People have all kinds of hobbies. Some people like to knit. Other people like to collect stamps. I like to go to church while playing the role of “anthropologist.”
When I am thinking about visiting a church, my biggest decision is deciding what church to visit. That was my decision three days ago. I had already been to a stern and humorless evangelical church. The thing I remembered about that church was the scriptural quotation featured on the T-shirts of hundreds of the people attending: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” It was a quote from Proverbs 1:7. I remember thinking “Of all the quotes they could’ve chosen from the Bible, this one is strange indeed. Any good teacher knows that the best students are driven by natural curiosity and a good dose of skepticism, not by fear.”
Back to my task of choosing a church. Last week, I just happened to be in the car listening to a fundamentalist A.M. radio station when I heard neocon talk show host Paul McGuire ranting about a new crop of churches designed for young people, churches that allegedly don’t spend enough time on the Bible but, instead, cater to the social needs of the congregation. Maguire’s rant went on for several minutes, long enough for me to conclude that I simply had to go to one of these new hip churches to see for myself.
As it turns out, one of those new “emerging” churches is located about a mile from my house and it is called The Journey. This is not your mama and papa’s church, as you can tell from the pictures below. First of all, how many churches have their website featured prominently on their sign? This building used to be owned by a Catholic Church, but the Catholics are busy turning ever-more conservative, it seems. In fact, the pope just announced that Catholic pharmacists should not dispense evil drugs such as birth control pills. This top-down management style has had the effect of running off lots of actual or potential Catholic parishioners. Hence, the closing of this particular Catholic Church and its sale to “The Journey.”
After I entered the church, I noticed that the Catholic statues had been removed (Catholics love forelorn-looking statues) and that the inside of the church had been painted in strikingly tasteful Ralph Laurenesque colors. There was no altar, but only a stage with music stands and microphones. There was a wooden crucifix, but no graphic image of mutilated and bleeding man on that cross. Featured more prominently than the cross was a big screen above the cross on which the song lyrics and the PowerPoint images relating to the sermon would be projected.
As I walked into this church of The Journey (which has existed since only 2002) I heard Coldplay and other popular music amplified throughout the building. The people in the church were casually dressed and fairly young (typically ranging from their 20s to their 40s). I couldn’t help but notice that the men were more handsome than average and the women were more beautiful than average, compared to many other churches I’ve attended. It was like going to an upscale bar, except there was no alcohol or smoking and it was Sunday morning. Compared to other churches I’ve attended, these people tended to be in much better physical shape and they looked much more focused and animated than many congregations, based upon their facial expressions. As I walked through the church trying to decide where to sit, the parishioners were notably friendly (though church-goers all tend to be friendly when they get together). I couldn’t help but think that this is a different kind of crowd than one would find in many churches, and that this place had been transformed into their place, a place where many traditions and formalisms would be left behind.
The service began when a man came out and greeted the people by saying “Hi, I’m Mike.” Mike played the guitar and sang, leading the parishioners in the singing of several songs, accompanied by an accordionist. The sound system was outstanding.
I paid special attention to the words of the songs. The were songs of thanks and humility and love of God. The songs repeatedly mentioned family themes such as surrendering the parishioners lives to God, their father, and being “adopted” by God through Jesus. The songs were largely devoid of lyrics urging that we constantly grovel before God and proclaim that we’re nothing but dirty little cockroaches deserving to be thrown into the deepest pits of hell (some churches take this approach, believe it or not).
After the music, “Darrin” took the stage and started his long talk. Darrin Patrick, a confident yet warm fellow about 40-years of age, was casually dressed and armed with a bottle of water. “Are you ready to get yelled at for 45 minutes?” The congregation chuckled.
Darrin’s talk distinguished between surface-level obedience and heart-level obedience. Before I heard the talk I was assuming that, perhaps, this church would minimize the Bible, focusing on psychology and other quasi-religious approaches. I was wrong, however. Darrin spent much of his talk pointing out and elaborating specific Bible passages. Now for the big coincidence: one of the passages he discussed was the same passage celebrated by those austere evangelicals described above, Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” Darrin worked really hard to spin this passage in a nonthreatening way. In fact, he intellectually contorted himself into a pretzel. He “explained” that the “fear” referred to the trembling a believer felt because “God is working in you.” I wasn’t convinced, nor do I think any thoughtful person would have bought this explanation. It seems to me that fear is always a bad basis for knowledge, at least among sincere and thoughtful students; there’s no way to spin it otherwise. Strained Bible interpretation (“hermeneutics”) is the plight of people who take it as their duty to “explain” or “harmonize” the vague, troublesome and self-contradictory passages of the Bible as the foundation for their social organizations. I would clear it all out and start anew, but parishioners (and prospective parishioners) are familiar with such words and images, allowing them to feel more quickly at home. And, of course, I’ve never started a church, so what would I know? Other than my conviction that that the miracles touted by the Bible never happened. And I do speak as an ordained minister!
