Are You Too Good to Be True?

Tags

Christians, giving, religion, right-wing fundamentalists

I find a lot of hubris among Christians. I have a right to speak on it, since I consider myself one.

I find a lot of so-called Christians who claim to know a lot about God. They tell me what God wants all the time. They tell me that the bible is “his word”, not quite in his own handwriting, but near enough.

All the while, I find that they don’t seem to have read it very carefully, although they are certainly masters of the quote. You know what I mean. You say something, and they say: “The bible says. . . . ” a quote that appears to prove their point.

So maybe if you are a real Christian, one of those born-again types, maybe on the way out of your born again experience, they give you the code book, you know, the one entitled “1001 Sayings of God: All you need to get by in a Secular world.”

I came to that conclusion because as they say, when you have eliminated all the impossibilities, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true. And I have eliminated all the other possibilities. It is the only way you can claim to “know the bible” yet be so ignorant of so much in it. At least the Jesus parts.

That’s what I find so bizarre. It’s true you know. Among the great mass of basically unchurched or poorly churched, “I can read for myself, thank you”, you find an inordinate reliance on what Paul said, and very little about what Jesus said. Even when what Jesus said is attested sometimes by three Gospel writers, while Paul never met the living man.

It’s very true that the Gospels are not history and aren’t meant to be so. They were evangelizing documents, meant to state the case of the believing community of which they were from. They were “this is what we believe and why”. Paul is an entirely different genre. First, many of his letters were not written by him, but the writer wishes to claim Paul’s authority. So read agenda into that. Second, Paul is often writing to address problems within a local church, problems we are mostly unaware of, so therefore it’s very hard to judge the breadth of his statements.

The point is not to discuss Paul, but rather to remind folks of something Jesus talked about as regards “doing good”.

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:1-4)

See I gave it to you in the KJV version!

If you read Jesus, you find that a good deal of his anger is directed at Pharisees, those who would be similar to the born-agains in our time. They talked God and rules of Torah all day and night. They made sure everyone saw how pious they were. They demanded strict adherence to the rules of Judaism, so much so in fact that they regularly turned their back on God’s people as being sinful and untouchable. Certainly the undesirables were denied much as being “unclean”.

Our born-agains are similar. They are always talking God, always praising God, always talking about what God hates and that if you aren’t like them you are condemned. They hate the sin, but “love the sinner” which amounts to shunning the sinner and making the sinner’s life miserable all the while lovin’ him to death in their hearts. Which feeds exactly no one, nor shelters them, nor cures  them.

But the Pharisaic failing that I find worse, and maybe Jesus did too, was the degree to which they strutted about showing off how pious they were by comparison. They would have called it “setting a good example” no doubt, but Jesus just seemed to find it prideful.

I know that atheists and agnostics are as committed to good causes as the believer. I know they give of their money and their time. They care about the earth and the poor. The see it as a human thing to do–help their neighbor. Unfortunately the right-wing evangelical often does it for less honorable reasons–it’s the way to salvation. So it gets personal with them. They do it not because they are human but because they are told that there ain’t no heaven without it.

And that’s not terrible. It still serves the cause. The rich, often from a sense of guilt, throw money around philanthropically speaking. They build wings on hospitals and show up at “events” to lend their celebrity. That too still serves the cause.

But what about that Matthew thing?

About not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing? See that’s the part about NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT A GENEROUS PERSON YOU ARE. Who needs to know that? God already does, I’m sure you would agree. And making me feel small by comparison is certainly no way to encourage me.

See Jesus said that that makes you no different from a Pharisee, or a criminal among other criminals. And your reward is the pats on the back you receive from each other, not what you are ostensibly working toward: salvation.

And you want to know what? If I think of the instances when somebody has told me “chapter and verse” about all the things they have done for the unfortunate, you know what? EVERY time, it was a “born again” type, a “the bible is the WORD of God” type, a “holy roller” who tells me that they read the bible every single day and praise God all day and night. And it was always in response to their saying something racist, or at least selfish in that they didn’t want to pay taxes to help some “other” group. It was their “defense”.

