Would it simply be a matter of population? Do we have the Census Bureau ask people to self-identify their religious commitment? Or would it be religious preference? Or does the question need to come from the realm of Christendom in America? In other words, would there need to be a census conducted of the denominations and churches in America to count the number of church members there are?
The difference is important. Someone self-identifying as Christian gives no criteria against which to measure the claim. Imagine the kind of questions:
1. If asked to claim a personal religious affiliation, which of the following religions would you select:
The answers would be a, b, c based on current religions found in the US. If they answered “Christian”, for the sake of clarity, we might ask their denominational affiliation or non-affiliation:
2. If you answered Christian in question 1, what would be the best description of the variety or denomination of Christianity that you belong to?
You could list the popular denominational categories, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, with an entry for ‘non-denominational’. Of course, there are at least six substantially sized distinct Presbyterian nation-wide churches in the United States with significant theological differences between them. I cannot even begin to count the others.
But how do you screen it? Are you a Christian because your parents were? Because you planned to be buried with a minister presiding? Because you tune in to Joel Osteen once every couple of months? There are certain screening questions.
Perhaps:
3. Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
That is the question in my church.
Or:
3. Are you born again?
Or:
3. Are you saved?
Perhaps some space needs to be provided for a person’s testimony, if they are inclined to give it.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Commentary on being a Christian Nation
“We are no longer a Christian nation . . .” is a quote that has circulated the web in all its glory. Some quotes include Senator Obama’s slightly extended quote claiming America as a nation defined by many religions.
Why does a politician get to define what kind of nation we are? Why does a presidential candidate? Senator McCain has responded to Senator Obama by saying that we are a Christian nation. Who put them in charge of the nation’s pulpits?
It would be so much simpler if we could appeal to the grand patriarch of the Christian religion in this nation to get a clear ruling. Except that we don’t have one. Let us appeal to the association of the churches in our country and allow them to gather a General Assembly from which they could issue a proclamation on the religiosity of this country.
Except, we don’t have one of them either. Oh, there are Councils of Churches, but large segments of the Christian population are not represented and would never be represented by the voices they speak with.
As I was going through the emails and the google searches and some blog commentary about the question of the religious nature of our country, a book prodded my memory and I pulled “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” off my bookshelf (and I think that title is a misnomer). The first two chapters, about fifty pages, are early church, Christianity versus the pagan religions.
But the next 350 pages are all about Christians killing Christians-and that barely finishes the Reformation.
We don’t seem to learn the lessons of history. ‘Christian’ nations have a bloody history of wars and executions and killings. I don’t even want to call these killings martyrdoms. A Christian martyr is one killed for their Christian beliefs. When it is done by those outside of invisible church of Jesus Christ, that is martyrdom. When it is done by those inside the invisible church of Jesus Christ, that is fratricide, killing one’s brother or sister.
Why does a politician get to define what kind of nation we are? Why does a presidential candidate? Senator McCain has responded to Senator Obama by saying that we are a Christian nation. Who put them in charge of the nation’s pulpits?
It would be so much simpler if we could appeal to the grand patriarch of the Christian religion in this nation to get a clear ruling. Except that we don’t have one. Let us appeal to the association of the churches in our country and allow them to gather a General Assembly from which they could issue a proclamation on the religiosity of this country.
Except, we don’t have one of them either. Oh, there are Councils of Churches, but large segments of the Christian population are not represented and would never be represented by the voices they speak with.
As I was going through the emails and the google searches and some blog commentary about the question of the religious nature of our country, a book prodded my memory and I pulled “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” off my bookshelf (and I think that title is a misnomer). The first two chapters, about fifty pages, are early church, Christianity versus the pagan religions.
But the next 350 pages are all about Christians killing Christians-and that barely finishes the Reformation.
We don’t seem to learn the lessons of history. ‘Christian’ nations have a bloody history of wars and executions and killings. I don’t even want to call these killings martyrdoms. A Christian martyr is one killed for their Christian beliefs. When it is done by those outside of invisible church of Jesus Christ, that is martyrdom. When it is done by those inside the invisible church of Jesus Christ, that is fratricide, killing one’s brother or sister.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
“The Family”-Some Scary Christians
It is not often that a book sends chills up and down my spine. I don’t feel that way when I am reading apocalyptic interpretations of modern history based on odd interpretations of Revelations, Daniel, and so on. I don’t feel that way when I am reading about the latest attempt of our denomination to shoot itself in the foot, or knee cap. But Jeff Sharlet gave me shivers.