Darrin made it clear that he was not there to terrorize and oppress the congregation. Based upon the types of people filling this church, they would not stand for it. Nor would they be the sort of crowd that would simply lap up just any absurdity he threw their way. For instance, he explained that God is a Trinity with one “what” and three “who’s.” He paused. Then he asked who understood this concept of the Trinity. Then he explained that no one understands it. “We can’t wrap our minds around it.” I wondered just how many of the people there were OK with the “God is love” message, but were bored with most of the rest, tolerating this church (just as they would tolerate most any church) because of the social connections it provides. The Journey provides many opportunities for social gatherings. In addition to the Sunday services, there are film nights, community improvement endeavors and informal theology gatherings at a local micro-brewery.
Back to the fear, however. Darrin explained that now is a time for “fear and trembling, because we’re really dealing with God.” He reminded the people that we are “riddled with insecurity and God is working in us.”
Having good ideas is not good enough, according to Darrin. The Bible is not important to us merely because it has good ideas. It’s good because “it’s God speaking.” He explained that “there will be heaven and we will see Jesus in heaven.” Is it enough for a person to simply believe? Not at all. “We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that remains alone.” Darrin explain that we don’t have a God we work for; we have a God that works in and through us. It is God’s work that “enables our good work.” As you might sense, this talk was closely based on the same Bible passages one would hear in many other sorts of Christian churches, though there was something different about this church.
Darrin explained that God motivates us so that we want to obey. He quoted from Ezekial (36:23) and Jeremiah (32:40 “I will put from of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.”). These passages made me think of mind control— it sounded like a God who hypnotizes us into doing his will, something that actually sounds incompatible with the our alleged exercise of free will. After all, if God alters the human mind too much, then it’s no longer the human being who is doing the choosing.
Just when you thought that Darrin was getting a little heavy-handed, he backed off. He sometimes spoke of his own failings and insecurities. He indicated that explaining biblical verses is often not easy and sometimes not fun.
Darrin cited C.S. Lewis, who stated that a perfect man does not act out of a sense of duty, and that duty is a substitute for love like a crutch as a substitute for a healthy leg. Darrin explained that we are free to keep God’s law but we are not slaves to keep God’s law. At bottom, “you don’t have to live in fear. You aren’t going to be punished because God crushed your sins on a cross.”
He took some swipes at conservative Christian churches. Many Christians “act like slaves, not children.” He criticized churches that are obsessed with rule-following. See the attached handout from the service: The Journey – son and slave.pdf The Journey cultivated God’s “children,” whereas those stern churches out there made “slaves” of their followers. Seemed like a pretty fair generalization. To me, however, it has never been clear why it should be admirable that an adult assume the role of “child” to a God. Shouldn’t adults always assume the role of adults? Responsible, questioning adults? It seems that it would only be in this way that people could avoid a co-dependence on God (assuming that there is a God).
We need to “stop relegating God to external laws, according to Darrin. We need a little more delight and less duty.” Darrin admitted that he didn’t sign up to be a church leader “to be condemning.”
He invited the newcomers to the church to join in the communion. He suggested to these newcomers that they feel no compulsion to donate money to the church, but simply enjoy the service. Interestingly, the ritual had largely been stripped out of the service (compared to, for instance, the highly ritualistic Catholic Mass). There were no droning chants and responses at The Journey. What might be termed the liturgy took up perhaps five minutes of the entire service. Almost the entire service consisted of the music and the long talk. Ironically, many Catholics I know love those rote chants and songs–these scripted portions are their favorite parts of the Catholic Mass. They like being left alone, intellectually speaking.
The Journey’s written literature indicates that the church is based upon “the Bible as the Word of God.” The written basis of this religion (for the most part, the Bible) is really hard to distinguish from the written beliefs of most other Christian churches. There was something about the attitude of the people of this church, however, that was far different than other churches, especially conservative churches. This church was clearly not based upon fear, oppression or bigotry. There was no mention of hell, for example. I spoke to a couple of folks who attended this church regularly and learned that this is not the kind of church that excludes and deprecates people who are different (such as gays) or goes out of its way to attack those who might cling to other beliefs or no beliefs. Here’s a sentence from the literature: “We believe that it’s healthy for people of all world-views and spiritual beliefs to have their ideas and philosophies both challenged and encouraged in a safe, open environment.”
The Journey, which now consists of more than two thousand members, portrays itself to be a big tent that invites a wide variety of people to join. The church literature indicates that The Journey encourages community involvement in such groups as Habitat for Humanity. The church is big on supporting art and artists.
In conclusion, this seemed like it would be a great church to join for anyone who believed in the stories of the Bible. Unfortunately, I do not believe such stories (for the reasons I’ve stated throughout this blog). For those seeking endorphins, this might, indeed, be a good church to join. There was synchronized standing and sitting, carefully performed music and the opportunity to mingle with friendly-seeming others, for instance.
I felt like I was sitting between two diametrically opposed worlds when I returned home after the service. At The Journey, I was far from the threatening and humorless preachings of the conservative evangelical church I wrote about a year and a half ago. On the other hand, the people of The Journey still cling to many traditional beliefs, and it really wasn’t just a big “party,” as Paul McGuire might’ve suggested. A thought continues to tantalize me: why not just give up the many oxymoronic belief and establish a church where people simply come together to coordinate their efforts to do good in the community? Why assert impossible beliefs? Why claim that dead people become alive and that invisible beings concern themselves with our lives? I’ve tried to answer this before, so I won’t go into it here (but also see here).