And how un-Christ like is that? I guess they missed Matthew 6: 1-4.

You tell me.

As Gandhi said,

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I have to agree.

By the by, there is a book about losing sight of the purpose of giving called, The Spiritual Danger of Doing Good, by Peter Greer. Some may like to take a look.

Who Announces the Good News?

Tags

Billy Graham, Good News, Gospel, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King

I can’t say that over my life time that I’ve spent much time thinking about Billy Graham. His brand of tent revival evangelizing is not my cup of tea frankly. His  “crusades” were often televised, but we certainly didn’t watch them.

Basically, my impression was of a kind of “pastor” to the presidents, a person with a good heart, and one who was committed to bringing his version of Jesus to the masses. He seemed scandal free.

I’ve, in the last few years, had reason to amend and revise my opinion. His publicized bigotry toward Jews was certainly shocking and unsettling. This from the man who had advised twelve presidents and was always in the top ten of “most admired” Americans.

Last night we watched the last of a three-part series on PBS called “God in America“. It focused on the post WWII time to the present. It focused on the rise of Billy Graham in the first hour. I learned a lot.

Graham owed his rise nationally to William Randolph Hearst. Graham was “crusading” in Los Angeles, and giving his usual “atheistic communist” speech wherein Americans were called to combat the red scare by turning their hearts over to Jesus Christ. Hearst was a rabid anti-communist and went out of his way to feature Graham in his newspaper. From there, Graham took off like a rocket.

But there was a dark side. Graham apparently couldn’t reconcile himself to a Roman Catholic in the White House. He sent JFK a lovely conciliatory letter during the campaign, and then promptly went off to Switzerland where he met with others on how to stop Kennedy from winning the Presidency.

Part of this may have been his great fondness for Nixon. And from those meetings with Nixon come the rather infamous tapes in which Graham clearly refers to Jews in a negative fashion. He claimed they held a “stranglehold” on the media and referred to the “synagogue of Satan.” When these surfaced, Graham claimed not to have recalled using these words and protested that he was not bigoted in any fashion.

A possible reason for his animosity toward Jews may have come from the “prayer in school” issue. It was a group of New York Jewish parents who sued to remove a “generic” prayer from the school their children attended. When it reached the Supreme Court of the land, such prayer was banned throughout the US.

Although he publicly condemned segregation, he privately wrote to Martin Luther King telling him that it would be best to “slow things down a bit.” He rather consistently opposed civil disobedience, although he counseled accepting the laws once passed. He couldn’t see human affairs improving in a real way until Jesus returned to earth. His vision was small. And oddly he never saw it seems, civil rights as a natural cause that Jesus would have embraced.

I guess what I come around to on Graham is that he had very strong beliefs about what he thought was right, and like most fundamentalists, sometimes the means are not so important as long as the ends seem correct. This kind of attitude seems to have filtered through to Franklin his son, who sees nothing unChristian in his vilification of Islam as an evil religion.

Graham was not without his white Protestant standards it seems.

On the contrary, Martin Luther King’s greatness seems to grow the more I learn about him. His stature as a true prophet and preacher of the Good News astounds one with each new revelation.

This man, at great personal threat to himself, refused to back down, and refused to strike back, returning evil for evil. When his home was bombed, a crowd of sympathizers appears with guns to seek vengeance. He sent them home, after tempering their anger.

He of course was jailed for his marching,and some of his most famous words come from that time in the Montgomery jail. He correctly, I believe, situated civil rights in the ministry of Jesus Christ. He saw, as do most African-Americans, segregation as the American Egypt, and the civil rights act as the equivalency of the parting of the Red Sea and the escape from captivity.

He read Gandhi and, saw his model of pass resistance and peaceful civil disobedience as perfect models for how Jesus conducted his ministry and life. He embraced it as the only way. He was mindful of the same arguments advanced by Henry David Thoreau.

Johnson, took up the cause as the new President, following Kennedy’s assassination. And he counseled King, after its passage, to slow down. But King would not. As much as he must have been grateful to Johnson, he was more dedicated to the Gospel. He pushed Johnson to submit a voting rights bill.

