Is Christianity Outdated?

Christianity can only be labeled "outdated" if and only if the focus of Christianity remains on its supernatural beliefs and superstitions rather than its transformational message of liberation. If fundamentalism remains as the primary public voice of the Christian tradition then it will continue to become more outdated. Fortunately, that doesn't have to be the case. The choice is left to all of us that call ourselves Christian by accepting the mission of Jesus. Christianity doesn't have to wither on the vine.

An even greater level of responsibility and accountability is be left to those that bear the title Reverend. What will they present to the world? Will they reduce Christianity to a movement intent on preserving an ancient worldview and fundamentalist beliefs like militant Islam, and Israeli Zionists or will they dig deeper into the bible to discover its timeless truths of peace, justice, love and mercy. The proof will be in the pudding and the pudding will be dished out from the thousands of pulpits around the globe. Will the vast majority of Christian pastors continue to focus on getting people to work up belief in unbelievable things as they peddle the snake oil of a domesticated religion or will they recognize the radically subversive message of Jesus and serve up its nourishing message?

I don't look to pass judgement on people that maintain superstitious beliefs, I only ask that they no longer make those beliefs the main focus of their message and attempt to define the term Christian as a person who holds onto those beliefs. They should not miss the opportunity to talk about what is important and timeless. Ancient beliefs have served their purpose well and they continue to work to transform lives. I have many friends that manage to maintain a vibrant transformational faith that coexists with a more ancient worldview but for me, the struggle against reason doesn't seem to be worth the fight.

Reclaiming The Bible

Marcus Borg always seems to say what I feel but I rarely have the ability to express it. I've been meeting with a small group of friends every saturday night and several of us have been reading his books. This video captures his central theme of taking the Bible seriously without taking it literally. This one concept helped me come to love the Bible and Jesus more than I ever had before. I hope a few of those friends will provide comments here about how this view of scripture may be challenging and expanding your perspective.

Mother Teresa's Crisis of Belief...

Mother Teresa of Calcutta's spiritual drought extended for decades and led her to doubt the existence of heaven and God for the last 50 years of her life.

This story in Time magazine should provide a boost to the faith of every person that feels their lack of belief might limit their ability to have a robust faith in Jesus (by faith, I mean agreement with and allegiance to his message). It proves that ontological beliefs are not a requirement for a faithful life. I wonder if her doubts about God's intervention had something to do with actually taking matters into her own hands.

Maybe Mother Teresa was "Emergent" way before it was ever cool and trendy!

The Power of Our Worldview

The CNN special called "God's Warriors" highlighted the importance of worldview. This topic spilled over into my conversation with a few friends last night and it has me thinking about how our worldview effects everything we do.

I feel that the biggest mistake in religion is that it often attempts to preserve not just the life lessons and timeless truths of its sacred traditions, but it also seeks to preserve the ancient worldviews held by the architects of those traditions. The authors of sacred texts, like all creative people, tell their stories through the lens of their own unique experiences and limited understanding. Those lenses confine and shape the stories and give them their distinct flavor and style. The stories are vessels of timeless truths but fundamentalist religions have been more concerned with preserving the worldviews that are transmitted as a byproduct of these stories while minimizing the living truth contained in the core of their meaning. Why would we read these wonderful stories and conclude that the one thing to extract from them and preserve is their ancient worldview? That does a great injustice to the stories.

The architects of our ancient traditions had their own worldview shaped and cultivated very deeply by secular and often pagan contemporary philosophers. How much of the ancient Hebrew view of an afterlife and ritual sacrifice was learned from its time in Egypt and its flirtation with the Pagan religions it replaced in the Promised Land? How much influence did Plato and Aristotle have on the authors of the New Testament? The nuggets of philosophy, biology, cosmology, and sociology that are preserved in our texts should be viewed as a unique snapshot in time. I have no problem conceding that our sacred texts display the most important truths known to man about life, love, and community, but they should not be valued when it comes to understanding the working and origin of our world. The author(s) of Genesis would be little help in designing an electric car, but I think they did have great insight on the decision to preserve or destroy our world. Genesis is an environmentally friendly story. Fundamentalists seem to listen only when it is convenient for their own personal agenda. Why preserve the notion that God created the world but ignore the call to care for it? Ancient stories convey powerful truths about our relationships and our responsibilities that transcend time and culture, but they offer little help in solving modern scientific equations or evaluating human origins and evolution. The bible is a lens through which we see God and the point is not to see the lens as a perfect lens. The point is to be in relationship to that which the lens discloses.