I will admit this, however. There is something significant about atmosphere of a church that goes way beyond the words spoken. It is truly incredible how two entirely different churches (The Journey compared to the evangelical church I previously wrote about) can rely upon the same book and the same scriptural readings, yet come to such different ways of treating their members and treating outsiders.
I actually did enjoy my time at The Journey, though I don’t buy into most of their religious claims. It occurred to me that those who attended this church had a notably positive energy about them. It occurred to me that I would very much like to be part of a community group like this, one that included so many positive and energetic people. I’m not a candidate for the membership of any church, however. I do not allow myself to say I believe things that I don’t believe, however, and I’m not entirely comfortable being around people who say they believe things that I don’t think they really believe.
Despite the many assertions about God, crucifixion and heaven, I am convinced that those who attend The Journey include lots of good-hearted and decent folks and I’m glad for them that they have each other and that the community receives the benefit of their good works.
I liked your anthropological church safari. Now you you can rate the Journey on churchrater.com:
http://www.churchrater.com/submit_review.php
It sounds like The Journey belongs to the part of the Emerging Church that went over to the dark side. I don't know if there are any Emergent Village type churches in St. Louis that have "conversations" and practice a "generous orthodoxy" and also seem to be more on the leftward side o the dial on economic justice issues, but it might be worth checking out.
I had a similar experience, at the beach of all places! I was treated to an open air sermon. It wasn't the fire and brimstone type, the easiest way to describe it would be as "watered-down". The sermon only lasted about 35 minutes, included some light humor, and was quite tasteful considering that everyone was wearing bathing suits and sitting on beach towels/chairs. Certainly these folks were "moderates" and were just average (upper middle class) Americans. Most of them just seemed to be going through the motions and I imagine some of the people were just there out of peer-pressure (not to mention getting a free Jesus cracker!)
Still, it was a bit awkward, as I was spending the day with my grandmother and her friends (mostly Jewish). I considered turning on a radio nice and loud so as to drown out the sermon, but I was outnumbered — with only a stalwart gang of octogenarians to back me up.
I don't like churches. I don't understand why you can only be a good person if you believe in God. What's the use of free will if in the end you're only supposed to do what he tells you. Killing people is supposedly bad, but when he tells you to kill your own son it's ok and shows that you're a good man. Why try being a responsible adult if after all you are only one of His helpless "children"? Even a "good" church like The Journey at the bottom is based on these ideas and that's why I find them a waste of time. Churches are the places where you never get a straight answer to your question, because there are none. The ultimate answer is always faith. If I wanted fluffy answers and the joys of faith I should keep contacting past lovers and love interests.
Here's some good background on The Journey, an example of an "Emerging" church. This article is from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
projektleiterin: some bumper stickers for you: http://rageonapage.com/Home1.htm
I believe that Erich has stumbled on an interesting phenomenon. “Emerging” churches are not a new concept. Every few years or generations (I am not sure how often this happens) there comes an “emerging” church movement. What happens is that someone or a group of individuals discover that dogmatic religious churches are bad (see the post above) and wants to move away from the religious church and make a spiritual church based on the heart or principles as they feel that is right with what Jesus tried to do.
The question then becomes where are all these emerging churches? The answer is many of the ultra religious, religious and semi-religious churches started out as emerging churches and as time goes by people who have influence, power or crave power gain leverage in the church (usually after the founder no longer is with the church) and begin setting down rules on how the church should be run. Perhaps the attendance is down, it has lost its appeal, or is having money problems then that individual or clique believes the church’s problem is it is too lax, forgiving, or just not their father’s church and is being run all wrong and they use their influence to change the church into a righteous church that it should be. Thus the emerging church becomes another dogma driven church.
Projektleiterin you are right in that you do not want to go to church. If you don’t believe in God then it is pointless and it will only embitter yourself as it will not answer your questions. The truth is “bad” people go to church none of them are actually always good. Even the clergy do “bad” things from time to time. The point is everyone no matter who they are mess up from time to time. If someone tells you are bad because you don’t go to church is feeding you a line and don’t swallow it. There are many good people who exist outside of church and there are many very bad people who use the church as a badge to say they are better than you. SO DO NOT BELIEVE THEM!!!!
Hey, I found your web-site after google this church after the article came out. I think your take is very interesting. THe only thing I didn't understand was this statement:
"I do not allow myself to say I believe things that I don’t believe, however, and I’m not entirely comfortable being around people who say they believe things that I don’t think they really believe."
I guess I don't understand how you can go to one service and be able to discern the hearts of people regarding what they really believe.
Love the blog
cheers,
bob
Bob: Welcome to the blog! Glad you found the article on The Journey to be worthwhile.
Why don't I think that "believers" truly believe? Here's one example: Do they sell EVERYTHING they own? The requirement to sell everything is a clear commandment of Jesus (here's a little cartoon on this point). Here's more on the the requirement of Jesus Himself to divest one's self of wealth in order to follow Him. Yet most of the people at The Journey had nice cars (I don't mean to pick on them alone–most religions invite their followers to overlook this commandment to live as poor people).