And then he turned to areas of general poverty. And then he turned to oppose the Vietnam war, something that certainly put him at odds with Johnson. Yet, he remained true to the Gospel, supremely focused on “putting on the mind of Christ.”

When I view these two men, I can see quite clearly who really announced the Good News. What do you think?

Related Articles

• How the cold war reshaped Protestantism in America (economist.com)
• Martin Luther King (time.com)
• Marilyn Mellowes: ‘God in America:’ Faith and Politics (huffingtonpost.com)
• “Graham: Obama born a Muslim, now a Christian” and related posts (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• 4 reviews of Billy Graham (Christian fundamentalist to borderline relativist) (rateitall.com)

S’more People I’d Like to Send to Antares

Tags

Bill Kristol, Charles Colson, Evangelism, fundamentalism, Iraq, Kirk Cameron, neo-con, right wing religious, Sarah Palin

Billy (The Man!) Kristol is just one of those guys you can define just by looking at his face. A few sentences from his mouth, and you are sure.

Billy was born in 1952 to educated parents, his father being managing editor of Commentary and his mother an English Lit scholar. Born in NYC he was preppy all the way. In other words, Billy was born the good life.

His dad, an old progressive, disillusioned, became the major founder of the neo-conservative movement. Billy, ever, his Dad’s boy, attended Harvard and soon was deeply enmeshed in politics of the Republican kind.

With a few others, he started the Weekly Standard,  holy grail of  neo-con thought.  Murdoch financed it. Nice to have everyone in the same bed doncha think?

It appears that Billy was instrumental in killing the Clinton health care initiative and well, one could argue that Billy got heady with power. He self-claims that he alone was the main creator of the Iraq war, and ain’t that something to be proud of?

He claims almost sole credit for promoting the “surge” in Iraq. Kristol, ever the war monger wanted to join in the Lebanese war in 2006, and mused that it might be an excellent time to “take out” Iran’s nuclear capability as well. “The Man” is a full-blown believer in American Exceptionalism, meaning that America is somehow entitled to rule the world.

There is an overriding smugness about Kristol, a looking-down-the-nose kind of superiority. One could wonder mightily whether he is really the result of an unholy tryst between his mom Gertrude and one Dick (The Dick) Cheney, but alas that is pure speculation. Both biological oddities (they call themselves men) have that air about them that most of the rest of us stink in comparison to their heavenly brilliance.

Of course, riding on his own self-importance, Billy pushed hard for John McCain to choose the Moose woman as his running mate. True to his immense ego, Kristol no doubt saw a pathetic-star-struck wannabe and thought he could meld and mold her into a perfect mouthpiece.

But the Sarah has turned out quite different. Her advice to Christine (hands off my private parts) O’Donnell, to not be handled by the professional handlers, is clearly what has happened vis-a-vis Kristol. She has not been amenable to being groomed into the perfect neo-con Barbie.

Kristol of course, smirks and chuckles about Sarah’s independence, but clearly he and others are concerned about her “mavericky” behavior. O’Donnell’s surprising victory in Delaware, have all but destroyed any hopes that the GOP can capture the Senate.

We have little doubt that Kristol has had more than a few phone calls that start out with “Why in the hell can’t you control that woman!” No doubt such attacks recall the long years of youth when Billy was without doubt the subject of much taunting as the sissy boy nerd. Much of what passes for his “expertise” today is merely payback for all those playground assaults.

Suffice it to say, if I ran into Kirk Cameron, I’d be inclined to pipe up with: “What stupid vat did you fall into?”

You remember Kirk, cute teen TV kid, Mike Seaver on Growing Pains?  Uhuh, yep, that’s the one. with Alan Thicke.

Today? Why, he’s a full-blown evangelical minister. He now stars in Left Behind movies although his post Growing Pains career was fairly successful.

Kirk became a born-again while still filming GP, and was, if one believes Wikipedia, often heard to demand that anything “racy” by stripped from the show. He married his GP girlfriend, Chelsea,  and apparently will not “kiss” another woman in film shooting because it would violate his vows.

