Theology and Everyday Life

The Struggle for Initimacy

2008-05-26T11:33:00.000-07:00

HBO is rerunning its series “Tell Me You Love Me.”

The premise of the show is simple. It follows four couples as they struggle with intimacy.

“Struggling with intimacy” is redundant because intimacy is always a struggle. It’s not necessarily hard to get close to another human being, but to stay close requires constantly being faced with things we don’t like that we see in the other person. Whether and how we can honestly come to terms with these things is the basis for intimacy.

The process of establishing or deepening intimacy is often not pretty. But it is the realest thing we go through in our lives. This is why the 20th century theologian Paul Tillich used intimacy as one of two ways of understanding God. (The other was ultimacy.)

In movies and TV shows, sex is used as an easy surrogate for intimacy. But it is unusual to find a story that focuses on the reality of long-term intimacy.

“Tell Me You Love Me” attempts to put the struggle for intimacy on the screen. In includes sex--some of it is graphic, even for HBO. It's not for the squeamish. But its depiction is part of the story. We begin to see into each relationship, and how each person tries to deeply trust another.

Because the subject matter is so difficult, watching can sometimes be an uncomfortable experience. It has been for me.

After a couple of episodes, though, I find it very rewarding indeed. And I find that I care about the characters, as unbelievably aggravating as some of them are.

The Vitality of Confession

2008-05-12T07:46:00.000-07:00

A faithful reader passed along to me a story from the August 31, 2007 “Los Angeles Times” about Christian confession. As it has declined in the Catholic church, it has grown online via sites sponsored by Protestant mega-churches.

For a long time, confession has had a terrible reputation. Why would anyone want to admit something bad they had done? And who in their right mind would do it among other people?

While it has always been a central part of liturgy in mainline churches, many congregations had drifted away from it. The thought was that it made people feel bad, and people wouldn’t come to church if it made them feel bad.

At first look, it seems good that confession has come back in the mostly non-denominational mega-churches. But there is a rub. Actually, there are two rubs.

Nothing is wrong with inviting people to confess anonymously online. It can help them unburden themselves. For some, it may even begin the process of getting needed help. But it is an individual act, done outside of any community the confessor may be part of.

The second rub is that worship in mega-churches is almost always about feeling good and does not include a time for community confession. It’s too much of a downer and it scares people away.

The result of all this is that confession, online or otherwise, becomes just a marketing gimmick that church leaders hope will draw certain people into the community.

One doesn’t confess in a vacuum, just as one doesn’t worship in a vacuum. All of us live our lives not just in a relationship with ourselves, and the same is true for our spiritual lives. We are in this world with other people, and our lives are connected to them.

Nothing is wrong with private, personal prayer, meditation and reflection. In fact, it is a good thing. But it is not the beginning and end of our spiritual lives.

Sometimes I hear people talk as if their relationship with a vague, supernatural god means more than their relationship with the people around them. But I don’t think we can have any kind of real relationship with God outside of our relationship to our loved ones and our community.

That’s why, for confession to be meaningful, it must be done in the context of a community. And it really should always be part of weekly worship. Not as in telling the person next to you a bad thing you have done, but as in saying together that, individually and as a community, we have messed up.

And that we need each other’s help to do better.

Is "Multitasking" Spiritually Healthy?

2008-05-05T12:23:00.000-07:00

I regularly see the current generation referred to as “different.” One way it is “different,” so it goes, it that it is a “multi-tasking” generation.

I have one word for this timorously trenchant cultural analysis. Bunk.

It is true that younger people are doing many things at once. This is obvious if you’ve watched anyone under 30 use a computer or a cell phone, or play a video game. Many of their brains have been trained from an early age to almost-instinctively use technology to search or explore.

But are they better able to handle multi-tasking than their parents or grandparents? Have they made a significant evolutionary step and become so advanced that they can talk on the phone, listen to music, check their e-mail, and drink Red Bull while driving a 7000-pound Excursion?

Have their brains become so multi-taskingly wired that they can process, absorb and analyze simultaneous streams of data from five or six different sources? No.

From an evolutionary standpoint, human beings have changed not one whit from the days before cars and TV. It is true that we are healthier and living longer. But our essential physiological and neurological makeup is unchanged.

It was a mere 110 years ago that our grandparents or great-grandparents or great-great grandparents were walking or relying on horses for transportation. To get information they relied on neighbors, bought a newspaper, or went to hear a speech in the evening. For entertainment they chatted, played games, read books, went visiting, or occasionally went out.

Multi-tasking has consequences beyond any real or imagined increase in productivity, and certainly beyond any notion that you are living a “full” life.

Most people will eventually discover that multi-tasking not only does not indicate a “full” life, but rather an empty one. The fullness of life is found in going deep and savoring, not in rapidly skimming everything everywhere.

Church Leadership and Management

2008-04-28T12:06:00.000-07:00

The statement about management that sticks with me more than any other came from the titan of all management experts, Peter Drucker. It goes something like this:

“Management consists mostly of finding creative ways to make it more difficult for people to do their jobs.”

This came to mind as I thought about the current focus of the California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. Just like many church bodies across the U.S., our conference has fretted for years about loss of membership. And that fretting hit a fever pitch in the last year as the rate of membership loss accelerated.

In all the study and research about what to do to reverse this decline, the one need that came up much more often than any other was a need for leadership training--for ministers, staff and lay people.

It’s terrific that the conference has come to consensus on this. It’s terrific when the conference comes to consensus on anything.

I’m a little concerned that a possible consequence of the leadership focus will be to impose standardized “tactics” or plans for success. While it is possible for such tactics and plans to make a difference, any change will not stick unless there is fundamental, basic change in our openness to, and understanding and expectation of, success.

The standard, repeating pattern in churches and other organizations is for hope to be placed in some new technique (or, worse, some new buzzword). Some church leaders become very excited and, as a result, some other church members get excited.

But the excitement gradually dissipates as it becomes clear that nothing is really changing. And so all the videos and Powerpoints and leader’s guides are filed away and forgotten.

The reason that nothing changes is because nothing has changed. The change needs to be at the beginning of the process, not a result at the end. And the change needs to be at the most-basic and fundamental level.

One suggested change: to fully appreciate and lavish attention and resources on the places where the church is already growing (translated “leading”).