But you have also pointed out (correctly) that I am being presumptuous. I'm writing as though I KNOW that a virgin didn't have a baby and that a dead man didn't walk around 3 days later. I tend to look at any religion the same way members of that religion look at the fantastic claims of OTHER religions, however. For extraordinary claims, I need extraordinary proof.
I've also, over the years, noticed a nonchalence among most "believers." They chant fantastic beliefs in the pews, but rarely talk about these things once they are back home after church. How often have you heard a Believer exclaim, in the middle of a dinner or movie or baseball game: "I am just so happy that Jesus died on the Cross for me!" If they really believed this, it would come out all the time, I believe.
Many Believers (based on years of encounters with Believers) don't even fathom the clear meaning of the fantastic Beliefs they purport to believe. Here's one example I find humorous.
Yes, I am a skeptic. I might be wrong, but my operating assumptions don't include supernatural claims. I haven't seen one a supernatural event yet (though I admit life is awe-inspiring and beyond our understanding in a million ways).
Am I therefore pre-judging the people in the pews? Yep. Sorry. I know it doesn't seem fair to those in the pews. Perhaps there were some true Believers attending and I should have acknowledged that in my post.
Erich,
You apparently have delved into the Word of God more than some…have you not read, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."? First Corinthians 2:14
You totally disarm a Christian or the message of the church when you throw out "faith." There is no other way you can discern the Christian message, or enter into its joys without faith.
Sir Robert Anderson in his book, "The Silence of God" says,
The statements here challenged are important as showing how seriously the great truth of the Reformation is prejudiced by the very prominence assigned to it in our Protestant system of theology. That it should loom great in our estimation is but natural, having regard to the fierceness of the struggle to which we owe its recovery. And yet the dogma that justification is by faith is but a secondary truth, and ancillary to another of wider range and more transcendent moment. "For this cause it is the principle of faith, that it may be according to Grace." GRACE is the characteristic truth of Christianity. According to the great doctrinal treatise of the New Testament, we are "justified by grace," "justified by faith," "justified by blood "- that is, by the death of Christ in its application to us, for such is the meaning of the sacrificial figure of which the word "blood " is the expression in the New Testament. Grace is the principle on which God justifies a sinner; faith is the principle on which the benefit is received; and the death of Christ is the ground on which alone all this is possible – we are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
I know you don't like all this talk of "dead" people, but if you are to make an honest evaluation of Christ, the Bible and His people, you must deal with it. To do less than that is , I think, dishonest and fruitless.
I encourage you to read this old book by Sir Robert Anderson. It is found on the Internet at this URL: (http://gospelhall.org/general-bible-teaching/sir-robert-anderson–the-silence-of-god.html
I believe the book is no longer in print. You can see by the chapter titles it covers much of the ground you explore. Check it out.
. . .
I don't doubt you when you say that the miracles of the Bible never happened. But your saying that does not mean they did not happen. The witnesses at the time observed them and they believed! You may choose to disbelieve the written word, but, still, that is weakness on your part. You should approach the Word of God with an open mind–you go to it with a preconceived view that is is false. Weigh His words. Meditate on them.
The God Christians serve is the kind of God who can do those miracles. By the way, the miracles were performed to confirm who Jesus said he was and to confirm that His apostles had authority from Him.
Thanks for making it possible for one to respond to your thoughts and writings. Your blog is most interesting and sad.
I pray you will soon be saved and your blinded eyes opened to the great truths of the Scripture. Here are some verses you may have pondered in your exploration of what Christians believe. I hope you will clip these out and place them in a safe place for future consideration.
Romans 10:8-13
8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Thanks again for this blog,
Ron
[Admin note: edited for length – long table of contents of the Anderson book removed]
I find it ironic that you have such an issue with Christians not knowing what they 'believe' and yet you seem to think you're the expert on what they should believe.
How can you get frustrated with 'Believers' for making blanket statements that you're just so positively sure they don't understand when you don't even know what you're talking about some of the time?
"Why don’t I think that “believers” truly believe? Here’s one example: Do they sell EVERYTHING they own? The requirement to sell everything is a clear commandment of Jesus (here’s a little cartoon on this point). Here’s more on the the requirement of Jesus Himself to divest one’s self of wealth in order to follow Him. Yet most of the people at The Journey had nice cars (I don’t mean to pick on them alone–most religions invite their followers to overlook this commandment to live as poor people)."
Matthew 19:21 is a verse you have used to argue that if you're a true follow of Christ than you have to give up everything and be poor. What you are forgetting to do is read the verse in it's context! Matthew 19 shows an interaction between Jesus and a young man who wanted to know "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" (vs 16) Jesus asked the young man to sell what he has, give to the poor and follow him. (vs 21) "But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions." (vs 22) Now, contrast this with what happened when Jesus met Zacchaeus the tax collector (Luke 19). There was a really short dude named 'Zac' that had to climb into a tree because he had heard Jesus was in town and he wanted to be able to see him. Well, Jesus went to Zac's house later and before Jesus even said it was necessary, Zac proclaimed to everyone that he was going to give 50% of what he had to the poor. There are many more examples of the issue of possessions and money throughout the whole bible. The point…the so what? Jesus asked the first guy to give up his 'stuff' because he wanted to see if he valued his possessions more than his faith. It wasn't about being poor – it all comes back to whether we truly love God or whether we're in it because we think it's gonna get us somewhere. In the case of Zac, well he was a tax collector – according the religious leaders of that time, the Pharisees, those kinds of people were scoundrels or too 'bad' to hang out with. But, Jesus didn't care how 'good' or 'bad' they were. He went to Zac's house and the Pharisees had a cow because Zac wasn't good enough for them. But, for Zac, Jesus was the probably one of the first noticeably 'good' people to even look his direction. Zac knew that Jesus actually cared about him because if Jesus hadn't, if Jesus was just in it for political gain, Zac knew Jesus would never have openly set foot into his home.