Normally I don’t give a hoot if someone professes and practices born-again Christianity. I do draw the line when they have an ability, as Cameron does to reach the masses. Then I sit up and watch. And watching, in this case, will hurt your brain.

Cameron espouses all the usual crap of the right-wing–creationism instead of evolution, and with few qualms about altering Darwin to suit his purposes. He and his partner Ray Comfort then distribute the altered versions free on college campuses.

He’s recently finished a film called Monumental which “documents God’s action in America.” He supports Glenn Becks efforts, but questions his Mormonism. (I just love that sort of thing don’t you?)

He voices the usual enemies list: secular humanists, radical atheists, socialism, and one can assume that he is nix to abortion rights and gay rights as well.

Nexxxt!

Chuckie (Hatchet Man) Colson is another of your evangelical types, having discovered the true faith sometime as he contemplated prison or had plenty of time to think while there.

There are only so many resurrection careers available to the ex-con and this is one of them, not that I question the conversion of Chuck. I surely don’t.

It seems that he has been admirable in putting most of his money into his ministry, contrary to many of his evangelical buddies.

As part of the inner circle in the dark Nixon administration, he identified himself as “ruthless” and was known for heavy-handed tactics. He authored the infamous “enemies list” at the White House. He of course is most famous for being a member of CREEP and imprisoned for his cover-up attempts of the Watergate scandal.

He has been active in his prison ministry but of course began to dabble in politics again, bringing, with others,  a “just-war” excuse to then President Bush, to justify the attack upon Iraq. He is a vocal opponent of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. As of late, he has claimed that he will no longer use the term “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage”  because as he says, “there is no such thing.” Yep, problem solved, just define it out of existence.

PS: Dear Antareans: Should you have sentient beings on your planet, please feel free to divert this garbage scow to a more suitable barren planet. Your friend, Earthing Sherry of the species Homo Sapien Sapien

Related Articles

• David Isenberg: William Kristol: Dulce Bellum Inexpertis (huffingtonpost.com)
• Is Palin a Puppet? (charlestoncitypaper.com)
• Kirk Cameron Announces New Documentary, MONUMENTAL: In Search of America’s National Treasure (prweb.com)
• Video: Clinton’s religious/human rights views upset Chuck Colson (alt headline: ‘Good work, Secty. Clinton!’) (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Marriage and the Battle for Language (dakotavoice.com)

Lazy Blogging or Appropriating the Work of Others

Tags

Arizona, Art Andy Goldsworthy, Evangelical Christianity, Franklin Graham, Glenn Beck, immigration, Latinos, Liberty University, Mormons, Muslims, racism, social concerns

Okay, not really, it’s pretty much the usual short takes, which I haven’t done in a while, but it does lend to the idea that I’m really letting others do the talkin’ for me. Sometimes, (rare, I know) others actually say it better.

The weather is lovely in terms of the sun, but way cool, only 61 at the max today. Tomorrow I must shop before the next deluge which is due sometime Thursday or Friday.

I’m otherwise occupied with the usual stuff.

Actually, I’m not a bathroom hermit myself. Never have been, and never figured out how people can read in the darn place. My butt would get cold sitting there. I go in there for a reason, and get ‘er done.

So here goes, hope you find a thing or two worth your attention.

My first inclination is to say that such a beautiful sunset shouldn’t be wasted on a bunch of elderly dried up old prune faces, but that would be mean. My second inclination is that the entire state could easily be scraped into the Grand Canyon with room to spare.

But if you want to read a rather thoughtful  post about current issues in Arizona and Israel, slip over to read Matty Boy’s take on racism–yeah, now I got your attention don’t I?

I’m an adult, I know we usually take baby steps to correct the wrongs of the world, but for liver-lovin’ sake, has Arizona lost it’s mind? And beware sanctimonious remaining 49, it’s an infectious disease, make sure you get your immunization shots soon.