For example, if a church has an exciting and well-attended youth program, provide significant additional resources and support (money and/or people) to encourage the growth to continue. If a church has a successful hands-on mission program, send resources to help it continue to grow and expand.

The only way the church will grow is when we can accept, embrace and support how it is already growing.

The dirty little secret is that many churches simply want to stay small. They don’t put it that way, of course. Every church wants some (not too many) new "younger" people.

It is understandable and not necessarily a bad thing that communities want to retain their essential friendly, intimate character.

But it is unfortunate if also we have become unable to accept, celebrate, nurture and support authentic and real growth, wherever it may be happening in our communities.

Freedom from Stuff

2008-04-21T12:09:00.000-07:00

Last year we had to pack lots of boxes and rearrange furniture during a months-long kitchen remodel. Dozens of decisions had to be made about where to put things and what to keep out. And what to throw out.

My pattern when packing and moving is to pack first and throw away at the other end. I know this wastes energy and makes little sense to most people.

But I guess I realized early on that the time to make difficult decisions about what stays and what goes (translated “priorities”) is not during the stress of packing. So usually I have the throw-away and give-away boxes nearby when I unpack at the other end.

I seem to have a clearer, more-relaxed sense of priorities at the end of moves than at the beginning--maybe because I’ve lived without the packed stuff for a while.

That’s the benefit of moving. It’s a discovery of what I can live without, and what I like to have around me.

And it's always a relief.

A Common Spiritual Journey

2008-04-14T13:24:00.000-07:00

William Lobdell used to be a religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times. On Saturday, July 21, 2007, he wrote about his spiritual journey on the front page of that paper.

His is a common case of someone finding certainty and “righteousness” in the rules and authority of religion and then being thrown into chaos when that “righteousness” is seriously questioned.

19 years ago a friend took him to a mega-church in Newport Beach, where he came to view the bible as “Life’s Instruction Manual.” He joined the church at the end of an emotional men’s retreat.

He started praying every day and says he had a strong marriage, great kids and a good job.

After about 10 years, he found that his wife’s Roman Catholicism appealed to him. He liked what he calls “its low-key evangelism and deep ritual, long history and loving embrace of liberals and conservatives, immigrants and the established, the rich and poor.”

So he signed up for the year-long conversion classes to join the Catholic Church.

Then Lobdell was assigned to report on the growing number of criminal sexual-abuse cases involving clergy in the Catholic church. As he investigated and realized the extent of the abuse, he began to be disenchanted. He decided not to join the Catholic church.

Then he reported on people who had left the Mormon church and had been shunned by former friends. He stopped going to church.

He then started reporting on corruption in the church. He began to investigate the Trinity Broadcasting Network, and found ministers living lavishly off donations from people with prayer requests.

And he investigated TV healing ministries and saw suffering, desperate people put their faith in a minister to whom they had given money.

He stopped praying and asked for a new beat at the Times.

William Lobdell thought he found “the answer” 19 years ago. It was clear and certain to him. It was built on the rules and authority of the church.

Then disappointment came, as it always does. His certain answer no longer worked. He saw no choice but to throw out everything and close down.

This is what happens when someone searches “out there” for a certain and definite answer. Then when he thinks he’s found it, he stops searching.

He stops searching, because, after all, he has already found what he needs to find, thank you very much, why should he continue searching?

But finding is in the act of searching. This means that when he stops searching he also stops finding. And the only choice left is disillusionment.

Seeking Is Finding

2008-04-07T10:49:00.000-07:00

In reading a well-known passage from Luke, I am again struck by how questionable biblical interpretations become embedded in our culture.

Anyone who has been to third-grade Sunday school will remember these two sentences:

“Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.”

The usual interpretation--the one that is embedded so strongly that there is no shaking it loose--is an “if, then” statement.

We say, we assume, we live this: if you search, then you will find.

What is actually being said is something very different, and very hard for us to get our lives around: searching is finding. The act or attitude of searching is also the act or attitude of finding.

Conventionally, we think that the importance lies in finding, which is the result of searching. Searching becomes just something we have to do in order to find. Searching is, in itself, not important. Finding is the important part.

To me, this text says that the importance lies in searching, which is the same as finding.

It is surprising and life-giving to give up the desire for a result and simply step into searching. It is how great things are found.

Beyond Political Posturing

2008-03-31T19:03:00.000-07:00

Constructive dialogue doesn’t just happen. We don’t have the patience for it. There needs to be a structured process.

Most of the members of the United Methodist California-Pacific Annual Conference participated in such a process a few years ago. It was called “discernment.”

A bit of background. In deciding policy and direction, the United Methodist Church operates as a pure democracy. Matters are decided by Roberts-Rules debates followed by votes in legislative session at both the regional and national levels.

This system is by design adversarial. On each motion, those on both sides are heard from, and then a vote is taken. The majority vote prevails. Those who are not in the majority have to live with it.

We had attempted through legislation for many years to come to terms about the role of gays and lesbians in church leadership. But our conference remained bitterly divided and stuck.

The aim of the discernment process was not legislative but rather attempting to sense the direction of the church in the midst of people opening their hearts to each other. It may sound a little strange, but it was quite powerful.

The central method used was simple. Groups of eight to ten people would agree to basic ground rules and then each person would answer some specific questions about their experience. This method was repeated in many venues over almost two years.

Listening to the experiences of people in the structured setting of discernment was extraordinarily enlightening to me. I had thought I knew everything that needed to be known about this issue.

Hearing from people actually dealing with it every day showed me how little I knew.

Carrying Easter Forward

2008-03-24T10:59:00.000-07:00

The fragrance of the lilies begins to fade, the uplift of triumphal music begins to fade.... What are the manifest results of Easter? Especially in a world in which political discussion seems dominated by diatribe and warring hysterical headlines?

For most of us, political dialogue doesn’t exist. We read or hear statements by political leaders which are usually encapsulated criticism of the opponent’s action or point of view.

We read opinion in magazines, newspapers and online. The goal of these pieces is not dialogue but persuasion.

We listen to radio or TV talk shows where the aim is to entertain by pointing out the impugned idiocy of the other side, thus creating conflict. Short, clever, self-righteous diatribes are the staple, from both hosts and callers.