So, when you say things like "The requirement to sell everything is a clear commandment of Jesus…" you sound just as ignorant because like many 'believers' (I'm sorry to say) you didn't do your homework.
You seem to spend a lot of energy getting worked up about religion and God and people wanting to follow Jesus. If we're all wrong…why do you care so much? If no one is right, why spend/waste all this time going on and on about it? Or, is it that there could be a 'right' answer? If not, you getting mad at christians for thinking there is implies that you have the 'right' answer…and again the irony.
Jen: Did you do your homework? Is this post really a rant against Christians? I assure you that I can rant much better than that.
And OK, there is a context to every Bible passage. Out of curiousity, how much money can a "rich man" have before he is barred from heaven? It's a rare church, indeed, that puts a cap on the wealth of its members "for their own good."
Yes I did! I never said this post was a rant against Chrisitains – I don't know where you got that idea. I am positive you can 'rant' extremely better than you chose to. My question was why waste the time on any of this if there really is no God?
If there is no God, no supernatural being, your time and energy could or possibly should be spent on other things.
To answer your second set of questions…
I'm sorry that church and what I have termed 'Christianese' talk has done to misrepresent to you who Jesus is and what He is all about. Even as a Christian, I have suffered and recognize that the 'church' we know it as today – well it mostly sucks.
But that doesn't mean that Jesus does.
If you really sat down and read the bible and didn't stop reading or get upset at the first verse you didn't understand and at least tried to search out what the words are saying, you would see that there is no cap of wealth, no set amount of duties, no 12 step plan, no ANYTHING anyone can do to get themselves into heaven.
I have yet to find another faith or religion where my 'ticket to heaven' is not based on a set of works or a required mental achievement.
Ephesians 2:8,9 – For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I'm telling you that I know I am no better than anyone else in this world. The only reason I have any hope of going to heaven is because Jesus offered me the gift of grace and I received it. That's it. I screw up everyday – me being a christian does NOT make me better. Getting into heaven is not something to be attained, it can only be received as a gift. The only reason a Christian should concern themselves with doing 'good' things is to honor the gift that was given to them. Like the young man in the scripture earlier, Jesus asked the guy to give up his stuff, NOT because that action is what would save him. He asked him to give up his stuff because the real heart of the issue was whether that young man really trusted in the gift Jesus was offering him.
So, there is no cap of wealth that will keep someone from heaven. There is no quantity of lies that will keep someone from heaven. There is no amount of swearing that keeps someone from heaven. There is no number of sins that keeps anyone from heaven.
The only thing that keeps people from heaven is themselves. If it was any other way, the God and Jesus of the bible wouldn't be who they say they are.
You are right about churches…
Some try to sell God by telling you if you believe in Jesus then you will be blessed financially. Some churches try to sell God by telling you if you believe hard enough, He will heal your every physical issue that causes you irritation.
You are right about christians…
Some try to tell you you are going to hell if you don't stop sinning and start being holy like they are. (Pardon me while I barf!) Some of them go to church and really don't know what they believe. Some of them have let themselves be brainwashed by ideas about the bible or God that aren't true.
You are right about churches and you are right about christains…man do we mess up big time!
But, you are wrong about God. It's sad that I can't tell you to search out who God really is by just looking at a church or a christian – but that's kinda the whole point. We all need grace to enter heaven. The church or a christian can't be what or how we determine who God is because we needed grace just to call ourselves a christian.
What I can tell you is to search out who God really is by trying to figure out what the bible really says, not because a church says he's God or because some christian says he's God or not because I say he's God but because He does. As a christian, I try to honor Christ's gift of salvation by living a life that shows who he is to the rest of the world. I am sorry that I don't live that example as I should. But if I was able to do that – would I need him then? So in a way, I offer my shortcomings and the church's shortcomings as all the more reason to at least check out God for who He says He is because using our shortcomings as an excuse or as proof that He doesn't exist is in no way a valid reason to deny the existence of Him.
The interesting thing to me is that people spend so much effort disproving things that are the products of religion {invented by men} and attributing it to God, rather than just getting alone with God and asking Him to prove Himself without any input from religion {other humans}.
I think the reason people avoid this is that it puts them on the spot. First of all, just to begin talking to God requires a level of faith. Second, if He answers, what now? Are you going to walk away? Are you obligated to obey? Are you going to crawl up on that altar and sacrifice your self?
Well, of course the answer is no; unless you realize you have nothing to offer. No riches, no righteousness, no connections, no knowledge, no integrity, nothing special that would obligate God to treat you any better than any other lost soul on the planet.