***

And if that only whetted your interest, then read on. Dusty, never one to parse a expletive when needed, offers some background into the admittedly racist history of those who pushed forward this ugly piece of law.

***

And then there is the political angle that this is all really a ploy to stop the rise of Democratic voting Latinos from living in the state and disrupting the Rethuglican look of things. Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast researches and brings you that story.

***

I’ve mentioned more than once my concerns about the rather blatant racism that is espoused throughout America against other Americans, namely Muslims. Not to say that we should reserve that for Muslims who are not Americans of course.

I was happy to hear that the Pentagon rescinded it’s offer to Franklin Graham to speak at the National Prayer Day ceremonies. The Reverend, son of the famous Billy Graham, expressed the usual racist claptrap in the name of God no less.

While VJack at Atheist Revolution was “disturbed”and “disappointed” that the President visited the elder Graham and also met Franklin, I pointed out in a FB entry that, well fundies would would have been just as disappointed and disturbed had Obama visited Dawkins or Hutchens. The point being, I guess intolerance is something that both fundies and atheists can have in common.

I’ve just started reading Sharp Iron, an admittedly evangelical conservative blog. I was pleased to see that Christian Beyer seems to agree that the Pentagon did the right thing.

Interestingly, Franklin claims that Muslims have a different God than his. That argument always seems odd to me, coming as it always does, from a  monotheist. If there is only one, well, however defined, the Muslim God is indeed the same God as the Christian God, and the Hindu, and the Shinto, and well, you get the picture.

***

I’ve been a believer that nature is God’s canvas upon which he creates the most beautiful of art for us, free of charge. Andy Goldsworthy, seen here in one of his creations, seems to agree. In fact he works in tandem with God (okay that’s my opinion of course) in creating some really beautiful pieces.

If your soul has been battered lately by personal or civic problems, then do stop by and take a look. I promise that you will come away feeling lighter and more at peace. Beauty is a gift of God, at least that is how I see it.

A H/T to Experimental Theology.

***

Liberty University, love child of the late Jerry Falwell, is back in the news as we mentioned a few days ago.

It seems they have invited the renowned intellectual and all around great expounder of Christianity, the one and only, Glenn Beck to be their commencement speaker.

You might remember Liberty from the fact that the Bushites enlisted a goodly number of their law graduates into the Justice Department, where they soon got in hot water by mixing their Repuglian politics with doing their jobs. We are guessing that ethics don’t play a big part in Liberty’s law curriculum.

Anyway, we pondered the incongruity of Beck, who is an avowed Mormon, being asked to speak at a ultra conservative evangelical university. You know, they often claim that said Mormons are not really Christians at all, and if you don’t believe me on that just ask Mitt Romney.

It all seemed mighty crazy, in any event. And I figured, crazy is as crazy does. Beck has called for a boycott of any church that does social justice ministry, and well, we figured Liberty must agree with all that anti-Jesus stuff too. (My Jesus is not their Jesus I would guess.)

Matt Kelley, pastor and blogger has a take on the issue, well worth your reading. And the usual H/T to Prof. James McGrath at Exploring Our Matrix for this link.

That’s it for today. A first–all links are to regular bloggers and I’m as always just amazed at the talent out there. Hope you find something to read!

The New Atheist

Tags

atheism, Christianity, doubt, faith, fundamentalism, God

The new breed of atheist, whom I find scattered around the blogosphere are not living up to the fine traditions of old. Or so it seems to me.

I follow a few such blogs, and often link to others they suggest as “particularly” good, and most of the time, I see the same failures.

I once considered myself one of them, though I was never so arrogant to proclaim a belief that God did not exist. I found it sufficient to say I simply had no clue, and was not persuaded that there was proof either way.

I have seen many an educated atheist dialogue with believers on shows on PBS and been favorably impressed with the level or argument. Yet, today, I find this new breed, this rough uneducated, simplistic crowd,  who bother not to actually think, but only to spout a lot of meaningless jargon, passing it off as “well, I destroyed that Christian myth,” dusting off their hands and moving on to another target.