We talk with our friends and discover they have become as stirred up as we are by the lunacy of those we disagree with. The ensuing conversation is not dialog but rather an assemblage of cherry-picked facts that support our pent-up point of view.

In real dialogue, listening comes first, and the goal is not persuasion but understanding. An excellent example is described by David Briggs of Religion News Service.

In a story published last year, he talks about a dialogue between John Kerry supporters and those of George Bush in the “battleground” of Ohio in 2004. It wasn’t easy.

It happened at the Forest Hills Church, Presbyterian in Cleveland Heights. Rev. John Lentz had sensed a bitter partisan division in the church and wanted to find out why there was such tension.

Participants were uneasy and uncertain at the beginning. But what happened over time is revealing. This is how Briggs puts it:

“The focus shifted from trying to convince people who held different beliefs that they were wrong to listening to other members talk about how their views were shaped by having a family member in the military or escorting women into abortion clinics.

“Respecting one another also meant being open to change.”

One participant decided to stop listening to constant criticism of liberals by radio and TV entertainers. He says the idea that those who oppose the Iraq war are unpatriotic is “nonsense--that’s just nuts.”

A conclusion reached by the participants:
“When we seek and share the same values, our differences can lead to creative dialogue instead of confrontational disagreement.”

Why 40 Days of Lent?

2008-03-17T01:15:00.000-07:00

Seven is considered a lucky number. How did that happen?

There probably are many people who think seven became lucky in Las Vegas. You could say we are “illnumerate,” though I think that term is used to describe widespread math inability.

The specialness of seven goes waaay back to ancient numerology, in which a particular meaning was attached to certain numbers.

Specifically, the number 4 was used to signify the earth (everything that was on the ground or came from the ground). The number 3 was used to signify the heavens (everything that was up that was visible).

This meant that any equal combination of 3 and 4 signified completeness or perfection. Thus seven (3+4) was understood as the perfect number. So was 12 (3x4).

Likewise, 6 (7-1) was considered a permanently imperfect number. So was 13 (12+1).

This was the understanding as the stories in the bible were written down, edited and assembled. That’s why there are seven days of creation, 12 tribes of Israel and 12 apostles. And the instruction to forgive “seventy times seven” originates from this. There are multiples of seven and 12 in stories throughout the bible. And, of course, the ever-present-in-Revelation-and-horror-movies 666.

The number 40, 4 times ten, is an earth-bound number. Thus it is used to describe the number of years the Israelites were in the wilderness with Moses, the number of days of rain that caused the flood and the number of days of Jesus’ temptation (which we commemorate during Lent).

In the early days of Christianity there came to be 3 faces of god, the trinity. Meanwhile, there were the four corners of the earth and the four elements of ancient alchemy--earth, air, fire and water.

Later, as our system of time evolved, there were 7 days in a week, 24 hours in a day and 12 months in a year.

And then, there came craps.

It all came from way back.

Who Is Jesus?

2008-03-10T00:17:00.000-07:00

“I have walked through picket lines in San Diego, California to deliver a lecture. I have endured a bomb threat at Catholic University in Brisbane, Queensland. I have been the recipient of sixteen death threats, all of which came from bible-quoting ‘true believers.’

“I am grateful for each of my critics. What they unwittingly did was identify me as a resource for the religious seekers of our world who yearn to believe in God but who are also repelled by the premodern literalizations that so frequently masquerade as Christianity.”

This passage comes from Bishop John Shelby Spong’s book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." Published in 1998, it has become much more relevant in the ten years since.

Spong, who is a retired Episcopal bishop, is very concerned that the mainline church is shrinking. His thesis is that some of the central doctrines of the church are based on woefully outdated information and are thus incomprehensible to modern spiritual seekers.

Most “experts” on church growth talk about a myriad of tactics to market, invite and welcome people to church. Instead of this “outside-in” approach, Spong advocates that the church move inside-out. And so he examines and critically questions the roots of doctrine.

Then he goes back further in an effort to discern what the life of Jesus and the earliest Jewish and Christian tradition has to say about the relationship between humans and the divine.

An example of Spong's approach is his examination of the common belief in Jesus as “rescuer.” This has become an embedded part of Christianity, and is proclaimed by conservative Christians as ultimate truth.

But Spong reminds us that this is but one of several interpretations and understandings of the life of Jesus, and is not the earliest. Just like any doctrine, it is based on reading the bible in a particular way, using some specific assumptions.

Some people react to Spong's questioning as if the Christian faith itself is being attacked. That's why he continues to be vilified and even threatened.

His goal, however, is not to tear down Christianity but rather to challenge everyone who cares about the church to get serious about growing it.

By the way, the earliest understanding of Jesus comes from the beginning of the first-written of Paul's letters (and thus the first-written part of the new testament), 1 Thessalonians, which refers to Jesus as spirit.

The Real Original Sin

2008-03-03T15:09:00.000-08:00

Last time I mentioned the two creation stories. I want to touch on the second one again, because one doctrine that originates there has been intensely controversial for quite some time. You guessed it. We’re talking original sin.

The traditional Christian teaching is that human sin (that is, disconnection from the sacred) began with Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden. The doctrine developed that this “sin” was part of each human being at birth.

One of the most vocal opponents of this teaching was Rev. Matthew Fox, who in the 1990s developed an alternate view he called “original blessing.” He based this on the first creation story (in which God calls all of creation including humans “very good”). Because this story precedes the Adam and Eve story, he considered it primary, and the most-basic view of essential human nature.

I have always found the source of the original sin idea a bit opaque. Saying that Adam was disobedient to God may or may not be true, but to me it is singularly unhelpful. What exactly does “disobedience to God” mean? How exactly does a person know if he is disobedient to God? There is a great deal of interpretation needed from various authority figures, some of whom may have their own disobedient-to-God agenda.

I prefer to think in terms of the original, and subsequently universal, human failing. It may be the root of all human suffering. It does not begin with an act of disobedience, but with what happens afterward.

The Adam and Eve story illustrates this perfectly. When God asks Adam if he ate the apple, Adam says yes he did, because Eve told him to do it. When God turns to Eve and asks her the same question she says yes, she did tell Adam to eat the apple, because the snake told her to.