Jen,
I have a comment on this remark of yours:
"What I can tell you is to search out who God really is by trying to figure out what the bible really says…"
My question on that is, why start with the Bible? That's just one book out of millions; I see no reason why it should be the default. Why not start with the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Tao te Ching, or Dianetics? At the very least, if you arbitrarily choose the Bible as a starting point, it seems to me you should then go on to read other books that make similar claims, to evaluate them against each other and see which one makes the most reasonable claims. Have you done that?
Jen: I persevere fairly well when it comes to Bible reading. I don't give up at the first verse I don't understand (you suggested that I do). I assume you would admit that there's not just a minor problem here and there. The contradictions are ubiquitous to those who aren't cherry-picking the Bible for only those parts that do make sense. How many contradictions? Here's 388 of them, just to get one started. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name…. It's because there are so many inconsistencies that preachers have to bring you back to church, Sunday after Sunday, to spin all of these problems into a digestible whole. But it's never clear, is it? Every Sunday there's another crowd of people looking to the guy (or woman) at the pulpit to convince them at the Bible makes sense, parsing apart verse after verse.
Are you reading the Bible with the same detached even-handedness that you might use to read the Book of Mormon, Greek mythology or the Upanishad? I'm not trying to be smart with you, but I really want to know. Do you work as hard to find consistency and truth in those other books as you do in the Bible? Or do you give up at the first verse you don't understand (in those other holy books) and declare the Bible the clear winner?
I find numerous other problems with the Bible, including the violence and problems with what passes for morality, including New Testament morality. And see here for the New Testament treatment of women.
I'm almost certain that our differing viewpoints result from a different epistemology. Whereas you start with the assumption that there is a sentient God who sent Jesus to save humankind, I start with the assumption that there are thousands of conflicting religious claims out there (this is undeniable, isn't it?) and that all of these claims should be viewed cautiously. The winning version of religious truth would be the one that is so palpably true that people enanored with their own conflicting religious traditions nonetheless drop their own traditions in great numbers to embrace. Alas, there is no winner at all. People tend to embrace (for life) the same sort of religious tradition with which they were raised by their parents. Religious truth is thus totally unlike any other truth. The Bible is not a way to become convinced of that particular version of God. Rather, people who already believe that version of God embrace the Bible as "proof." That is my experience. Thus, my comment that we have differing epistemolgies.
One more thing, I agree with the comment with Ebonmuse, but I would also expand on it. Why seek God only through traditional Holy Books? Consider also the strikingly disparate claims of the many people out there who are spiritual though not religious (they don't rely on any holy book). I assure you that you will not be able to disprove any of them. And consider the many differing versions of God that have nothing to do with any holy book at all, such as Einstein's version of God.
Your God blessed me with a healthy dose of skepticism. I would disappoint "Him" if I didn't use that gift to determine what is true! "He" also convinces me (independent of any holy book) that humble empathy is the only ultimate basis for any true morality, not any set of laws, not any hope for heaven and not any fear of hell.
Thanks for your encouragement, xiaogou. I know they're talking nonsense and contradicting themselves pretty much all the time so I'm not really afraid of being called a bad person as a consequence of doubting the existence of God.
I wonder what Christians do in order to overlook the contradictions. I never get answers that make sense to me. When I ask, "Why is the angry God in the Old Testament so completely different from the forgiving God in the New Testament?" Did he go to psychotherapy and took some anger management class? Usually they will say, for Christians what counts more is the New Testament. Yeah… Do they never wonder why their God behaves like a human? He has an anger problem (Sodom and Gomorrha can to this), he craves human devotion and obeyance (Abraham was victim of one of his mind games), some generations later he turns into this mellow guy who creates a son who talks about forgiving, turning the other cheek, being nice to each other, etc. We have this supernatural entity that supposedly created the whole universe in all its complexity including quarks, strings, stuff that nobody really understands, but here we are claiming that we have figured out what this superbeing wants. "Wanting" for me is a very profane feeling, can we really apply it to a divine being? Most Christians would probably look down on you if you said you were a follower of Zeus and the other Greek gods, because they were so human, they experienced feelings like jealousy, anger, hatred, desire and sometimes they were quite horny. Is the Christian God with his desire to be loved by His children and revered that much different? Is the reason why he is more acceptable than the antique gods the fact that he's so asexual?
Erich,
Hey man, I love the blog. I sent an email to you at the yahoo address, but I am not sure you got it. I thought your take on our church was very interesting and I would love to grab coffee and dialgue if you would be interested. Shoot me an e-mail at dp@journeyon.net and let me know either way.
thanks,
darrin patrick
Oh man, you won't be able to convince Erich to throw away his hard earned skepticism and convert. I think every time one of these so-called open-minded Christians meets a staunch atheist like Erich they go, "Woooohooo", like kids in a candy store. Their eyes light up and there is this special sparkle that says, "I love me a challenge!" (hunter-mentality, you know…).
But sell me a product/service/religion that survives my skepticism and I'll eat out of your hand, but not until then.
This post is for those who want to hear the Christianity’s side.
