- Asphalt Jesus Chapters
- Ch1 – The Idea That Wouldn't Go Away
- Ch10 – Art and Soul
- Ch12 – Faithful Doubting
- Ch2 – Phoenix Rising
- Ch3 – Hellfire, Damnation & Garbage Dumps
- Ch4 – Jesus First Baptist Church
- Ch5 – The Trickster Shows Up – Again!
- Ch6 – Asphalt Jesus
- Ch7 – Faith in Podunk
- Ch8 – Silence of the (Christian) Lambs
- Ch9 – A Little Light That Shined
- Crosswalk America
- Phoenix Affirmations
- Affirmation 1 – God's Paths
- Affirmation 10 – Sacredness of Mind and Heart
- Affirmation 11 – Rest, Recreation & Body
- Affirmation 2 – God's Word
- Affirmation 4 – God's Worship
- Affirmation 5 – ALL My Neighbors
- Affirmation 6 – Poor and Outcast Neighbors
- Affirmation 8 – Neighbors in Opposition
- Affirmation 9 – Loved for Eternity
- Small Group Leaders
Asphalt Jesus Chapters
A thought on Affirmation 11
Posted by Rev. Eric Elnes, PhD. in Affirmation 11 - Rest, Recreation & Body, Ch7 - Faith in Podunk on July 3, 2009
This weekend we begin looking at Affirmation 11 of the Phoenix Affirmations, which asserts that “Christian love of self includes caring for our bodies and insisting on taking time to enjoy the benefits of prayer, reflection, worship, and recreation in addition to work.” Essentially, Affirmation 11 is about sabbath-keeping – a concept not limited only to taking a day off per week, but to a whole lifestyle that moves beyond a utilitarian so-called “Protestant work ethic” into a creative engagement with spaciousness in life, enabling us to set our lives against and within a larger picture.
One of the comments that David Whyte made on our first morning together as a group in northern England engages Affirmation 11 well. He observed that “most people are a good 4-5 years the curve of their own transformation.” They haven’t paid enough attention to the conversation they’re subconsciously having with life (“Faith” he says, “is measured by the depth to which one pays attention.”). Consequently, people tend to be unaware of the dominant questions and themes they themselves are posing and responding to. David encouraged each of us to “allow for a good bit of silence to find out who it is who is sitting here.”
Affirmation 11 is about being more intentional about engaging our life’s conversation playfully and seriously.
Who is sitting before your computer screen right now?
Posted by Rev. Eric Elnes, PhD. in Affirmation 8 - Neighbors in Opposition, Ch6 - Asphalt Jesus on June 23, 2009
Greetings from Melmerby! I’ve posted two more video journal pieces on YouTube. They’re just scenic videos, but will give anyone whose interested a taste of what we’re doing on our afternoon walks that follow our morning talks. The group has really been enjoying seeing these video recaps of our day. The software makes it easy to get them done almost immediately after we arrive back at the manor. I simply to load the afternoon’s videos, push a button or two, and voila! Here’s Saturday’s hike. Here’s Monday’s hike.
For those Asphalt Jesus groups studying Affirmation 8 this week, I am reminded of something David Whyte observes toward the end of his latest book, The Three Marriages: Reimagining Work, Self and Relationships. I don’t have the book in front of me so I can’t quote him exactly, but he suggests that our greatest adversaries often serve as our greatest pathways into ourself. An adversary tends to push and pull us in ways that lead us to discovering aspects of ourselves, or confirming aspects of ourselves, that are harder to get at when things are flowing smoothly.
Something to ponder this week!
On Sunday we’ll be exploring the relationship between what Jesus has to say about our “enemies” and living a creative life. We’ll be hearing some really great wisdom both from the gospels and from DeWitt Jones, a photographer who worked for National Geographic for many years. I look forward to seeing you then!
Reflections on Affirmation 6
Posted by Rev. Eric Elnes, PhD. in Affirmation 6 - Poor and Outcast Neighbors, Ch5 - The Trickster Shows Up - Again! on June 11, 2009
Affirmation 6
Standing, as Jesus does, with the outcast and oppressed, the denigrated and afflicted, seeking peace and justice with or without the support of others;
Evangelical Christian activist Jim Wallis writes in his book, God’s Politics, that he often does a little “Bible quiz” for audiences he speaks to. He asks, “What is the most famous biblical text in America about the poor?” He writes, “Every time, I mean every single time, I receive the same answer: ‘The poor you will always have with you!’ they shout out.”
I can relate to this experience. Growing up in the affluent suburban community of Mercer Island, Washington (a suburb of Seattle) this phrase was drilled into my head over and over. However, Jesus’ saying that “the poor you will always have with you” is far from the sum total of what the Bible has to say about poverty and, in fact, this passage is misinterpreted to mean that Jesus didn’t care about the poor (If so, why did he care in so many other passages?).
Contrary to what some would have us believe, the Bible is far more concerned with justice for the poor, widow, orphan, and foreigner than the issues like homosexuality, abortion, and prayer in schools. For instance, in contrast to the six passages that could be construed as having to do with homosexuality (and not all of them hold up to closer scrutiny), there are over 2,000 passages in the Bible that have to do with wealth and our use of material possessions. In some of the prophetic literature (Amos and Jeremiah), the claim is even made that you can be among the most pious people in the world and if you fail to care for society’s marginalized and denigrated, you may as well be worshipping astral deities or Canaanite gods, not the God of the Hebrews.