Many proclaim that James Loftus is an example of one of the better atheist apologists around today. Yet, his blog seems mostly filled with self-promotion of his contribution to a new atheist book (one directed interestingly enough at “evangelical Christianity” only), or in asking his readers to once again validate his efforts at debate–his last foray was not a good time, because his opponent “cheated” by cutting him off and controlling the discussion.

Ken Pulliam, actually entitles his blog “Why I Deconverted from Evangelical Christianity.”
The BEattitude, which we long ago abandoned as too juvenile for adult discussion, tends to rehash the obvious errors within the biblical texts, as if this is not known and understood by all but the hard core fundamentalist.

I of course can understand their choice of foe. It’s easy, requiring little education, smarts or thinking to derail the obviously irrational thinking of most fundamentalist positions. They are against the great weight of the evidence as we used to say in law. And I must say, at least it’s honest. They are being clear, they are not taking on Christianity per se, only the type that we all oppose, whether it be Christian or Muslim, Judaic, or frankly Hindu. Fundamentalism is the same in every faith tradition–and it’s dangers and irrationalities are well known and documented.

Thus, believers can agree with most of these young atheists on much of what they say.

Yet, there is much that must be snickered at, and indeed, I come away shaking my head, at the similar tendency to be so arrogantly sure of one’s position. I cannot recall who said it, but it seems quite true, that some atheists at least have a god that is every bit as important to them as the one believers adhere to. Indeed these new breed atheists have the arrogance to place humans at the top of the heap as the greatest creator of all. All that is,  is the result of human hands and minds. Now that’s some chutzpah I’d say.

This post struck me as interesting. VJack at Atheist Revolution, posits whether there is such a thing as rational Christianity. Now, setting aside the pure arrogance of such a thing on its face, lets dig deeper. He tells us that “we all know that faith is inherently irrational.”

Do we now? Care to prove that point? Care to even explain on what you base it? Are you suggesting that thousands of great minds across the ages have been men and women of faith, and are irrational? Was Aquinas irrational? Was Gandhi? Is Desmond Tutu? Aristotle? Have you done the hard work to even attempt to understand the minds of such greats as Rahner, Bonhoeffer, Barth, Gutierrez, MacQuarrie, Moltmann, Sobrino, Boff, de Chardin, to name but a few?

Without a breath, he moves on then and wonders is it possible to believe without faith? Can one have an intellectual belief in God? Surely this is true, but he seems to think not. I would consider that I came to my belief in exactly that way. That it was a more rational position than not. Faith for me came much later.

In full blown arrogance he continues:

What if a Christian genuinely (albeit mistakenly) believed that he or she had sufficient evidence of some sort of god? This person would be wrong, but would it at least be possible to imagine such a form of Christianity that was entirely void of faith?

Note the “albeit mistakenly.” Exactly by what means can you prove conclusively that there is no God Mr. VJack? You may believe by faith in humanity that there is no God, but you cannot prove conclusively that anyone’s conclusion that there is is by definition wrong. Time to climb from the high horse.

And for whomever said it a week or so ago. Yes, faith includes doubt, not as you claimed, that it was anathema to faith. The bible says as much on that point, reflecting that people of faith have always struggled with doubt. Read John of the Cross if you remain doubtful on this point. Or any mystic for that matter.

And pray tell us,  what is with the rather well known image you attached?

What has this to do with a supposedly rational discussion on the issue of faith? A creationist cartoon hardly has a thing to do with whether there can be a rational basis for belief in a higher power than mankind.

It’s but another cheap assault, which not only weakens an already weak argument, it reminds us once again, that for most atheists it seems nowadays, the only form of Christianity they are familiar with is fundamentalism.

That comes as no news to me, for I have said for a good while that fundamentalism does more to create non-believers than the other way around.

But please, dear atheist brothers and sisters, don’t sink to the common denominator. Come up in the more rarefied atmosphere of adult conversation. You need to read a bit about Christianity and stop using your childhood fundie learnings as your sole basis of argument. They are simply yawnable.