This is called passing the buck. We all carry the impulse to do this. This failure to take responsibility causes pain, sadness, dysfunction and even violence. From this impulse all kinds of evil springs.

If there is original sin, this is it--alive and all around us.

2 Creations, 2 Worldviews

2008-02-25T14:31:00.000-08:00

Richard Lederer once said that there are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can’t.

In terms of how we relate to others, there are just two kinds of people. Those who implicitly trust other people, and those who are implicitly suspicious of other people.

Of course, any individual may be “good” or “bad” at any particular moment in his life. What I’m talking about here is our assumption about the most-essential nature of human beings. Deep down, when everything is stripped away, are we essentially “good,” or essentially “bad”? I’m saying that all of us go through life consciously or unconsciously believing most of the time in one or the other.

This is not necessarily a religious or spiritual belief, but there is a religious framework for it. Among Christians and Jews these two groups are divided into those who have an affinity with the first creation story (people are essentially “good”), and those who have an affinity with the second (people are essentially “bad”).

There are two separate and distinct creation stories in the bible. The first is the seven-day creation, which begins, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...” For each of the first six days, Gods speaks, and something is created. When God is halfway done, God looks out and sees that creation is “good.” When God is completely done, God looks over all of creation, including humans, and sees that is is “very good.” On the seventh day, God rests.

As a religious person, if this story resonates with you, you believe that human nature is essentially good. Indeed, very good.

The second creation story is the one with Adam and Eve, and it comes from a different tradition than the first. We know this right away because the name of God becomes “Lord God.”

In this story God forms Adam from the dust of the ground, and then uses Adam’s rib to create Eve. Then the trouble starts when God tells Adam that he can eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The snake tells Eve that it’s really ok to eat from the tree. Eve tells Adam, who then has an apple. God gets mad and throws them both out of the garden.

If this story resonates with you, you likely are suspicious of human nature.

Creation Stories and Us

2008-02-18T00:16:00.000-08:00

Exactly what is legend and what is history continues to divide us. The creation stories at the beginning of the bible are a great example of this. Some people discard the stories as barbaric, others reverently worship the details and take them literally. Reasonable people find themselves somewhere between these two extremes.

Most people never read the actual stories. Just as very few people read the actual text from which the ten commandments are taken. (People seem to like the list better, even though it is a broad interpretation.)

Whatever we feel or believe about the creation stories, what matters is this: all people live based on the premise of either the first or the second. And that’s the truth of the matter.

Premise of first story: human beings are inherently good. As in: on the sixth day “God looked over all that he had created and saw that it was very good.”

Premise of second story (Adam and Eve): human beings are inherently bad. So bad that they were thrown out of the garden.

The King James Version

2008-02-11T12:59:00.000-08:00

The King James Bible was published almost 397 years ago.

At the time, words like “doth” and “sayeth” were no longer used. In fact, they hadn’t been common for many years. But the authors wanted to give the book the sound of an ancient document.

The influence of the King James bible on our culture and language is considerable. This is especially obvious in the liturgies and beloved hymns of churches.

Fondness for the King James version sometimes goes too far. This is usually harmless, even amusing. For example, you can sometimes hear people pray using words from the King James--“thee,” “thou,” “leadeth” and “wouldst.”

I think the unconscious assumption is that King James English is God’s language. So God will understand you if you use it when you pray.

Due to the fact that the King James bible was used for hundreds of years to teach English to children, its rhythms, poetry and images have become embedded in our language. It was the bible that accompanied the westward expansion across the U.S., and so is part of our history.

It is beautifully and vividly written, and has been mined extensively for creative inspiration.

But respect and affection for this book are sometimes taken way too far. For example, some congregations and individuals consider the King James bible to be the only “true” bible. This is logically impossible, of course, unless you assume the book dropped out of the sky in 1611, and was therefore not based on any previous bibles.

And unless you assume that God speaks only English. King James English.

Religious and Anti-Religious Fanatics

2008-02-04T23:49:00.000-08:00

Virtually all publicized religious debate and news is dominated by fanatics (sometimes called "fundamentalists"). There are fanatics on both sides of every issue, including whether there is a god or not. Two examples of fanatics who have gotten lots of attention are Pat Robertson and Bill Maher.

Robertson seems to enjoy the spotlight so much that he deliberately makes obnoxious assertions about what God wants or is going to do. Either that or he really believes God is sending messages for him to send along to us. Either way, he has a problem.

Bill Maher is another perfect example of a self-righteous fanatic. He is an atheist, though he has labeled himself a "rationalist," which is simply incorrect. A fanatic by definition cannot be rational. And Maher is far from rational when he brings up religion on his HBO show. He talks about it with foul, dripping loathing. You can hear it in the way he says the word “religion”: REEEE-LIH-JOHNNNN, drawn out with equal emphasis on each syllable.

Maher lumps all religious people together and effectively calls them superstitious, deluded and stupid. Using hugely broad stereotypes is a classic characteristic of a fanatic. Maher has occasionally been rebuffed and criticized for this on his show, often by people whom he’d never expect to be religious.

I have to give him credit because, after each of these incidents, he does seem to moderate himself for a while. Until something new sets him off.

My Good, My Bad

2008-01-28T23:56:00.001-08:00

As human beings, we prefer to think of things broadly assigned to one side of the fence or the other--”us, them” and lots of varieties of “good, bad.” There are many examples, including big ones like “Christianity good, Islam bad,” “small business good, big business bad,” and “Democrats good, Republicans bad” (or “Republicans good, Democrats bad”).

Putting things on one side of the fence or the other is a way for us to deal with fear and to avoid the work and discomfort of understanding. We sometimes do this quite openly in areas related to entertainment and the arts.

Some statements I’ve heard are: “church good, movies bad” (and its variation “church good, movies after 1945 bad”), “books good, TV bad,” and “classical music good, contemporary music bad” (and many variations).

Because I regularly talked about movies in my church work, the first statement is my favorite, and it provides a perfect framework to counter this way of thinking (more correctly, this way of not thinking).

There are about 400 movies released each year.
Most of them are bad.
Some are good.
Some are very good.

There are about 65,000 sermons preached in American churches each week.
Most of them are bad.
Some are good.
Some are very good.