On the other hand, contrary to the view of some Christians who would claim that social justice is the ONLY issue God is concerned about, the biblical tradition speaks quite assertively that turning our lives over to God and attending to our spiritual path are at least as important as social justice. In fact, the great prophets of old would have thought it absurd to invest energy in the very justice issues they were so passionate about without turning one’s heart, and indeed one’s very life, over to the will and guidance of God’s spirit.
In this the prophets were utterly practical. They recognized that the interests of society are fickle and tend to drift with the wind. Without an adequate grounding in the spiritual path, they recognized that justice would be subject to people’s momentary whims and desires. People would work on behalf of the marginalized only as long as it was the socially acceptable thing to do, rather than as a long-term commitment to doing “on earth as it is in heaven.” Justice would be subject to fads, or to the exigencies of self-interest (“I’ll be glad to help the poor as long as I can make a buck off it.”).
It may seem contrary to popular wisdom, but the spiritual disciplines of prayer, Bible study, worship, and fellowship in a faith community, are critical to the maintenance of a long-term commitment to (and energy for) social justice. This isn’t merely personal opinion, but is backed by solid evidence. Throughout American history, issues of social justice have had a very hard time gaining traction in society until communities of faith took them up and began seeing them as part of their spiritual walk with God.
Of course, there have been many times when faith communities were the very ones standing in the way of justice, whether it was during the struggle against slavery, or for women’s rights, or for civil rights for all races. Nevertheless, none of these movements caught fire in our society until a critical mass of faith communities began to embrace and sustain them.
One possible exception to this pattern is the current struggle for civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people (LGBT). As in the “days of old,” many churches have followed the pattern of being slow to awaken to this social justice issue. Yet what seems to be breaking the pattern is that a strong and growing consensus is developing in our society – particularly among those under the age of thirty – that LGBT equality is basic to our social contract. This is happening despite faith communities, not because of them. To this day, being an active member of a faith community is the biggest predictor of support (or rather, lack of support) for LGBT equality.
To me, this break in the pattern of justice being carried forward by communities of faith is troubling. For “secular” society to be the champion of social justice for LGBT people suggests that churches and other communities of Spirit have somehow lost a connection to the historical relationship between faith and justice for the marginalized. What is particularly troubling about this break is that, whenever this happened in biblical history, the faith community went into steep and even disastrous decline. It is as if God’s Spirit has a flow to it, and when that flow is impeded by the communities of Spirit overly long, it jumps boundaries and flows into “back channels” (These days, the “secular” community.). While this new pattern cannot be sustained over long periods of time (the Spirit is intelligent enough to know that it flows most robustly when it is sustained by those committed to its flow), it can indeed work temporarily. Justice can be sustained in the short-run by those who do not connect justice with their spiritual path – as long as it’s the “socially acceptable” or self-interested thing to do (On this latter point, note the embrace of LGBT equality by corporations who have realized it’s not profitable to discriminate based on sexual orientation). In the meantime, the spirit-communities flounder, lose spirit and energy, and eventually begin to collapse in on themselves.
When this happens, the basic pattern morphs, and looks like this: When the pain of collapse becomes widespread enough, and great enough, people begin realize once-again that they can’t sustain their faith communities under their own will and direction. Some of them begin to rediscover the classic spiritual disciples – the things that turn their heads and hearts over to the Spirit – and this re-ignites their essential spark. They begin to wake up and come alive in their worship and community life, and in their work in the community, even as other faith communities continue to implode. Eventually, thus, this generalized implosion among the faith communities leads to an explosion of new energy similar to what happens when a star collapses in on itself (Supernova!). Unlike stars, whose supernovas signal their final end, supernovas in the faith community tend to thrust them into another dimension or sorts – a higher level of existence. These periods become known as “Great Revivals” and “Great Reformations.”
This pattern was perhaps best articulated for our times with respect to the Christian faith community by the late William Sloan Coffin, former Senior Minister of Riverside Church, who observed:
The Church, of all the institutions in society, interprets the memory and proclaims the message of the coming kingdom. The Church may distort Jesus into a white middle-class pillar of American respectability; it may pervert his image into that of a religious Babbitt pushing the cult of successfulness; it may distort and pervert his image, but the Church cannot forget Jesus. And in spite of its best efforts to domesticate that Jesus, the Church knows and frequently fears that his message will be rediscovered. The Church cannot help but keep the name in circulation, and where the name is remembered there is hope.” (Credo, p. 138)
A true church is one which is “joyfully and unapologetically Christian” and is just as ”joyfully and unapologetically” justice-oriented. As in biblical times, these go hand in hand, and lead to amazing vitality and life not just for the marginalized but for the whole community.
