary arbiters of truth, and they sent me down a path of deep questioning (Wired calls it a "slippery slope") and at some point along the journey I discovered following Jesus. It is a way of life - of being and doing - and not a belief system. Right now I'm open and unattached on the metaphysical stuff / beliefs. I'm inverted from the cliche of my generation; I'm "religious, not spiritual." My faith is a holy practice, a Way of living this life here and now, based on a call to service (what Dennett calls "trust") and love beyond reason.

Even if Dawkins, et. al., convinced me of their arguments, I would still be trying to follow Jesus.

Because I think that's what God is all about. Giving yourself in love, as a servant, to the people and the world around you. For those of us who need help figuring out what that looks like in a human being, there's this story I heard...

-h