Apocalypse Not

2008-01-21T17:41:00.000-08:00

“Apocalypse Not” was the name of a conference of religious leaders held a while back at Trinity Church in New York. "Christian Century" magazine ran a brief item about it.

The conference was organized as a response to concerns about the coming end of the world from two different groups--conservative Christians who believe there will be a “rapture” and those concerned that the environment will soon degrade to the point that life on earth will cease.

About the latter concern, theologian Jurgen Moltmann reminded attendees that “life on earth” includes much more than human life. As such, it is virtually impossible for all life to be wiped out any time over the next two or three billion years. Moltmann used the example of life on earth continuing after dinosaurs became extinct.

Belief in “rapture” is widespread these days. The popularity of the best-selling "Left Behind" series of fiction books is evidence of this.

Underlying most religious beliefs are inherent personality and emotional traits, which come before and give power to the beliefs. Generally, people who believe in a coming literal apocalypse are unhappy in their current circumstances and want to look forward to the day they will be freed from them. This is a broad simplification, of course, but when you look across the groups who teach this belief, you will find it to be mostly true.

Theologians, scientists and religious people can debate the reality and timing of the end of the world. Liberal and conservative biblical scholars can argue about whether Revelation is a literal prediction of the end of the world, or an allegory about hope in the presence of corruption and the abuse of power.

But I’m a practical guy. Instead of spending time panicking or praying about the end of the world, or even debating, why don’t we simply do something now to make life around us a little better?

Reason Comes Slowly

2008-01-14T19:35:00.000-08:00

The earth is at the center of the universe, with the sun and stars revolving around it. Diseases are caused by demon possession. Or they are caused by an imbalance of bodily humours. The four known elements are earth, air, wind and fire. The earth was created 6,000 years ago.

All of these ancient beliefs, common at the time of the bible, have been superseded by uncontested scientific discovery and research. But, according to a 2006 Gallup poll, almost half of Americans still believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, literally according to the account in Genesis.

There is a creation science museum just outside San Diego, and a “Creation Museum” under construction in Petersberg, Kentucky, near Cincinnati. The San Diego museum is a popular stop for groups of schoolchildren who visit from Christian schools. Among the exhibits is a row of photos of “creation scientists” across from a row of photos of those “believing” in evolution.

The row of photos of those “believing” in evolution includes Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler, but does not include other “believers” such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Desmond Tutu and Gandhi.

My guess is that the belief in biblical creation will very gradually decline over the next 100 years, but it will hang on beyond all attempts at reason--as it has over the last 150 years. When Copernicus demonstrated that the earth was revolving around the sun, it was considered just a theory. Years later, Galileo, whose thinking now underlies much of modern science, faced persecution and excommunication from the church when he presented data confirming Copernicus.

It took hundreds of years for most people to accept that the earth revolved around the sun. Evidently, it will also take hundreds of years for most Americans to accept that the actual age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.

Greed Causing Grief

2008-01-07T13:28:00.000-08:00

Greed causes more trouble and pain than any other human flaw, and it begins with something that many of us do every day.

Call it “just a little more.” We take a 15-minute work break and we stay out for just a little longer, 20 minutes. We get away with that. We take another small step, staying out 25 minutes. We don’t get into trouble for that. We take another small step. Eventually our supervisor will say something, and we may feel a trifle wronged if we’ve managed to get away with longer breaks for a while.

Another way this happens is when we take advantage of a gracious gesture. For example, on a couple of occasions our boss has been nice enough to give us a couple hours off to take care of personal business. We ask a few more times, and two hours off becomes three, then an afternoon. We begin to take it for granted, and if a subsequent request for time off is questioned, we feel persecuted.

Time, money, love, attention. Give me a little, I want a little more. It’s called greed.

Corporate fraud and embezzlement are classic and egregious examples of this. Someone discovers that they can move a bit of company money around and get away with it. Then he moves a bit more money twice as often. He still doesn’t get caught. The stakes gradually get higher and higher. When the crime is finally discovered, we are amazed that someone could steal so much money. But it all began with taking “just a little more.”

Helping to enable this behavior is our operating ethic of “do whatever you can get away with.” If I can get away with it, why don’t I take just a little more?

Resolved: A Year Without Shopping

2007-12-31T23:58:00.000-08:00

In 2007 and 2006, members of a San Francisco group pledged not to buy anything new. I don't know if they succeeded, but I suspect we'll be hearing about them in coming days.

I think it’s a charming idea, because I dislike shopping. For those who enjoy recreational shopping, and certainly for those who are addicted, the idea is far-fetched at best.

One of the fascinating issues that comes up for me is how much better we are at spending money than investing it, even though the decisions in both cases are similar. I’ll talk about this some other time. Today, at the start of a new year, I want to talk about choices.

The depth and breadth of our choices how to spend money are mind-numbing, even if we know what we’re shopping for. A shirt. A computer. A CD. Even a cup of coffee.

We have a similar plethora of choices just about anywhere we turn. Movies, books, online videos, news sources, restaurants, places to walk, cable channels, radio stations, satellite radio channels, internet radio channels, and so on.

With so many choices, it’s easy to get neurotic and begin worrying that we’re missing something important. And while we’re worrying about that, we forget to enjoy what is right in front of us.

This is what is compelling about the San Francisco group. Their decision to not pursue new stuff forces them to appreciate again and again what is in front of them, and maybe to savor life.

Life is, after all, about savoring, not accumulation.

Knowing Your Place

2007-12-24T00:52:00.000-08:00

Christmas is a time when many of us reflect on our aspirations and remember that we aren't permanently assigned a place in this life.

That's why I've never it liked the expression "know your place." When someone says something about the need to “know one’s place,” he is saying that there is some kind of absolute hierarchy, and that it is the highest priority that each of us know our place in it.

This is like dogs at the local dog park. When a new dog arrives, all the dogs are nervous until it is clear exactly where this dog fits in the hierarchy. Sometimes dogs get so nervous with the uncertainty that they growl, bark or even fight.

We seem to both crave openness and honesty and loathe it, even at the top of the hierarchy. We want people to “be themselves”, but then they do something we don’t like and we wish they were someone else.

The question I’m dying to ask is: “If I can’t be myself, who can I be?”