What is a Christian fundamentalist? (And why I prefer another path)
Posted by Rev. Eric Elnes, PhD. in Affirmation 2 - God's Word, Affirmation 9 - Loved for Eternity, Ch4 - Jesus First Baptist Church on June 4, 2009
Recently an Asphalt Jesus group wrote with a series of questions, one of which was: “What is your definition of fundamentalism?” I’ll try to address the other questions in future posts, but here’s my take on what fundamentalism is. Feel free to add a comment with your own definition!
My definition really isn’t mine at all, but was articulated in the early 1900s, partly as a result of something called the Niagara Bible Conference which sought to define the beliefs thought to be non-negotiable or “fundamental” to Christian faith (which led to the term “fundamentalism”). These beliefs were distilled into a “top five” of sorts. Ironically these five principles were first formally articulated within the Presbyterian Church soon which split into two very different denominations as a result of conflict over how “fundamental” these principles actually are:
(1) The inerrancy of Scripture.
(2) The virgin birth of Christ.
(3) The belief in the atonement of sins through Christ’s death.
(4) The bodily resurrection of Christ.
(5) The historical reality of all of Christ’s miracles.
Of course, quite a number of people of more moderate faith would affirm some of the above beliefs. In actuality, just two of the beliefs above serve as significant separators between fundamentalism and other forms of Christian belief: (1) belief in the literal inerrancy of Scripture and (2) belief that Christ saves (only) believers from eternal damnation through atonement on the cross.
I want to make it perfectly clear here, though, that to distinguish between Christian fundamentalism and other forms of Christian faith such as Christian liberal or progressivism is not to distinguish in any way between who is a “good” Christian (or human being) and who is not.
You may recall that Jesus himself said that he came not to serve the “healthy” but the “sick” (Luke 7). By definition, therefore, ALL who claim to follow Jesus should identify themselves with “the sick” regardless of how liberal or conservative their beliefs. We all stand in “fundamental” need of God and have “fundamental” problems turning our will (and with it, our lives) over to God’s power and guidance.
Personally, while I find myself frequently at odds with fundamentalist Christian belief (and really, fundamentalist belief of any sort), I would trade the community of a hundred liberal/progressives who saw themselves as completely healthy and in little need for God in their lives for the community of ten fundamentalists who had truly understood themselves to rely on the grace, love and guidance of God.
The reason why, though, I find a more liberal/progressive faith system (and community) to a more fundamentalist/conservative one is because, having tried both systems, I have found that a more liberal/progressive faith helps ME accept and acknowledge the realization that I am sick and am in need of God in my life. What does this look like concretely in my life? It looks like this:
Regarding the salvation thing.
Because I have become convinced, through scripture, through Christians who have come before me, and through life experience, that I and all people are loved unconditionally, beyond our wildest imagination, I feel far freer than I did in my distant and brief “fundamentalist” phase to admit that I don’t have all of life’s answers wrapped up in a nice, neat package. I feel no need to prove to God or others that I have perfect faith, or that my faith has “made me whole” (and therefore no longer in need of God?).
Being assured of God’s unconditional love has given me the freedom to take a more critical look at my life and realize just how strongly I must rely on a higher power to move beyond my shortcomings and truly live on a higher level. It has also given me a sense of deep acceptance of others, shortcomings and all, in ways that I did not have before. If someone is driving me crazy, I firmly believe that when all is said and done (in this life or beyond), we will be united with each other in God’s grace and love. This gives me a sense of patience with people that I personally would not have if I believed that God was just waiting to punish the person (forever!) for failure to agree with me (after all, my views and God’s are the same, right? Not!).
Regarding the scripture thing.
My belief that the scriptures are NOT inerrant radically increases my joy in studying the scriptures, and with it, my ability to learn from our ancient sisters and brothers of faith. Since I do not feel compelled to blindly accept that which runs contrary to love of God, neighbor, and self in scripture, I can enter into a deeper, more honest relationship with the texts before me. (Incidentally, sometimes that “love of self” principle includes love of the part of myself that has an intellect and therefore does not confuse story and parable with scientific fact. And that “love of neighbor” part convinces me that an adulterer is not to be stoned to death as the scriptures advocate). I have become convinced that taking the scriptures “seriously but not literally” enables me to better “hear” what the ancients were trying to tell us in the first place about their authentic experiences of God. Those who wrote scripture weren’t literalists! And they certainly did not think that what they were writing was inerrant (The only that claims to be the pure words of God is Revelation – the most historically controversial book of the whole Bible!). When I stop looking for scientific fact and start listening for what the scriptures are trying (imperfectly) to tell us about love of and by God, and love of neighbor and self, the scriptures frequently point me to where I can find these loves potentially at work in my life that I haven’t noticed before.
I could go on and on, but will finish with this final point about what my liberal/progressive faith does for me: It fills me with bewilderment over why more liberal/progressive Christians frequently find it so hard to love their enemies, acknowledge their own shortcomings, devote themselves to seeking God’s guidance on a daily basis, and study the scriptures on a deeper level. Life gets so darn good when we do these things consistently, and our theology is such an incredibly powerful support in doing so!
But just when I get worked up about how others fail in this regard, I start looking at myself again and realize how far ALL of us have yet to go down this path. And, it’s also about the time I find yet another example of how perfectly God works through imperfect people like us. I guess that’s why God loves grace so much. God isn’t dependent upon our perfection to expand or deepen God’s Realm on earth or to take us into (wonderful) places we wouldn’t necessarily go ourselves!