What makes it so hard for us to look at our texts and traditions without buying into their flaws? I wouldn’t really even call those types of shortcomings “flaws”. It was the best these people could do. Even fundamentalists critique the ancient political structures (for example Monarchy) and judge those failed attempts as pre-enlightenment naivety, but they try to hold onto ancient theology and even ancient cosmology and biology as if it timeless? Even modern science would not see its conclusions as timeless. The answer seems so clear to me. I can’t grasp what could possibly cause people to struggle with letting this older way of viewing the world wither and die. Isn’t there a way to build a strong and vibrant faith based on the clear message of hope, justice, and peace that is blatantly obvious in our sacred texts while letting go of the ancient worldviews that tag along for the ride on the backs of those stories? Why must there be a fight to the death over something so obvious?

I’m not suggesting that we dismiss these ancient voices, but rather that we understand their limitations in the same way that we should humbly consider our own limitations. If we have learned anything from the modern enlightenment, it should be that we will never have it all ironed out in neat little packages of scientific proof. There are certainly things we don’t yet understand but that is even more reason to keep questioning our worldview. The goal of faith is not to believe the unbelievable. The development of a robust faith cannot not be measured by the level of absurdity in things we will believe to be true.

Postmodern theology has been misunderstood as a return to pre-modern thinking or a rejection of modernity. Instead, I feel that to be postmodern means allowing all the lessons of modernity to become an integral part of our thinking as modernity has had time to sink into the fabric of our society. Postmodern people of faith are no longer fighting the discoveries of science the way our fathers did. Post modernity means the old modern war that sets faith apart from reason is over. Reason has won that battle, thank God! But unlike the early modern secular movement that saw faith and ancient beliefs as a package deal which must be destroyed, we now seek to find a place where faith no longer needs the absence of reason to exist. Postmodern theology is a complete absorption and celebration of the modern enlightenment PLUS the retention of ancient faith traditions, rituals, language, and timeless lessons. Our postmodern goal should be to have a robust "up-to-date" worldview with all the trimmings of modern science PLUS a robust faith with all the valuable insights of ancient traditions.

Political Confrontation

The confrontations of late between Obama and Clinton have shown me two things:

1. Obama would make a better president. He is clearly a more ethical, untainted, and pragmatic candidate with the health of our nation higher on his list of priorities.

2. Clinton is a better politician and can run a better campaign. She is capable of twisting her opponents words and manipulating the media in her favor. Her ties to corporate greed and corruption are not much better than Bush.

So who can beat the GOP? Best candidate or best politician? I like Obama, but I'm afraid he will get "swift-boated" and won't be able to respond. He could have slapped Clinton's BS back in her face but he hedged. Maybe he was being sure not to burn any bridges. Clinton has dirty problems and a the baggage of a husband that destroyed the US presidency forever by making it a big joke. But her issues are not so secret anymore. The very things I dislike about Clinton are her best attributes. America is sick of Bush/Cheney, and she might be so good at politics that she could overcome her negatives.

I think an Edwards/Obama ticket would win easily, but it doesn't appear it will happen. My solution is that Clinton should bow out now and save the Democratic party. Nominating Hillary is the one way that Democrats could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

God's Warriors

CNN will air a special report for the next 3 nights containing 6 hours of material by Christiane Amanpour about religious fundamentalism. She was on Larry King tonight discussing the project and it does sound interesting. The report will focus on Jewish, Islamic, and Christian fundamentalism and their impact on the world.

Only a small percentage of religious extremists actually become violent, but during the interviews tonight I couldn't help but wonder how much blame should be shouldered by the moderates and progressives in each religion that stand by and watch their faiths high-jacked by extremists. For example, should moderate Christians be blamed since they insist on leaving ideas of after-life and judgement in their faith if they realize that those views lead to extremists taking those beliefs too literally? At what point do you realize that certain religious ideas are prone to being used to support violence, racism, exclusion, and sexism and decide to stop spreading those views. How do you "combat" the ignorance of fundamentalists without creating deeper division and becoming a religious warrior yourself?

Emerging Christians often talk about creating a diverse community that embraces all views (even fundamentalists), but I often wonder if that is sustaining the problem. I'm torn about where to draw the line and how to balance the protest of fundamentalism with the desire to create unity and an open inclusive conversation. I'm not really sure about the answer. Maybe this report will shed some light on the problem. I agree with Christine Amanpour when she says the answer is enlightened leadership and it has worked in places like Bosnia and Ireland where there was once little hope for reconciliation.

Repent, the Shopocalypse is near!

Using God for Greed...

Tonight on PBS, Bill Moyers will air his analysis of the Karl Rove resignation. You can see a short video clip here.