Where to Draw the Line

Tags

child abuse, children, church, faith, parenting, religion

Last week, I called Atheist Revolution to task for suggesting that fundamentalism was somehow more rational and cohesive a theology than more progressive mainstream religious thinking.

I suggested that the author meant to “get the goat” of believers rather than honestly suggest such a ludicrous theory, or that he was utterly uninformed. As anyone knows who is not a fundamentalist of any religion, such mindsets and worldviews are anything BUT rational and fact based.

Another post by the same author has yet again rung so untrue that it got me to thinking about the subject in general. Basically, he suggests that parental insistence that children attend religious services against their will is tantamount to child abuse. And he points to his own experience as evidence. Again, I submit something else is at work.

While I’ve suggested that forcing fundamentalism upon a child can be child abuse (a significant portion of said indoctrinees become atheists when they enter the real world, and or are significantly deficient in science learning, putting them far behind in college), it is hard for me to realize how simply imposing a requirement of church attendance without more, can damage a child.

Here is my reasoning. Let’s say that parents A require child B to attend Sunday services. Now, as the child ages, certainly most rebel against this. But the rebellion has little to do with a professed adherence to atheism. The rebellion is the general rebellion common to all kids who are seeking independence. The child doesn’t rebel against God so much as he’d rather be with friends playing basketball. His priorities are different!

For those small numbers of kids who have at an early age developed a rational intellectual argument against the concept of a deity, I don’t think harm is the result. Rather, this rational child sees the whole process as primitive and outmoded. He argues with parents and others who will listen that there are better  and more rational answers to unknowables than a God. He is bemused certainly by the religiosity of others, and perhaps angry at his time being usurped in this manner, but a couple of hours a week can be “lived” with.

 I cannot for the life of me, find where some deep psychological harm would emanate from. Atheism prides itself on being coldly rational, an intellectual tour de force if you will. Religion to them, is cultish and ritual mumbo jumbo, hardly the stuff to torture the mind of a rational atheist.

So, I submit that the writer has other issues, perhaps ones that he has misunderstood as resulting from forced church attendance. (No doubt there are cultic forms of religion that practice harmful rituals, such as sacrifice of animals and such, that can be harmful, but these I submit are so minor as to be outside the norm of our discussion.)

Still, an important issue is raised. If it is right and proper for parents to require church attendance of their children, how much and for how long comes to mind. I have an opinion on this, but it is one born of what common sense tells me. It is the result of my life experiences either witnessed or read about. So, I’m interested in what tack others feel is appropriate or not.

My thinking is that family church attendance serves other purposes than the instillation of religious belief. Feelings of security, reliability, love, responsibility and such are served by making this a family affair. Modeling of intact family units, sharing, cooperation, and other attributes are offered by the family itself and by other congregationalists.

Up to a certain age, children have not the ability to rationally decide for themselves what is valuable and what not. But, age does play a significant factor. Age, and maturity. I would tend to place the cut off at 14. Here, children have had significant experiences of their own, they know what they believe or don’t (at least for the moment), and they have had a time to sift through the information offered in church settings.

If a child, at 14 (presumably an age when parents feel comfortable leaving a youngster alone for a few hours at home), decides that church is not for him, then I think it appropriate to allow him/her to stop. The inculcation of other values can still be imposed through family “time” on Sunday for an appropriate number of hours. After discussion, there may be “independent” study requirements to learn of other faith traditions or none to help the child sort out their true feelings and beliefs.

I would agree that forcing a child to not only attend services past a certain age, but also to participate in numerous other church related groups and practices is not appropriate and counter productive. This I do  think turns off kids, and creates either out right atheists or at least secular Christians (those I define as professing a belief in God, but a distrust of organized religion).

Anyway, that’s my take on the subject. It’s a thorny one, no doubt, and people on all sides tend to be assertive of their belief and protective of their position.  Can we talk to each other rather than across each other? What say you?

Got Style?