Love who? Beyond what??
Posted by Rev. Eric Elnes, PhD. in Affirmation 9 - Loved for Eternity, Ch2 - Phoenix Rising, Ch3 - Hellfire, Damnation & Garbage Dumps on May 24, 2009
A number of questions have been sent in lately regarding the topic of being “loved beyond our wildest imagination” and its implications. Some have wondered where that phrase comes from, which is not only part of the Phoenix Affirmations (#9) but is also repeated in the blessing given each week at Countryside Church. Others have wondered about the implications of the phrase, particularly as it may apply to those who engage in abusive or otherwise destructive behavior toward others. “What does this kind of love mean for the murderer, the rapist, etc.,” is one form of the question. Or “What about Hitler – is he loved beyond his wildest imagination, too?”
I have to catch a plane to Scottsdale in a couple hours (our eldest daughter, Arianna, is graduating!), so I can only address the question of origins right now, which gets us into the notion of salvation along with it. I’ll get to the question of implications for mean and nasty people later in the week. Regarding the origin of “loved bey0nd our wildest imagination”:
Nearly a decade ago I was noticing that we in the more liberal/progressive end of the theological swimming pool do not talk much about salvation. We use the word – occasionally – but we really don’t have much to say about it. In fact, many people seem downright embarassed about the term thanks in no small part to the way it has been thrown around in circles where salvation mostly means salvation from everlasting torture in hell. Having rejected the essentially unbiblical (yet very popular) notion that God would torture people for eternity if they don’t please God in a certain way, and with it the notion that one would need to be “saved” from such a fate, liberals/progressives have largely let any notion of salvation fall by the wayside.
I found this situation unfortunate, and still do. While hell as popularly conceived may be an unbiblical notion, salvation is certainly not. Salvation is spoken of – and sung about – practically from cover to cover in the Bible, and has continued to be an important feature of Christian faith all the way up to the present era. But what does salvation mean if it doesn’t mean salvation from eternal damnation?
This may seem like a purely academic issue to some, but the rubber really hits the road when we consider the implications of our concept of salvation (or lack thereof) in the real world. For instance, if you aren’t being saved from hell, does it matter that one be a person of faith at all? Most Christians would (hopefully) say “Yes.” But does it matter in a way that’s significant? that makes a definitive qualitative difference in your life? If so, how do you characterize this difference? How does having Christian faith lead you to understandings and actions that you wouldn’t be thinking/acting on if you did not have faith in the God of Jesus? If you can’t point to any significant difference that faith makes in your life, can you really claim that there is any compelling reason to have faith to begin with? In fact, wouldn’t it be quite a bit more compelling to conclude that it is better not to have faith, since Christianity asks for such serious commitments from us, like tithing, and praying, and going to church, etc.? Why would any reasonable person do and give all these things if faith makes no discernible difference in people’s lives?
For fundamentalists, all this is talk is beside the point. Faith saves them from hell and gets them into heaven. What bigger difference is there than that? And this belief is precisely why a person might be persuaded to introduce her or his neighbor to Jesus. Ninety-nine percent of all the evangelism done by fundamentalist Christians – and they do a lot of evangelism compared to everyone else – is done precisely to “save” people from the fires of hell. In other words, fundamentalists have a very clear notion of what salvation is, and this notion compels them not only to be people of faith themselves but to evangelize others.
Not so with liberal/progressives. Salvation is a “squishy” term. We’re really not sure what it means or implies, and therefore it almost goes without saying that we’re not going to try particularly hard to make new friends of Jesus. And we wonder why all the mainline denominations have decreased in members every year since the mid-sixties?!
A decade ago, I wasn’t content with this situation. I looked out over the mainline Chrisitan landscape and saw a whole lot of folks for whom Christianity was mainly a cultural phoenomenon that simply was blessing whatever the dominant culture of the time decided was worthy of blessing. I saw a faith whose message had essentially devolved into “Be good and don’t rock the boat too much.” And I said to myself, “This is what Jesus died for??” While I do not subscribe to the theology of substitutionary atonement (the concept that Jesus had to die in order to take on a punishment that God was going to give us, and thus save us from hell), I do very much believe that Jesus’ death was meaningful, and that he died for a lot more than simply for us to live a decent and orderly life.
So I determined to come up with a new definition of salvation (i.e., a statement about why the faith matters so much to me that I would, in fact, strive to introduce friends and neighbors to Jesus if they hadn’t been introduced already). Or, short of a new definition, I simply wanted to find one that would resonate with theological ears tuned similarly to my own. Thus, I launched into a six-week preaching series at Scottsdale Congregational Church called “Does Jesus Save?” I had no definition of salvation going into the series, but I figured I’d have one by the end of it! And, by gum, I actually did. The definition has stuck with me ever since.
So what’s my definition of salvation? Salvation is discovering that we are loved beyond our wildest imagination and determining to orient our lives according to this discovery. Period.