From this comes the conundrum of our lives: It takes much courage to be ourselves, yet we have no choice about it. If we want to live the life we were born into.

Tannenbaum

2007-12-17T12:22:00.000-08:00

We brought our Christmas tree home last Thursday. It's gloriously unadorned in our living room. We are wondering if adding decorations will improve anything.

It leans a little. It's drinking water, dropping needles and smelling good.

My wife and I are very sympatico when we choose a tree. It takes about 45 seconds. We look at one tree and the trees on either side of it and say "we'll take that one."

We both have more or less accepted the absolute truth that no tree will look the same at home as it does on the lot. And we know that the trees are alike in that they all have idiosyncracies--holes, dead places, crooked branches. They're all like that. Sometimes the "defects" don't show, but they're there.

Some folks seek the perfect Christmas tree just as they seek the perfect “Christmas experience”--happy, well-adjusted family; warm feelings over eggnog around the fire; the joyful anticipation and fulfilled promise they may have known on previous Christmases.

As much as we hunt for the “perfect” tree or dream of the "perfect" Christmas, things will likely not work out as we want. This is tough for us.

We may come to accept that trees are not perfect, but it's much harder to accept that life doesn't look the way we want, at Christmas as much as any other time. Things are not as easy for us as we’d like. Our kids make bad decisions. Someone has an accident. Someone gets very sick. Someone lets us down or betrays us.

What is wonderful, though, is that Christmas holds such potential for surprise. We may just find ourselves experiencing something in a new way, or being moved unexpectedly. If we let down our guard a bit, and haul that defective tree into the house, even though it’s already shedding needles everywhere.

70 degrees at Christmas

2007-12-10T23:45:00.000-08:00

I don’t think I’ll ever adjust to Southern California weather in December. Even though I've lived here for 29 years.

Every year I remember the crisp coldness and sometimes snow that Christmas brought to Maryland when I was growing up. Notice I said “remembering.” This is different from “longing for.”

Remembering is an important part of the season. More interesting than this, though, is that most of the world (including the Middle East) does not associate snow or cold weather with this time of year. This reminds us that our Christmas traditions originate in Europe and northeastern America.

It’s like our favorite carols. Almost all of them originate in the nineteenth century (and in Europe or America). People celebrated Christmas for 1800 years before any of them were written.

Yet the carols we hear over and over seem to be a fixed tradition. Notice that new carols (and there are many, many excellent ones) are never permanently added to our celebration. New popular music for Christmas may be with us for a few years, but our core favorites never change.

I think the specific traditions we associate with Christmas are more important to us culturally than spiritually.

The Expected Holiday Hassle?

2007-12-03T17:29:00.000-08:00

Last year we did Christmas a bit differently. We skipped most of “pre-Christmas.”

We deliberately did no decorating, bought no presents, put up no tree, and sent no cards for most of December. Instead, we spent three weeks at a slow pace: reading, walking, talking and watching the ocean. We did no preparation, and we didn’t seem to have any anxiety about it.

At the end of those three weeks, just before Christmas, we went out, bought a tree and a few presents and came home to enjoy a few hours decorating and watching the cats climb the tree. We had a nice meal and opened presents on Christmas Day and sent out New Years greetings to our friends and family a couple days later.

This can be a meaningful time of year to visit with friends and family, and enjoy some good food and time off from work. But often our expectations get in the way.

We wind up expecting so much--from ourselves, mostly--that the season is defined by stress grinding us for weeks. Why do we do this to ourselves?

Advent: Waiting for Light

2007-11-26T11:20:00.000-08:00

The Christmas season has been underway for a while. I’ve heard “Let It Snow” at least four times, and it’s not December yet. The decorations were out at our local Wal-Mart eight weeks ago.

This week the liturgical season of Advent begins. Advent is commonly seen as the “getting-ready-for-Christmas” season, but the reality is much more significant.

Advent is a good and appropriate and soul-nurturing season, because its focus is on quiet waiting. In the midst of ever-louder, ever-more-expensive, ever-more-hectic secular Christmas preparations, some intentional quiet and reflection can be mightily refreshing.

I hope some quiet can find all of us in this season.

Attachment to Accumulation

2007-11-19T00:52:00.000-08:00

When I see the all the items in the weekly ad for an electronics store here, one word comes to mind: “landfill.”

Most of the items in the ad will wind up there in three or four years. Or, worse, they will wind up in the back of a closet not to be seen again.

My favorite of all the makeover shows of the last few years is "Clean Sweep," now sometimes seen in reruns on TLC. The premise of the show is incredibly simple--move everything from two rooms of someone’s home onto their front lawn and then sell or throw away half of it. Then move what’s left back into newly organized and decorated rooms.

The show is often a disturbingly vivid revelation of people’s emotional attachment to things--usually things at the bottom of boxes in the back of closets that haven’t been seen in years.

The show’s organizational expert was always very clear in acknowledging that all of us get attached to certain things, and that can be fun and life-enhancing. He would say that if a certain picture or gift is truly meaningful to us, we should recognize and honor it.

On the other hand, he would say that if something is important to us, it shouldn’t be buried in a closet--effectively lost. If something is buried in a closet, it is likely because it is not important to us. We just haven’t thought about it.

We all have lots of things in our lives that we don’t want, but we think are too good to throw away or give away, so we put them away. Often it’s stuff we have inherited or been given, and we think that we can’t get rid of it without offending the person who gave it to us--even if the person is dead.

Guilt is a powerful motivator for doing nothing.

The Season of Gratitude

2007-11-12T23:14:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving is the day many (most?) of us will reflect on what we are grateful for. Often people have told me that this is their favorite holiday of the year, because it is simple. We just gather for a meal, and give thanks.

Because most every other day of the year is focused on what we want that we don't have, it is a blessed relief to have one official day focused on the abundance and goodness in our lives. Even if some of us live very modestly in America, we are very, very wealthy by the standards of the world.

I’m not sure one day of gratitude is enough. In the last church I served, I took liberty with the liturgical calendar and declared the month of November the Season of Gratitude. We have plenty to be thankful for. Don’t get me started.

The Christian theologian Karl Barth called gratitude the best expression of God’s grace on earth. Whether you believe in God or not, this is a wonderful statement, because grace means that your life has meaning whether or not you think it does. And that itself is something to be grateful for.