Erich, the question of giving all your money to the poor, in Acts the early Christians did sell all they had and distributed the moneys to help other Christians who were in need. But, I believe it is a matter of how much one believes that God will take care of them if they have nothing and how worldly a person is that determines how much they give. So, if the person you are talking to says “I am a Believer!” you are free to ask, “Do you believe enough to sell all you own to give to those who are less fortunate as in Acts?”
As for the question on how rich, several of the figures in the Old Testament were kings and had huge sums of money at their disposal. But, I don’t think when a Believer or Christian has an X-box or super wide screen HD T.V. and surround sound stereo system really glorifies God.
For Projektleiterin, when a child is born a father tends to let the child do pretty much whatever it wants with scolding from time to time. When the child is older and has the ability to understand, the father lays down the rules and if the child breaks the rule it’s a trip to the wood shed for the child. When the child matures he depends on the rules and starts to bend the rules and misbehave. Usually at that point he understands right and wrong and the father no longer uses a hickory stick as the child is now a young adult and will now have to live with his indiscretions. I figure we are still in high school, religious wise, as we still bully, play the cliques, fight, and use tactics like name calling, guilt trips and finger pointing. I can’t wait till we grow up and allow people to believe or not believe without the need to prove people wrong or right.
In the illustration the father doesn’t change, but the methods of dealing with the child does. This is my crazy idea so if it’s not helpful please excuse me.
Skepticism is like dry ice. Some folks just have more than their share, or they heap it up, as if it were a treasure: Ultimately, to no avail.
"Freely ye have received, freely give." "Buy the truth and sell it not." When God speaks to you, you will have no thought of recompence.
Erich: I have yet to have any answer to the question I have asked twice now:
If there is no God or any sort of supernatural beings: why do you care if other people want to believe it and why do you spend so much energy and time going on and on about it?
As far as offering the bible as a place to start looking, I’m sorry but I thought the original post was about “The Journey” – a Christian church that uses and believes the bible. You can start with any ‘holy’ book that contains the same claims of Holy Deity, I don’t care. I offered only the bible because we were talking about Christian churches and Christians up to this point.
I also already stated why I suggested the bible…
“I have yet to find another faith or religion where my ‘ticket to heaven’ is not based on a set of works or a required mental achievement.”
…and not another religion or holy book. As I have previously stated, I have not found another religion where heaven is a gift – not a set of rules or a required number of accomplished tasks, etc.
You said “He convinces you that humble empathy is the only ultimate basis for any true morality, not any set of laws, not any hope for heaven, and not any fear of hell”. I am almost certain that this is where our viewpoints start to differ – the origin of truth itself.
So, how did ‘He’ convince you of this idea? Wait, so you do believe in God?
I know, I know – you were probably trying to say that your skepticism convinces you of this idea but I am skeptical of any ‘true’ belief that is based off of one human feeling.
If you’re right, which and/or whose definition of humble empathy is the right one?
(On a side note, if Jesus turns out to be the guy He says He is – a Holy God, dying and taking the place of all of the sins of the human race, because of his love for us..,that sounds like a pretty huge dose of humble empathy to me! Again, is there another religion where the God of that religion sacrifices himself for the sake of his followers – making heaven a gift extended to those who believe and follow him?)
If there is no god at all, what good is humble empathy? If there is nothing out there, nothing that happens after we die – what does it matter if we are bad or good to others? Everything means nothing – when it comes down to it. Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes – he had almost anything a person could want at that time in history and yet he knew that all of it didn’t mean a thing if there was no higher purpose.
As far as your list of 388 ‘contradictions’ – I will admit I haven’t read all of them but have you gone back and subtracted the ones that have the answers to explain those contradictions? Plus, many of the contradictions I looked at have more to do with the English translation(s) than to do with the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Besides, if the bible had actually been proven wrong, do you mean to tell me that the media wouldn’t have made sure the world knew it? ;o) (you have to at least give me a half smile there!)
Look, I didn’t post a reply the first, second, or this last time to get you to say I’m right. I know that if you’re saying the things you’re saying that that’s not gonna happen anytime soon, if ever. All I’ve ever wanted any atheist or doubter of the supernatural to concede are a couple of things. One, is that their ideas such as
-‘true morality’ being based on a human action or feeling
-or that life ultimately came from rocks (if you don’t think the theory of evolution says this, you haven’t studied it enough, trust me, oh, unless they’ve changed it again.)
-or that the scientific odds of this so super finely detailed earth just happening by chance when what it takes to support life here is so ultra-finely tuned, are ridiculous when compared to the idea of intelligent design —
that all of this and more takes as much FAITH to stand by (I would venture mathematically the whole odds thing would prove it takes MORE faith) to believe what you do and that you are no different from the Christians and churches and people of other beliefs who believe in such radical ideas of a Holy God or a virgin giving birth, etc.
On a serious note, I have enjoyed reading and replying – I’m looking forward to seeing if you’ll at least answer the one question I have asked you! I also gathered from your original post that you seem to think Christianity is strictly a works based faith and that was the biggest reason I felt compelled to at least reply – as I said before, I recognize that there are many people who do wrong things in the name of Christianity (I beg you to see that our religion is not the only one where this happens.) But, I really just wanted you to at least understand that true Christianity is a grace based faith – because if you had truly understood that, your experiences at different churches may have left at least a slightly different impression than they did and so I hope in the future you’ll try to remember this if you ever visit another one. Take care and so long!