Please note that there are two halves to this statement. Salvation is not simply discovering you are loved beyond what you can comprehend. It also has to do with deciding to manifest this love in your everyday life. Note that this second half is not “salvation by works.” It imlies nothing about the successfulness of our attempt. But it does acknowledge that salvation is more than just an intellectual phenomenon. We may be “loved beyond our wildest imagination” whether we act on our discovery or not, but this discovery really can’t do any good for us until it also moves us to live and understand life differently than we did before the discovery.
Christianity and Other Faiths – Part 1
Posted by Rev. Eric Elnes, PhD. in Affirmation 1 - God's Paths, Ch4 - Jesus First Baptist Church on May 24, 2009
For the next couple weeks, we’ll be exploring Affirmation 1 of the Phoenix Affirmations in worship and small groups (Asphalt Jesus groups, Chapter 4: Jesus First Baptist Church). Affirmation 1 reads: “Christian love of God includes walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths that God may provide for humanity.”
Here are some thoughts to help spur reflection on the relationship between Christianity and other faiths. They’re based on a section that was cut from the original draft of my book on the Phoenix Affirmations.
Imagine the following scene: A steel gray, state-of-the-art Iranian-made military helicopter hovers menacingly above a New England style white-steepled Christian church. Smoke billows from a burned out car nearby as Iranian militia repel from the helicopter toward the roof ready to attack the church.
Does this scene raise your heart rate any? Now suppose you were to learn this scene was depicted in a prominent Iranian government and policy journal in an advertisement for a new military helicopter. In front of the church sits a sign reading, “Jesus Church,” removing all doubt about the nature of the building being attacked. Below the scene you find a caption reading, “It descends from the heavens. Ironically it unleashes hell.” A further caption states that the craft “delivers Special Forces to insertion points never thought possible.”
How do you feel now? What are your feelings toward the people who created the ad? Even though the ad’s purpose is to sell helicopters, what does it suggest about prevailing attitudes toward Christianity or Christians themselves on the part of the ad’s creators and the journal’s readership?
There is good news and bad news behind this mental exercise. The good news is that such an ad has never appeared in an Iranian journal. The bad news is that a similar ad, only depicting an American-made V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and American military personnel rappelling onto the roof of an Islamic mosque has, in fact, appeared. A sign in front of the building read in Arabic, “Muhammad Mosque,” and the same disturbing captions appeared in the ad. The ad was not published in the Arab world as a piece of anti-American propaganda, but in America. It appeared in the National Journal, a prominent Washington government and policy magazine, on September 24, 2005.
You can view the ad by clicking this link: mosqueattackad
To the credit of the aircraft’s creators, Boeing and Bell Helicopters, as well as the National Journal itself, the ad was pulled immediately after a protest was filed from the Council for American-Islamic Relations. Public apologies were issued. The companies cited “clerical error” as the culprit behind the ad and spoke of the need for “evaluating creative processes.”
I cite this example not to suggest that the ad represents the attitudes of all Americans toward either Islam or Islamic countries. Indeed, America has a long and impressive record of tolerance and welcome toward people of other faiths. This not only includes American Christians’ attitudes toward non-Christians, but American Muslims’ stance toward non-Muslims, American Hindus’ toward non-Hindus, and so on. Indeed, while there have always been distinct and highly regrettable exceptions in our historical record, America’s record of tolerance may favorably be compared to that of any other country on earth.
Whether it was the often brutal treatment of Native Americans by settlers and the U.S. government itself two centuries ago or the inhumane and demoralizing treatment of Chinese immigrants by San Franciscans around the beginning of the last century, there has been a shadowy subtext to many of these sad stories: The perpetrators have frequently been Christians who believed fervently that Christianity is the only legitimate path to God and that all others will burn in hell for eternity if they are not “saved” for Jesus.
Of course, not every Christian believes this way. According to a recent major study, in fact, 7 in 10 Christians believe that many religions can lead to eternal life, including 6 in every 10 evangelicals, 8 in 10 mainliners and Catholics – despite the fact that the “official” doctrinal stances of of evangelicals and Catholics would suggest otherwise. Incidentally, you can see a graphical depiction of the results of that poll by clicking on Question 9 after clicking here.
Further, of those who do believe non-Christians will go to hell, relatively few will ever become violent or inhumane toward them. In fact, what few people recognize is the level of compassion many of these believers have toward non-Christians. Think about it: If you honestly believed (and perhaps you do believe) that those who do not “believe in their heart and confess with their tongue” that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior will be tortured in the fires of hell for eternity, would you not do everything in your power to save non-believers? How much love and compassion could you say you really have if you do not make every effort to convert non-Christians before they die, by hook or by crook?
Christian liberals often don’t like to admit it, but such beliefs have fueled the fires of some of the most energetic efforts to better the condition of the downtrodden in our country. Just visit an inner-city homeless shelter run by Christians or a prison ministry and you’ll often find sincere, very conservative people of faith doing their best to reach out to those whom society has rejected. Of course, a strong motivation for their being there is to “save souls for Jesus.” Yet, even if one may disagree with their theology and may disagree as well with some of their tactics, it is hard to deny the sincerity and compassion of many of these rugged souls. While many people sit on the sidelines and critique a homeless ministry, for instance, for requiring their clientele to sit through a sermon before being offered a bed for the night, they ignore the fact that many of these preachers, soup kitchen workers and counselors have made tremendous personal sacrifices and endured all kinds of abuse both by those they’re serving and those who sit on the sidelines in order to do what they do.