As a logical concept, grace is very hard to pin down, and so is gratitude. Both of them are really about the great gifts we have been given, which are way beyond any “deserving,” and therefore also beyond any understanding. Thus gratitude is the best reaction to grace, and its best expression.

Reconsidering the Seven Deadly Sins?

2007-11-07T17:42:00.000-08:00

Please — let's replace Pride 
with Modesty, especially when it's false.  

And thank goodness for Lust, without it
I wouldn't be here. Would you?

Envy, Greed — why not? If they lead us
to better ourselves, to Ambition.  

And Gluttony, like a healthy belch,
is a guest's best response to being served a good meal.

I'll take Sloth over those busybodies
who can't sit still, watch a sunset
without yammering, or snapping a picture.
Now that makes me Wrathful.

--Peter Pereira from “What's Written on the Body.” © Copper Canyon Press, 2007. Reprinted with permission.  

The Good Guys and the Bad Guys

2007-11-05T23:20:00.000-08:00

Quote of the day: 
“Cogito ergo sum.” (“I think, therefore I am.”) 
--Rene Descartes  

Untrue truism of the day: 
“East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.”
 --Rudyard Kipling

We often set up part of our lives as war. We identify an enemy and proceed to do battle.

Our main combat strategy is based on separation. We identify, categorize and separate ourselves from anything foreign--within or outside of ourselves.  

Separation can take many forms. One of the easiest is to identify the foreign characteristic in another individual or institution and then either do battle with them or wall ourselves off from them.  

We are constantly separating, as in:
the good guys from the bad guys, 
stainless-steel appliances from white appliances,
time alone from time with people,
darkness from light, 
BMW drivers from Ford pickup drivers, 
evil from good, 
work from fun,  
religion from science,  
sound from silence,  
heart from mind, 
thought from feeling, 
men from women, 
serious from funny, 
Americans from terrorists, 
rich from poor, 
gay from straight, 
cool from uncool, 
the country from the city,
the good old days from today. 

We separate, categorize, and do battle. Are our thoughts distinct from our being, as most Descartes interpretations would conclude? Are there really two separate “beings” in each of us? Are they at war? Should they be?

This is very hard to talk about because conflict is around us everywhere. Sometimes it’s obvious, other times it’s not. Consider the kinds of battles we hear about in the news each day. Honest hard-working citizen versus indifferent big government. America versus terrorists. Gang versus gang. Celebrity husband versus celebrity wife.

Conflict is central to most great literature and art. And it’s what makes news interesting. Often the conflict is very simply drawn, as in the good guys versus the bad guys. Think 95% of classic western movies. Think Star Wars.

We seem to prefer hats to be clearly black or white. Yet our experience tells us that life is not a black-and-white enterprise. It happens in shades of living color.

Can we handle that, or do we have to continue separating, categorizing, and battling? Is it helpful to wall ourselves off from parts of ourselves? Is it helpful to see less-than-perfect parts of ourselves in others and fight with them?

Is America a Christian Nation?

2007-10-29T22:21:00.000-07:00

“One of the most startling developments in the culture war is the apparent takeover of the Republican Party by conservative evangelicals who claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation, uniquely called and blessed by God.

“The 2004 Texas GOP platform affirmed ‘that the United States of America is a Christian nation,’ founded ‘on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible.’ Texas Republicans...declared the doctrine of separation of church and state to be a ‘myth’ that must be rejected in order to restore the founders’ original intent.

“One of the architects of that platform was David Barton, vice chair of the Texas Republican Party and one of the chief advocates for a Christian America. Barton’s view of American history has energized millions of voters and forced lawmakers to take conservative Christian causes seriously.

“Barton is clearly more interested in current cultural squabbles than he is in history. Put simply, Barton is a bad historian--his B.A., from Oral Roberts University, is in math education. He retrieves only those aspects of history that, often taken out of context, match his emphasis on America’s Christian identity.

“The founders were, on the whole, less religiously orthodox than the average American. They pushed the new nation toward tolerance and less reliance upon historic Christianity.”
--Kurt Peterson, who teaches history at North Park University in Chicago. He was writing in the October 31, 2006 "Christian Century."

Getting Real About Moral and Ethical Issues

2007-10-22T17:54:00.000-07:00

Halloween is a very important holiday. Not because of anything specific that it celebrates. But it serves as a pressure-relief valve from the work grind that many of us have been caught up in since just after Labor Day. It’s a chance to dress up in costume, dress your kids up in costume, decorate your home or your office, have a party, and just have fun. Enjoy it!

“Living History” quote of the day:
“In the early sixties we suddenly cheered up when some historian noticed that the late, Massachusetts-born, white-mustachioed Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who had served on the bench into the nineteen-thirties, had in his long lifetime shaken hands with both John Quincy Adams and John F. Kennedy.”
--Roger Angell, in "The New Yorker," September 11, 2006

Quote of the day no. 2:
“Experts decry our moral slippage, and recommend more technology, laws and prisons. Or they condemn parents while calling for a revival of traditional religious values. Fine. But, as far as can be told, such talk hasn’t produced much except political polarization.”
--Richard Louv, in the "San Diego Union-Tribune"

Louv’s piece suggests we need to find a way to address ethical and moral issues that goes beyond simply passing increasingly restrictive laws and mandating increasingly harsh prison sentences. The reason: these strategies are not working.

Where do we begin? We usually begin by blaming someone--parents, media, big business or the justice system. While this helps us feel righteous and avoid personal responsibility, it accomplishes exactly zero.

Where do we begin? With leadership. Louv quotes Daniel Yankelovich, who recommends that business take the lead with a “stewardship ethic”: “If we rely primarily on regulatory and legal mechanisms to repair the damage, we will not get very far. We will force the gamesters of the system to be more ingenious and more careful. But we will not transform the ethical climate.”

Where do we begin? I have a simple suggestion. It is that each of us stop being a “gamester.” This means we'd stop making any decisions based on “can I get away with this?” or “will I get caught?” We'd just stop that.

Is it possible?