Tags

book review, Christianity, Evangelism, Got Style, Jeffrey Johnson, Judson Press

Jeffrey A. Johnson’s latest book, Got Style: Personality Based Evangelism, couldn’t have come along at a better time. Some weeks ago, at a “Jubilee Ministries” meeting at my church, a number of us began discussing the issue of evangelism, and what we can do to attract those people who may be “spiritual” but unchurched. How do we get out the word that our church ought to be a place that seeking people need to take a look at?

As you know, I’ve expressed some reservations about evangelism in general, in the past. I mostly think of those people who camp on your doorstep and otherwise corner you and then tell you all about how Jesus died to save you, and if you don’t listen up you’ll surely go to hell.

I find such practices highly ineffectual at best, and downright invasive at worst. However, as we came to conclude in our new group, “Infectious Faith,” there are people out there who very much would be  a part of a believing community, if they only knew. If they only knew that some of their worst fears about church are not present, and more importantly, if they understood that they could live out their desire for serving their community through church based ministries.

So, it was with that inevitably serendipity that I received an e-mail from Kim Shimer, Marketing Director at Judson Press, asking me if I would like to participate in the “virtual book tour” of Johnson’s new book. I read the book eagerly, wondering if it would convince me that evangelism was something I could promote.

And indeed I can recommend this book. Mr. Johnson has all the credentials necessary to speak on this subject.  Long experience and education in the field have led him to some, at least for me, really new ideas on how to attract new people to the joy of faith.

Jeff Johnson is quite humble in stating that he has discovered nothing new, but has really added to work of others in the area. But indeed, his contribution is exceptional here. Instead of the usual “methodology” for approaching and engaging non-believers, leading to the same sorry statistics for success, Johnson brings a whole new idea forth.

The idea, is that we are all different personality types, and we are best in using our strengths as individuals when attempting to promote our faith to the world. We are called to evangelism clearly in the bible, yet most of us feel fairly uncomfortable in discussing our faith and certainly in trying to get others to join us in our churches.

Johnson shows us that we are naturally inclined to two basic types: word type evangelism and action type. The word types subdivide into assertive, storytelling, and analytical and the action types subdivide into relational, invitational, and incarnational. A handy test is available in the book so you can determine which type you are.

A church can use such information broadly speaking to determine the general strengths and weaknesses of its congregation, and then to help education and train people to use those methods that are most conducive to their personalities, and thus will prove most authentic and realistic to those who are approached.

Johnson’s work is backed up by reference throughout with biblical reference to those persons, apostles and disciples, and others who use these various types in their own work in history. Johnson is pastor of the Mount Vernon Baptist Church in Hurricane, West Virginia, but by no means should anyone get the idea that this evangelistic system is limited to any particular type of Christian group. In fact, it can be used in any congregation, whether it be one that considers itself liberal or conservative.

Each style of evangelism is presented, defined, and explained in terms of weaknesses and strengths. Examples in the bible are given for each. Any church, or individual can use this information to determine what types are most common to themselves, and how best to use that to their advantage in engaging those whom they identify as potential new members.

Quite frankly, it is hard to avoid the claim that evangelism is merely a means to an end to enlarge the coffers and increase the “numbers” power of any particular congregation. And no doubt, the naysayers will focus on this. But in reality, all churches are called to spread the “good news.” While arguably it can be asserted that all people are pretty much aware of Christianity, it is palpably clear that many have very odd and often wrong ideas about and proper evangelism can do much to correct these misunderstandings.

And no one would deny that most churches are engaged in very important ministries to help the less fortunate in our communities. New members are essential both to fund and to people the groups who work tirelessly to alleviate some of our most pressing social ills. Evangelism serves to improve and increase these ministries and there can be no doubt that this is both good and useful.

While I am no expert here, I found this book fascinating and one that I intend to bring to the attention to my group and my pastors. I think it worth a good look by all those who must allot a shrinking budget to growing social problems. Make this a topic of conversation at your next church meeting and consider this book as model for how to engage the issue. It is well worth the read.

***This is just a reminder that the book reviewed above was provided free of cost by the publisher. This blog was also listed and linked on the publisher’s site regarding this book, as participating in this book promotion. No discussion occurred whatsoever as to the content of this review. It remains my personal opinion.