However, just as many Christian liberals tend to overlook the sincerity and compassion behind their more conservative brothers and sisters, so also do many Christian conservatives tend to overlook the shadow side of their beliefs, quite apart from arguments for or against the beliefs themselves.
When a person of any faith believes fervently that non-believers will suffer for eternity after they die for their lack of belief, it not only has a tendency to lead a person toward compassion toward unbelievers, but also to disdain the religions that keep people from “true” belief. If you are convinced, for instance, that Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism – the three other largest world religions – are directly responsible for the suffering of billions of people for eternity in hell, just how much respect are you likely to have for these faith traditions? And, as much as you may wish to think otherwise, how much respect are you likely to have for the leaders of these other faiths? If you dare allow a sliver of respect or admiration in your heart for these faiths or faith leaders, does it not sometimes occur to you that this could be a trick of the devil trying to turn your heart from saving souls? Just how much incentive do you have to consider other Christian stances toward those of other faiths, like that represented by Affirmation 1?
To believe that other paths may lead to God is not at all to deny one’s faith in Jesus Christ. Personally, Christ is my only “way, truth, and life.” I am “joyfully and unapologetically” Christian. I have no desire to follow other religious figures or faiths. Christianity is my path and I’m very happy about it. However, to claim that Christianity is my path, or even to claim that Christianity is the best path (for me), is not to say Christianity is the only path. God is far greater than I can possibly imagine. And I trust that, since so many humble, religious folks on the planet are not Christian, God has created other paths beyond the one I claim as my own.
But I get ahead of myself. We’ll deal directly with the relationship between Christianity and other faiths in our May 31st worship service. There, we’ll specifically look at Jesus words that he is the “way, the truth, and the life” and that “no one comes to the Father except through me.” Believe it or not, one can faithfully affirm these words and hold to the view that God creates other paths. Jesus himself says so. But again, I get ahead of myself …
Can you be angry and loving at the same time?
Here’s another question from the Waterstraat group (The second of two. I responded to the first in the last post):
Many of us seem to have personal stories of frustrations with other, more “conservative” organized religions or individual churches who, to us, seem(ed) to preach a message of fear and exclusion. Many of us fled these other churches and were initially drawn to Countryside by the simple message stamped in the walkway before the front door — “All Are Welcome.” Many of us also seem to have close friends or family members in our lives who believe deeply that their specific brand of Christianity is the “only way,” and who openly tell us that they grieve for us and pray for us hoping that we won’t be “burned in Hell forever.” We find ourselves torn. On one hand we seem to agree that just as we parent our different children in different ways, as individuals, many of us need our “Father” to parent us in different ways — some of us need to be told what to do, and some of us need more leash. We lean on C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, and rejoice that our friends are “in the house,” and we don’t want to fight with them over which room they choose to hang out in. On the other hand, we also agree that Christians who preach a message based on fear and exclusivity to us seem to have completely missed who Jesus really was/is. We want to be angry and loving at the same time, and we’re not sure how to walk this dual path.
Your well-stated desire to be “angry and loving at the same time” is shared with a great many Christians around the country who are concerned with unloving and fear-based manifestations of Christian faith (often due to personal experience of it). It is clear that you do not wish to manifest the same fear and hate only from a different perspective in making a response – a commendable desire!
Later in Asphalt Jesus I talk about “Good Friday” energy that has seized Christians on both sides of the theological divide. “Good Friday” energy is the energy of anger, which essentially says, “Someone has crucified the Jesus of my understanding. I think I know who did it. So now let’s go get the crucifiers and crucify them!”
In the Seven Deadly Sins series we spoke of Anger being like salt. A little salt can be a wonderful thing, helping to define and intensify the many and varied flavors of a dish. Yet if you keep pouring salt, it can turn a great tasting dish into something that’s inedible. If you pour still more, salt will actually turn a dish into poison. The key with anger is: can you let go of it? If you can, great. If you can’t, then likely anger is poisoning you, as well as those who may be objects of your anger.
In this regard, the late William Sloan-Coffin, senior minister of Riverside Church in New York City, once helpfully observed: “True, we have to hate evil; else we’re sentimental. But if we hate evil more than we love the good, we become damn good haters, and of those the world already has too many. However, deep, our anger like that of Christ, must always and only measure our love.”
I think Sloan-Coffin hits the nail on the head. And notice that he brings Jesus into his equation. Read through any of the gospels and you find that Jesus could get angry – very angry – at those who were distorting the love of God, neighbor, and/or self. The self-righteous were particular objects of his anger, as well as religious leaders (often one and the same people). Jesus could call them a “brood of vipers,” and accuse them of making converts “twice the sons of hell [Gehenna = garbage dump] as you are.”