To think that there is a Christian network woven into American imperial notions leaves me feeling dull inside. I can believe it. It is like a bad dream come true. All of a sudden, all those anti-Christian and anti-American diatribes that we hear on al-Jazeera have a toe hold in reality.
I would not consider myself a political junkie exactly. I think I am just experimenting at the moment, but this book may be the gateway.
So there was the Religious Right, there was the Moral Majority, there was the Christian Coalition, a whole set of expressions of fundamentalist and some evangelical leanings in the political spectrum. But they are public, seeking to ride the news cycle, engaged in the political games of the day. This ‘Fellowship’ or ‘Family’ under the leadership of Douglas Coe bypasses that. Their agenda seems to be within the halls of power, intermingling with the well-placed and whispering in their ears, not standing up and demonstrating in front of their faces.
I see some real theological confusion going on with the covenant God made with the people of Israel through Moses and the covenant these folks seem to see between God and America.
The covenant God made with Moses, reiterating the promises made to Abraham, promising security, prosperity, a land to live in, blessings to those who bless them, cursings to those who curse them, all that came by direct revelation. All that was verbally and completely dictated by God-millennia ago. I do not believe God is re-issuing a variation of the covenant theme with the USA.
The Christian faith now is dictated by the records of those earlier times, the canon of Scripture closed centuries ago. Some may think it weird that the largest faith on the planet takes it lead from a book closed 1600 years ago, a book compiled over several thousand years, but that is for a different blogsideration.
The Family seems to move under a principle of new revelation. Mr. Sharlet does not come out and explicitly use that kind of theological language, but he is a reporter, not a theologian. And as a rather thickly Bible-led Christian, I have trouble explaining what the Family is doing otherwise.
I think the best defense we have is the light of day. Mr. Sharlet’s book provides a whole lot of light and I thank him.
To think that there is a Christian network woven into American imperial notions leaves me feeling dull inside. I can believe it. It is like a bad dream come true. All of a sudden, all those anti-Christian and anti-American diatribes that we hear on al-Jazeera have a toe hold in reality.
I would not consider myself a political junkie exactly. I think I am just experimenting at the moment, but this book may be the gateway.
So there was the Religious Right, there was the Moral Majority, there was the Christian Coalition, a whole set of expressions of fundamentalist and some evangelical leanings in the political spectrum. But they are public, seeking to ride the news cycle, engaged in the political games of the day. This ‘Fellowship’ or ‘Family’ under the leadership of Douglas Coe bypasses that. Their agenda seems to be within the halls of power, intermingling with the well-placed and whispering in their ears, not standing up and demonstrating in front of their faces.
I see some real theological confusion going on with the covenant God made with the people of Israel through Moses and the covenant these folks seem to see between God and America.
The covenant God made with Moses, reiterating the promises made to Abraham, promising security, prosperity, a land to live in, blessings to those who bless them, cursings to those who curse them, all that came by direct revelation. All that was verbally and completely dictated by God-millennia ago. I do not believe God is re-issuing a variation of the covenant theme with the USA.
The Christian faith now is dictated by the records of those earlier times, the canon of Scripture closed centuries ago. Some may think it weird that the largest faith on the planet takes it lead from a book closed 1600 years ago, a book compiled over several thousand years, but that is for a different blogsideration.
The Family seems to move under a principle of new revelation. Mr. Sharlet does not come out and explicitly use that kind of theological language, but he is a reporter, not a theologian. And as a rather thickly Bible-led Christian, I have trouble explaining what the Family is doing otherwise.
I think the best defense we have is the light of day. Mr. Sharlet’s book provides a whole lot of light and I thank him.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
News from the Culture Wars . . .
We are still in the culture wars. At the last General Assembly meeting, we pulled back once again on defining homosexuality as an unordainable offence. G-6.0106b was taken out of the Constitution, pending the Presbytery fights. Every GA, this bit of our Constitution comes under fire once again. We don’t do gay and lesbian weddings, we don’t ordain ‘practicing’ (read: sexually active) homosexuals.
In the meantime, our conservative brothers and sisters in the evangelical churches and more conservative Reformed churches are boasting powerful growth while we bleed congregations.