The Greatest News Story of 2006

2007-10-15T18:15:00.000-07:00

Quote of the day:
“In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better.”
--Ellen DeGeneres

Thought for the day:
“We live in a talking culture, not a thinking culture or a feeling culture. Maybe if we make noise we don’t have to think or feel.”
--Dr. Duh

News Item from October 2006:
“Dozens of Amish neighbors came out yesterday to mourn the quiet milkman who killed five of their young girls and wounded five more in a brief, unfathomable rampage.”
--Mark Scolforo of the AP

That was the most amazing news story of 2006. It brings to mind the poem by William Wordsworth:

“Thanks to the human heart by which we live,/
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,/  
To me the meanest flower that blows can give/  
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.”

The Irrationality and Impossibility of Forgiveness

2007-10-08T16:51:00.000-07:00

Quote of the day:
“I hope they stay around here, and they’ll have a lot of friends and a lot of support.”
--Daniel Esh, an Amish artist, woodworker and great-uncle to three of the children in the Pennsylvania school when Charles Roberts attacked. Esh was speaking of Roberts’ family.

This past week was the first anniversary of the shooting at the Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania.

We read about the forgiveness being extended to a Pennsylvania murderer and his family from the Old-Order Amish community, and we have a variety of responses. When we examine these responses, we likely wind up at one of two places.

Either we say “the Old-Order Amish people are quaint,” which means we can’t relate to their behavior, or we say “these people are deluded,” which means they are not part of the “real” world.

We may also assume that, for them, forgiveness is easier than it would be for any “normal person” (like us). That is not true.

Forgiveness is always extremely difficult. The Old-Order Amish families and community have to deal with exactly the same extraordinary pain and anger that any other families or communities would deal with facing this horrible crime.

But the Old-Order Amish have a way to deal with these powerful emotions. That is what we see in their response.

Great Awakening of What?

2007-10-01T10:14:00.000-07:00

Quote of the day:
“How the world dearly loves a cage.”
--Collin Higgins, from the script of "Harold and Maude"

Noting an increasing number of people publicly calling attention to their religious faith, President Bush said a few months ago that we might be in the midst of what he called a third Great Awakening. I was thinking about that comment when I read this, referring to a similar cultural shift some 350 years ago:

“What grew more and more evident as time went on was that motion is everywhere and rest is the unusual state. The upshot was that in place of the age-old static world the new was what is called dynamic. Needless to say, the source of truth likewise shifted, from settled revelation to restless experiment; truth itself was no longer static. Science took pride in having the courage to discard its own views....

“At this point comes the paradox: the age of the new method and the new revelations (in the plural and without capital letter) saw a resurgence of superstition, most violently expressed in the persecution of witches. Yet it should be no surprise that when novel ideas set minds wondering and tongues wagging, strong minds with well thought out convictions should resist and defend the status quo.

“Not everybody has the mental elasticity to be a fideist, believe in Genesis and Galileo at the same time. There is always a conservative party, and by a kind of Newtonian law of the mind, action is matched by an equal reaction; one branch of the conservative party turns reactionary and clings more intensely to the old convictions.”

This is from Jacques Barzun’s 2000 book “From Dawn to Decadence.” As you may know from previous posts, I have been savoring this book for a while--and I will continue to.

If we are going to consider whether we are living amid a new “Great Awakening,” it behooves us to be very clear to what extent it is a reversion to superstition and an attempt to turn back the clock on scientific research.

Certainty and Comfort

2007-09-24T23:38:00.000-07:00

A while back I read a column by Robert Weston who said that that a fully-equipped Apple Mac Pro computer is selling for $850 less than the comparable Windows-compatible machine from Dell.

But wait. Aren’t Macs more expensive than Windows-compatible computers?

This is a small example of the sort of “sacred” truth we have come to accept in our daily lives. And people will continue to believe it for a long time, no matter how much evidence presents itself to the contrary. (For example, the evidence that now Macs ARE Windows-compatible computers.)

How a sacred truth develops is a fascinating process. When a statement is repeated often enough, we will begin to simply agree with it. When enough of us agree without questioning, the statement becomes a certainty that simply is believed. When the belief takes on a life of its own, the “truth” becomes sacred--it becomes a mantra. It becomes not just a certainty, but a comfortable certainty.

These days we are so often seeking both certainty and comfort, their synergistic combination is a potent mixture which begins to outweigh any connection with observable truth. This means that when facts begin to contradict a sacred truth, it will give way very, very slowly--if at all.

Other sacred truths under siege:
Real estate prices always go up.
SUVs are safer than ordinary cars.
Digital surround sound sounds better than monaural television.
Pluto is the ninth planet from the sun.
No cool person reads the newspaper any more.
The religious right is taking over America.

Being Stereotyped

2007-09-17T23:15:00.000-07:00

One Sunday last year I went to a church I had never been to. While waiting for the service to start, a friendly man came over to say hello and introduce himself. We exchanged small talk. I said I was an ordained United Methodist minister and was visiting. A strange look crossed his face and he asked me if I was able to not be judgmental.

The question surprised me, and I said, “well, I try to not be judgmental but I’m not sure I succeed very well.” It wasn’t until a moment later that I fully realized the direct connection between his question and my saying I was a minister. When I realized that he didn’t seem to be interested in my answer to his question, I found myself getting a little angry at being categorized and dismissed in such a way. I felt judged.

I understand that he likely has had a very judgmental minister in his past. But isn’t this just like racism or any other prejudice, in which automatic, knee-jerk assumptions are made about someone without any knowledge of the person?

Does his experience with a bad minister justify his attitude toward me?

Grace Happens

2007-09-10T17:42:00.000-07:00

“Grace strikes us when our disgust for our own being, our indifference, our weakness, our hostility and our lack of direction and composure have become intolerable to us. Grace strikes us when, year after year, the longed-for perfection of life does not appear, when the old compulsions reign within us as they have for decades, when despair destroys all joy and courage.”
--Paul Tillich, theologian

The great contemporary cliche that applies here is “Life is what happens when you’re making other plans.”

We may daily work toward perfection--clean house (or perfectly unclean house, demonstrating the perfection of our lack of concern for such ordinariness), career advancement, kitchen remodel, blissful love life, perfect fame, perfect fortune or perfect family.

Our efforts may give us satisfaction. When we realize finally the satisfaction doesn’t last, and we drift into distraction, indifference, weakness and hostility, grace happens.