Thus, if anyone wonders whether it’s possible to criticize fellow believers – even severely – and remain faithful to the Christian Path, one need only turn to the one we claim to follow for confirmation. Yes, there is an appropriate place for “calling out” those who, in our view, are turning the Path of Love into the Path of Fear and Hatred. However, we need to do it like Jesus did it. I believe there’s plenty of evidence in the gospels to suggest that Jesus’ criticisms arose out of a deep conviction regarding the value and worth of those he was criticizing. His criticisms often have a ring to them like, “I know you’re BETTER THAN THAT! I know you’re CAPABLE OF SO MUCH MORE! When will you ever start using the high gifts and graces with which you’ve been entrusted rather than throwing them all away?”
In other words, Jesus engaged the self-righteous, the religious leaders, and so forth, out of deep respect for them. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have bothered to give them the time of day. Jesus saw clearly that the objects of his fury were loved beyond their wildest imagination and essentially was screaming, “When are you ever going to start ACTING like it? When are you going to wake up and hear the music of God’s grace and love wafting through the air? ”
When it comes down to it, what shows a person with whom you disagree more respect: criticizing them to their face, or remaining silent and letting them continue their destructive path without challenge (perhaps even criticizing them behind their backs, or writing them off as “hopeless’)?
Personally, if someone has a strong disagreement with me, I’d much prefer that person to come out and state it rather than keeping to her/himself – even if the message came with some degree of anger. For, in “daring” to be critical, that person also honors me implicitly by (a) believing that I might actually clear my ego aside long enough to listen to what she/he has to say; (b) believing that I have the capacity to weigh this person’s argument and potentially change my ways as a result; (c) believing that I won’t be childish and lash out at the person for bruising my ego; (d) showing that the person, by conversing with me, may actually be willing to hear and respond to my point-of-view after stating hers/his.
Thus, criticism is as much a sign of interest and belief in someone as it is disagreement. So be angry. Just make sure to you can let go of it, in which case your anger will likely “add flavor to the dish” rather than poisoning it. And the best way to ensure that you can let go of your anger (besides praying, which I highly recommend!), is to make sure that love for God, your neighbor, and yourself is not taking a back seat.
Heaven, Hell, and Affirmation 9
Posted by Rev. Eric Elnes, PhD. in Affirmation 9 - Loved for Eternity, Asphalt Jesus Chapters, Ch3 - Hellfire, Damnation & Garbage Dumps, Small Group Leaders on May 9, 2009
Sunday’s sermon will be kind of fun. Much of it will center around “Ralph and the Lake of Fire” – a one-person drama (played by me) about a man you dies suddenly and enters the afterlife, only it’s not the afterlife he expected … Fire and brimstone? It plays a role, but not the one you expect, either!
The drama is based on a sermon written years ago by Bruce Van Blair. I have revised and dramatized it a number of times. Each time it creates quite a buzz and there are always people who say, “Darn! I wish I’d been there for that one …” I hope you can join us for the fun!
Both in worship and in Asphalt Jesus groups, we’re heading into Affirmation 9 for the next couple of weeks – my favorite of them all. Affirmation 9 reads, “Christian love of self includes: basing our lives on the faith that in Christ all things are made new and that we, and all people, are loved beyond our wildest imagination – for eternity.”
It’s an affirmation that implies quite strongly that there is no hell as popularly conceived, and that salvation is for all people, not just those who jump through some sort of doctrinal hoops. As further background to prepare yourself for worship or small groups, you will probably find it helpful to take a look at a brief reflection that was written years ago by my pastoral mentor, Bruce Van Blair called “Universal Salvation.” Read it by clicking the link at the end of this paragraph, then post your comments and questions!
Torture and Christian Faith
Posted by Rev. Eric Elnes, PhD. in Affirmation 1 - God's Paths, Ch4 - Jesus First Baptist Church, Phoenix Affirmations on May 8, 2009
I just posted a response to Diana Butler-Bass’ new blog article on the recent Pew poll indicating that Christians who actively attend church are more likely to approve of torture than those who do not attend church. Diana looks a bit closer at the polling results than most commentators have, finding that there is a significant difference between evangelical and mainline Christians with respect to torture (mainliners are less approving) and offering an interesting and provocative theological explanation for it.
I found Diana’s post helpful even as I felt that more could be said on the subject (surprise, surprise!). You can read her article by clicking here. My response may be found by scrolling down a few responses.
If I Were the Devil …
Posted by Rev. Eric Elnes, PhD. in Asphalt Jesus Chapters, Ch3 - Hellfire, Damnation & Garbage Dumps, Ch9 - A Little Light That Shined on May 7, 2009
My first draft of Chapter 3 in Asphalt Jesus contained an excursus that was deemed by the editor to be too controversial to print. It was a reflection on how I would destroy God’s world if I were the devil and was inserted into my larger discussion of Affirmation 9 (“Christian love of self includes: Basing our lives on the faith that in Christ all things are made new and that we, and all people, are loved beyond our wildest imagination – for eternity.”). Ultimately, I think the editor showed wisdom in asking me to remove the excursus. However, for a smaller, more defined audience like readers of the Asphalt Jesus blog, I think it’s worth bringing out. If it rattles your cage, post a comment! I’m not asking you to agree with it. I just think it could provoke some interesting discussion, both here on the blog and in the small groups.