Well, here’s the thing, are we cutting edge or are we cultural victims? As cutting edge, are we the churches fighting the battle that will eventually engulf the whole of Christendom? Are we fighting for Scriptural interpretation of homosexual behavior because we are the church that is called by God to lead that fight?
As cultural victims, are we so bogged down in the culture wars over the issue of how we deal with the current ‘them’? At the moment, people branded as ‘homosexual’ are ‘them’.
Here is what makes me angry, defining any group of people as ‘them’. I think it is a greater sin to do so then the sins that lead us to define ‘them’ in the first place.
Something both sides might agree on is the remnant motif happening in our church. This is a motif found in Scripture repeatedly. God’s people are punished for transgressing the covenant and a remnant of the faithful return to start fresh. As cultural victims, we might see the remnant of the faithful finally coming out as the ‘victors’ in keeping ‘them’ out.
As cutting edge, we might be the remnant that begins to build the church up once more to include sexual orientation as a blessing of God, not a curse.
A satirical final thought: Jane Spahr was acquitted of charges that she performed a homosexual marriage ritual because, according to the denomination, marriage is by definition heterosexual, so it cannot happen between people of the same gender. I see that application of Genesis where man and woman, God created us. The second part of that command is procreation as the reason for sexual activity. If we are going to be rigorous, if marriage cannot happen between two men or two women, can we really define sex as happening between two men or two women? It cannot lead to procreation.
In the meantime, our conservative brothers and sisters in the evangelical churches and more conservative Reformed churches are boasting powerful growth while we bleed congregations.
Well, here’s the thing, are we cutting edge or are we cultural victims? As cutting edge, are we the churches fighting the battle that will eventually engulf the whole of Christendom? Are we fighting for Scriptural interpretation of homosexual behavior because we are the church that is called by God to lead that fight?
As cultural victims, are we so bogged down in the culture wars over the issue of how we deal with the current ‘them’? At the moment, people branded as ‘homosexual’ are ‘them’.
Here is what makes me angry, defining any group of people as ‘them’. I think it is a greater sin to do so then the sins that lead us to define ‘them’ in the first place.
Something both sides might agree on is the remnant motif happening in our church. This is a motif found in Scripture repeatedly. God’s people are punished for transgressing the covenant and a remnant of the faithful return to start fresh. As cultural victims, we might see the remnant of the faithful finally coming out as the ‘victors’ in keeping ‘them’ out.
As cutting edge, we might be the remnant that begins to build the church up once more to include sexual orientation as a blessing of God, not a curse.
A satirical final thought: Jane Spahr was acquitted of charges that she performed a homosexual marriage ritual because, according to the denomination, marriage is by definition heterosexual, so it cannot happen between people of the same gender. I see that application of Genesis where man and woman, God created us. The second part of that command is procreation as the reason for sexual activity. If we are going to be rigorous, if marriage cannot happen between two men or two women, can we really define sex as happening between two men or two women? It cannot lead to procreation.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
There are Twelve Tribes, and there are Twelve Tribes
One of my favorite shows on television is “Battlestar Galactica”, dare I admit to both versions? The one currently in its last season on Sci-Fi is some of the best, admittedly depressing, science fiction ever put on the small screen.
The story has the remnants of twelve tribes seeking the ‘lost’ thirteenth tribe. There is a lot of other religion mixed into the show, but this particular bit caught my attention. The twelve tribes, each named for a sign of the Zodiac, allude fairly obviously to the twelve tribes of Israel. These are the tribal/political divisions of the nation of Israel as they complete the Exodus and conquer the Promised Land. These stories are chronicled in the books of Exodus through Joshua of the Old Testament.
The parallels diverge from each other concerning the thirteenth tribe. In Battlestar Galactica, the thirteenth tribe is ‘lost’, out there in the cosmos somewhere, in a place will provide salvation for the remnants of the other twelve tribes. I am told that this is in parallel with the origin story of the church of Latter Day Saints, but I do not profess to know enough about our Mormon brothers and sisters to speak to that.
I want to speak to what I know. In the Old Testament, there are also thirteen tribes, twelve of whom inherit land in the Promised Land. Those twelve originate with eleven of the sons of Jacob, renamed Israel by God, and two of the grandsons of Jacob. (Jacob is in turn the grandson of Abraham, with whom God made the original covenant).
In other words, one son of Jacob, Joseph, has two tribes ascribed to his family, one for each of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Joshua 14:4). So twelve get land.