I think the worst part about the Rove/Bush team is that so many well meaning Christians have been mislead. I know many Christians that honestly feel they are doing the will of God by supporting the Republican party for the past 3 decades. I'm as guilty as anyone for having once fallen for the shell game. At some point you have to go deeper than asking a candidate to proclaim his or her faith. Eventually you have to take their policies and compare them with Jesus and see how they measure up. I wish their were more unbiased media choices easily accessible to Christians. I fault progressives just as much as conservatives because progressives have a history of serving their quality political criticism with a healthy side dish of anti-religious rhetoric. The result has been polarization, widespread religious illiteracy, and plenty of anger. I hope the tide will shift soon.

Thich Nhat Hanh Interview on NPR

Thich Nhat Hanh is a Vietnamese Zen monk, poet, and peacemaker. He cofounded the An Quang Buddhist Institute, the Van Hanh Buddhist University in Vietnam, and Plum Village, a Buddhist training monastery in France. He is the author of many books, including Being Peace, The Miracle of Mindfulness: A Manual on Meditation, and Fragrant Palm Leaves: Journals 1962–1966. I've mentioned a couple of his books here on this blog.

Greg Deloach at FBC Augusta recently pointed me to this podcast of a wonderful interview with Thich Nhat Hanh by Kristia Tippett in the archives at Speaking of Faith.

When I read or hear this man, all I can think about is how poorly I listen to the people I love. He challenges us to develop compassion by truely listening to the suffering of others. The podcast is a little long, but well worth the time.

Well Said...

This is a great video clip by Brian Mclaren.

I grew up in a church that saw the Kingdom of God as something that happens in the future after we all die. Then I spent 10 years in a couple of churches with people that understood the "now" aspect of this Kingdom, but they thought it was mostly about learning how to perform miracles and telling the future. It is refreshing to finally hear someone within Evangelical Christianity talk about the Kingdom as something other than a fairy-tale, a supernatural phenomenon, or an act of military force. For me, it is all about real people making real changes toward peace and justice right now. I may disagree with Brian's decision to hang onto certain Evangelical beliefs, but I really like his approach to Jesus' message about the Kingdom of God.

Kill Or Convert, Brought To You By the Pentagon

Operation Straight Up (OSU) along with several professional actors like Steven Baldwin are now distributing "freedom packets" to the American soldiers in Iraq. These packages include copies of the video game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces". If you haven't seen the game yet, you should know this is a game which depicts Christian military forces killing non-Christians in an apocolyptic science fiction type environment. To win the game, players must kill or convert all the non-believers left behind after the rapture. Do we really want these people trying to brainwash our soldiers and filling their minds with this type of sick distored bullshit?

Read the full article at The Nation. Thank you Bruce Prescott at Mainstream Baptist for posting a link to this article.

Eternal life

Last night, I had the pleasure of hearing about a friend’s trip to Uganda. Jessie’s stories about her trip were amazing. She is about to begin her first year at the University of Georgia (my Alma mater) and I couldn’t help but think about how immature I was at that point in my life in comparison to her. She is an incredible person. You can find out more about these displaced children in Uganda at InvisibleChildren.com.

One of her most interesting observations was the joy and peace that she saw in these people who lived daily without security and without any of the comforts that we have in America. It was so strange for us to be looking at pictures of people in dire circumstances and realizing they have something that we are so often missing. I was not prepared to have such a humbling experience. Our little group had some discussions later about our feelings, but I felt like we couldn’t really get to the root of the issue. One topic that came up was the concept of eternal life and its meaning in relation to our relative circumstances. Here are a few things that I’m thinking about now in the aftermath of that conversation which was not the conversation I was expecting to unfold.

The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. John 12:25

Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. Luke 17:33

Impermanence expresses the Buddhist notion that everything, without exception, is constantly in flux, even planets, stars and gods. Human life embodies this flux in the aging process, the cycle of birth and rebirth (Samara), and in any experience of loss. Because things are impermanent, attachment to them is futile, and leads to suffering. The only true end of impermanence is nirvana, the one reality (a state of being or understanding) that knows no change, decay or death.

Here are a few of my thoughts today about what the concept of “eternity” and "eternal life" might mean beyond the traditional view of life after death.

• Eternity is not a time or a “long time” or a “future time”


• Eternity is now without the burden of impermanence


• Eternal life is no longer living in fear of our own mortality


• Eternal life is the realization that life does not end when changes occur


• Eternal life means living without the fear of loss


• Eternal life is not the extension of our identity after the end of our physical life, but it is a state of being without the obsession with (attachment to) our individual identity.


• Eternal life is the freedom that can be experienced if we no longer live under the burden of maintaining our sense of self-worth through our possessions, security, longevity, physical existence, and individual identity.