Here is the deleted excursus:
One day shortly after the radio interview with Bob Dutko in which some of his audience claimed I am everything short of the anti-Christ, I pondered as walked, “What if I really was seeking to eliminate every trace of the true path of Jesus from the face of the earth, how would I do it?”
I considered many possibilities. I could wage a war on Christians, for instance. Upon further reflection, though, I realized that persecution has historically made Christianity stronger, not weaker. In Roman times, hundreds if not thousands of new Christians would rise up in place of every Christian fed to the lions or burned at the stake.
“No, if anything, I’d want to make life easier for Christians. I’d want them to be persuaded that no threat exists whatsoever to the future of their faith. I’d convince them that rampant consumerism is not a threat, launching preemptive wars is not a threat, nor is merging the religion with government, nor workaholism, nor is lack of compassion for the poor, nor is any kind of prejudice against other races, genders, sexual orientations, and so on.
“What else would I do?” I asked. “Would I empower leagues of Satanists to rise up and take over?”
I realized that would be a lame threat. While black masses, pentagrams, and crucifying frogs upside down may seem attractive to some people, it’s really not a temptation to the masses. If I were to destroy Christianity, the effects would have to be pretty broad based.
I considered a number of other possibilities, each promising varying degrees of success in relation to varying amounts of energy expended. Then I hit upon it: an idea so powerful and promising that if I were truly the anti-Christ I’d gladly trade all the other plans and programs for just this one. The single thing I would do to ensure that the path of Jesus would eventually be erased from the earth – and probably all the other godly paths that may exist in the world along with it – would be to instill a simple idea in the mind of every person. The idea is this: “After you die, there is a good chance that if your God is not pleased with you, you will suffer extreme pain for all of eternity.” That’s it.
“But this idea is already out there,” you say? Hmmmm. So I’ve been scooped! In any case, you may wonder why I – and apparently someone long before me – would be content with instilling this one, simple thought in people’s consciousness? Consider the following list of theoretical implications that would unravel in its wake. You be the judge of how closely they match reality:
• People would panic, making every effort to eliminate all possibility that God would be angry with them. Since people could not prove the successfulness of their efforts, in their anxiety they would look for “sure fire” answers.
• They would therefore be attracted to certain leaders who would promise them salvation in exchange for obedience. Such leaders would wield unparalleled control over their followers.
• Naturally, the leaders themselves would need proof of their effectiveness – some sort of testimony that would assure people that if they followed they would be safe. Thus the leaders would claim to possess a written document containing God’s infallible words. Since the document would be of human origin, and thus flawed no matter how much true inspiration it contained, that book would be full of contradictions.
• The contradictions would increase people’s anxieties all the more, thus causing them to give up trying to interpret the rule book for themselves and to rely even more heavily on the interpretations of the leaders.
• Those leaders who display absolute certainty in their beliefs, with least nuance, who actively discourage questioning or doubt would become the most popular, thereby shutting down the minds and hearts of their followers still further.
• Naturally, since there would always remain at least a slight chance a person could be deemed unworthy no matter how hard people try to follow the rule book (and none would be able to follow it successfully, thus increasing anxiety), they would seek still other means to prove to themselves and to God that they are worthy. They would find scapegoats. They would find people who would serve to assure them of their own worthiness in contrast to these others.
• They would also turn upon and destroy those who they felt were decreasing their chances of being saved from damnation. Whole wars would erupt fueled by religious prejudice.
• Then things would get really interesting. Having assured themselves of their own salvation (or at least shutting the door and locking away any doubt deep in their consciousness) then the natural compassion would arise. After all, human beings are created in God’s image. They would wonder about their loved ones. Would they be found worthy? In an effort to “save” them, parents would manipulate and bully their own children and friends into faith. Many would disown their children or reject their friends if they did not come around, lest the “depravity” spread to others. Whole families split apart and long-time friendships would disintegrate.
• Then people would start wondering about those they’d never met or known. Would they escape eternal damnation? That’s when the proselytizing would begin, and the spreading of Christianity’s destruction to the ends of the earth.
• Little by little, every ounce of love and compassion within people would thus be transformed into fear, and if those Christians were good evangelists, that fear would eventually spread to every ear who had yet to hear about Jesus and his “love.”
And there I’d have it. Since fear is the opposite of love, and love is Jesus’ path, then with a single idea I would have wiped the path of Jesus off the face of the earth. And it would be an inside job!
Affirmation 9 moves in the exact opposite direction of this malevolent little idea. It assures people that all are loved by God for eternity – no matter who they are, no matter what they have done or failed to do, no matter what they believe or fail to believe. Fear is replaced with faith.
Some people object that if God loves everyone beyond their wildest imagination, then they will have no incentive to change. In point of fact, love has quite the opposite effect. If you have doubts, then try to find any honest expression of love – any truly loving relationship on earth – that does not provoke deep change in those involved in it, whether they initially believed they’d be changed or not. Personally, I became persuaded that God loves me this way twenty-five years ago and it completely changed the course of my life.
True love does not just affirm. It also convicts. But it does not just convict, either. It provokes a turning from that which is not loving. Indeed it is love that saves, not fear.