PS – if you don't want to do any of the 'holy books' – try some of Sir Isaac Newton's writings – I especially love what he has to say about the human eye.
Jen: I'll reply, but not tonight. It's late and I need to say my nighttime "prayers" to my (Einsteinian) God. http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1203. Though, sometimes, I think I'm an ignostic. Generally, I refer to myself as an agnostic. Determining what one is (theologically speaking) can be rather complicated these days. http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1122
Jen: Evolution makes no (zero) claims about how life began. It only addresses how it progresses from simple pre-cellular forms to the most sophisticated colonies (with mammals like us as an example from somewhere in the middle of the complexity spectrum).
There is not yet clear consensus about which of the several proposed and tested methods that life here has taken to form from simple, active chemicals in a variety of energy potential situations. There is no name for this as-yet un-agreed-upon theory of a practical solution to abiogenesis. But it is not "evolution".
How unlikely is it that the Earth is so well tuned for life? Backwards question. Given the billions of planets in our galaxy, and the billions of galaxies full of billions of planets, and billions of years for things to drift and adjust on each of these: How likely is it that some of these would not be so perfectly tuned? Given that near certainty of a perfect planet somewhere, of course that question would only be asked by residents of one of these well-tuned planets. The one we inhabit is one of these.
You can take it a stage further: Given the quintillions of parallel universes, each with its own subtle variations on the laws of physics…
Jen:
You pose very good questions and express your positions eloquently. While I don't know what Erich would say in response, I would like to take a stab at some answers for you. I, too, am an atheist—although I do not believe universal atheism is achievable. However, let me address some of your points.
You ask:
"If there is no God or any sort of supernatural beings: why do you care if "other people want to believe it and why do you spend so much energy and time going on and on about it?"
For myself, it is a question of accountability. When someone commits an act or demands that others conform to his or her viewpoint, the next question would be—should be—on what authority to base your action and your demands? If the answer is an invisible, unprovable, impossible-to-demonstrate supernatural being, then what basis for counterargument is there? People like me are left with two choices—reject that person's claims out of hand or try to convince them that there must be some mutual basis we can both share for establishing the desirability of those actions or demands. Unfortunately, one cannot put "god" on a witness stand, or cross-examine the holy spirit, or engage Jesus in a Socratic dialogue to determine the validity of their positions, and by extension the person who acts and thinks based solely on those authorities is also usually not amenable to reasoned discourse. (This is relevent in the extreme in cases like Christian Science, where medical decisions are being based on an unarguable deistic interpretation–faith. While this may be a valid personal choice, they extend this to include children who do not have the capacity–or, really, legal right—to exercise choices on their own behalf. It becomes a very serious issue then.) So we get "bothered" and exercised about it because at times and in places the faith-based decision-making of the seriously religious can run counter to any kind of mutual "best interest" reasoning, and all because the assumption is made that the authority on which they base their morality is "outside" the purview of human reason.
"I am skeptical of any ‘true’ belief that is based off of one human feeling."
As well you should be. "Feelings" are not the sole basis for any reasoned decision-making, although they are indispensible. But skepticism is not a feeling—it is a learned, complex approach to claims, demanding examination and analysis. A skeptical feeling may precede this, but true skepticism never ends with the feeling. It is the basis for our understanding of just about everything,because without it Truth would be a term used for whatever people in authority tell us to believe.
"If there is no god at all, what good is humble empathy? If there is nothing out there, nothing that happens after we die – what does it matter if we are bad or good to others?"
This is where I break with most religious people—it reduces morality to a kind of spiritual capitalism. The only reason to do something is because someone else tells you to and because you'll get a reward for it?
It matters more if this is the only life we get, because in that case we must live it as richly as possible. That doesn't mean indulgently, but Well. And to do that, we have learned, with or without a god, that treating each other respectfully, with love, with that humble empathy which we learn to employ is the way to the richest life in the Here and Now. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetually re-enacting the hideous sides of our nature. We embrace humble empathy to open ourselves the wonder and joy of Being Alive in the best way. The reward is in the doing, the receiving, the giving, and the in the sheer recognition of who we are and where we are. Otherwise, we live Hobbes' short, brutal life and die having never touched the truth that is Other People.
Truth is not a thing that can be bestowed. It is a continual process of recognition, of seeing, and of becoming. Most religions, in their daily practice, seem to offer a debased concept that truth is like a christmas present that you open and once opened you Have It. It's not like that. It's ongoing, ever-changing, the only game in town, as it were, and for me I have seen more churches that actually got in the way of that discovery than ever enabled it. That's why it bothers me, personally, to see people invest in what looks like a dodge, a shell game, the promise that if you behave this way and say your prayers, then the real goodies will be yours after you die.
Sorry. It's too late then.
But as a variation on Pascal's Wager, seeking truth in this world shouldn't be cause for worry in the instance of an afterlife. Leave the cathedral and embrace empathy—learn the universe as it is and recognize truth as it happens—how could that possibly be in conflict with a "loving god?"