The thirteenth tribe is not lost, it is not eliminated, it is not gone. The thirteenth tribe, named for Jacob’s son Levi is given no inheritance among the territories of the Promised Land. Rather, according to Joshua 13:33 “But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance; the Lord God of Israel is their inheritance, as he said to them.”
The tribe of Levi has cities and towns scattered among the other tribes. With God as their inheritance, they became the religious leaders, the priests and religious ‘staff’ of the nation. They represented the presence of God among the people, among the tribes, with them and blessing them if the rest of the nation kept God’s covenant.
Having God was not something the people of the Bible needed to go searching for in a far off land. There was no lost tribe that could save them. That thirteenth tribe was always in their midst, God was always in their midst.
But that does not appear to make as good a science-fiction show.
The story has the remnants of twelve tribes seeking the ‘lost’ thirteenth tribe. There is a lot of other religion mixed into the show, but this particular bit caught my attention. The twelve tribes, each named for a sign of the Zodiac, allude fairly obviously to the twelve tribes of Israel. These are the tribal/political divisions of the nation of Israel as they complete the Exodus and conquer the Promised Land. These stories are chronicled in the books of Exodus through Joshua of the Old Testament.
The parallels diverge from each other concerning the thirteenth tribe. In Battlestar Galactica, the thirteenth tribe is ‘lost’, out there in the cosmos somewhere, in a place will provide salvation for the remnants of the other twelve tribes. I am told that this is in parallel with the origin story of the church of Latter Day Saints, but I do not profess to know enough about our Mormon brothers and sisters to speak to that.
I want to speak to what I know. In the Old Testament, there are also thirteen tribes, twelve of whom inherit land in the Promised Land. Those twelve originate with eleven of the sons of Jacob, renamed Israel by God, and two of the grandsons of Jacob. (Jacob is in turn the grandson of Abraham, with whom God made the original covenant).
In other words, one son of Jacob, Joseph, has two tribes ascribed to his family, one for each of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Joshua 14:4). So twelve get land.
The thirteenth tribe is not lost, it is not eliminated, it is not gone. The thirteenth tribe, named for Jacob’s son Levi is given no inheritance among the territories of the Promised Land. Rather, according to Joshua 13:33 “But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance; the Lord God of Israel is their inheritance, as he said to them.”
The tribe of Levi has cities and towns scattered among the other tribes. With God as their inheritance, they became the religious leaders, the priests and religious ‘staff’ of the nation. They represented the presence of God among the people, among the tribes, with them and blessing them if the rest of the nation kept God’s covenant.
Having God was not something the people of the Bible needed to go searching for in a far off land. There was no lost tribe that could save them. That thirteenth tribe was always in their midst, God was always in their midst.
But that does not appear to make as good a science-fiction show.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
What does the Bible Have to Say About Intelligent Design?
I am not talking about the Creation Story in Genesis. That is NOT Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, as I understand it's popular meaning, is looking at creation and seeing the hand of a creator in it. Genesis 1 is explicit that our God is the Creator. Intelligent Design cannot make that assumption without a leap of faith. I have leapt, I believe our God is the intelligent designer, as does Genesis 1, but I am asking a different question.
Does the bible give its permission for Intelligent Design to be used? Are we permitted to look at nature in order to see God? Or is God only revealed to us in the bible? Is creation at best the artful project of a God we can then pursue in the Scriptures?
I think we have permission. Job 12: 7-10:
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach yo; and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?
In his hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of every human being."
In Genesis 1, we have the story of creation. In Job 12, we have the creation telling the story. Yes, it makes the leap of faith that our Lord is the Creator Lord. It is the bible, after all.
The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the RRSV Bible, Copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Educatin of the Nation al Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used b permission, all rights reserved."
Does the bible give its permission for Intelligent Design to be used? Are we permitted to look at nature in order to see God? Or is God only revealed to us in the bible? Is creation at best the artful project of a God we can then pursue in the Scriptures?
I think we have permission. Job 12: 7-10:
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach yo; and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?
In his hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of every human being."
In Genesis 1, we have the story of creation. In Job 12, we have the creation telling the story. Yes, it makes the leap of faith that our Lord is the Creator Lord. It is the bible, after all.
The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the RRSV Bible, Copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Educatin of the Nation al Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used b permission, all rights reserved."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)