Religion

 Dr. Peck in his well-known book, The Road Less Traveled, has this to say about religion:

 

There is clearly a lot of dirty bath water surrounding the reality of God.  Holy wars.  Inquisitions.  Animal sacrifice.  Human sacrifice.  Superstition.  Stultification.  Dogmatism.  Ignorance.  Hypocrisy.  Self-righteousness.  Rigidity.  Cruelty.  Book-burning.  Witch-burning. Inhibition.  Fear.  Conformity.  Morbid guilt.  Insanity.  The list is almost endless.  But is all this what God has done to humans or what humans have done to God?  It is abundantly evident that belief in God is often destructively dogmatic.  Is the problem, then, that humans tend to believe in God, or is the problem that humans tend to be dogmatic?  Anyone who has known a died-in-the-wool atheist will know that such an individual can be as dogmatic about unbelief as any believer can be about belief.  Is it belief in God we need to get rid of, or is it dogmatism? (M. Scott. Peck, The Road Less Traveled, my emphasis)

I couldn't agree more. 

Wounded Healer (update)

I've been thinking about what I wrote previously and it bothers me for several reasons: I don't like people who write that way, it is very generic sounding and impractical, and it is very intellectual and "high-minded" which I feel is very arrogant. So I want to make a couple of observations on the Nouwen paragraphs that I hope will be more reflective of me.

I liked what Nouwen said because so often I feel like the approach a Christian gives to those outside the church can be very impractical and mystical. We say that "Christ has the power to change you" and that you can "do everything through Him" and yet I wonder just how well something like that speaks to someone who is unchurched. When we speak about our faith to others, sometimes we make assumptions of mutual understanding that very well may not be there. As one who works in computers, I may speak of such things as tags and markup in describing web pages to someone who has barely used a computer as a word processor, much less surf the internet, and therefore my words have no meaning to this person because he or she can't relate to what I am saying.

This is why I love what Nouwen says. It is critical for us to present the Christian message in a way that is practical and relevant to people in their every-day lives. And for this to be true, I think it has to be practical and relevant to our own lives. Only when we've gone through the discipline of working through Christ's message and applied it to our lives, in our current culture and present context, are we then in a better position to share that same message to others.

Wounded Healer

Why should a man marry and have children, study and build a career; why should he invent new techniques, build new institutions, and develop new ideas--when he doubts if there will be a tomorrow which can guarantee the value of human effort?

Only when man feels himself responsible for the future can he have hope or despair, but when he thinks of himself as a passive victim of an extremely complex technological bureaucracy, his motivation falters and he starts drifting from one moment to the next, making life a long row of randomly chained incidents and accidents.

When we wonder why the language of traditional Christianity has lost its liberating power for nuclear man, we have to realize that most Christian preaching is still based on the presupposition that man sees himself as meaningfully integrated with a history in which God came to us... But when man's historical consciousness is broken, the whole Christian message seems like a lecture about the great pioneers to a boy on an acid trip.

Christianity is not just challenged to adapt itself to a modern age, but is also challenged to ask itself whether its unarticulated suppositions can still form the basis for its redemptive pretensions. (Nouwen in Wounded Healer)

This is a profound set of observations. In an era of post-modernism, meaning has been removed and one is left with nothing. It is difficult to present hope to one who feels as if nothing matters. The last sentence above is one of the best, in my opinion. We cannot simply present the gospel without being aware of our underlying assumptions and beliefs that others do not share and thus changing the way we approach the presentation of the hope of Christ. Our message is meaningless to those who do not share, in Nouwen's words above, a view of ourselves as "meaningfully integrated" in history.

Do you understand your assumptions, your presuppositions, the foundation of your beliefs? How do these differ to what the post-modern man thinks? In reflecting on the differences, what might change in your approach to speaking about your beliefs in a way that might be relevant to the post-modern man?

NOT Evangelism

On Monday, my coworker told me about a conversation he had with a man at a flea market over the weekend. The man put a tract in his hand, asked him if he had ever disagreed with his parents, and told him he was going to hell because he had violated one of the commandments. My coworker is Muslim and politely told the guy that he did not agree and after a few more minutes of conversation, left. I have shortened the story intentionally, because I don't want to focus on the story, but on the method.

I don't even know where to begin with this. This "evangelist", for lack of a better term, makes me sick. How can one even think that approaching someone and telling them they are going to hell will change a lifetime of beliefs? If one's beliefs are swayed so easily, I might question the certainty of one's belief. I'd like to go over the absurdity of this approach.

Being in violation of God's law, in the example of disagreeing with parents, means that you are going to hell and therefore in need of Christ.

1. Who said I believe in God?
2. Who said disagreeing with parents was wrong?
3. Why should I accept the Bible as an authoritative source of truth for me?
4. On what basis do you state that hell exists? See question 3 when you respond.
5. If I did believe hell exists, why is Christ the only way?
6. You are stating things that you believe to be true--and I disagree with your beliefs--why do you think you are right and I am wrong?
7. I believe in X (for a Muslim it would be Allah, who is believed to be the same God as the Jewish and Christian God); why am I wrong?
8. Who is to say that what you claim is God's law is actually God's law? My religious books say otherwise.

Frankly, I am embarrassed by this guy's approach to sharing the gospel. It makes me think of the times when I so firmly believe something and passionately try to tell others, only to find them not as receptive to what I firmly believe is true. Perhaps telling people what we believe isn't a very effective way of communicating our beliefs, especially in the context of not knowing the person. I am finding that the older I get, the less I really ought to talk and the more I really ought to listen. And I am really bad about both.

Heaven

I've been reading a book by Dallas Willard called The Divine Conspiracy and in a section where he discusses going to heaven, I found this particularly convicting:

I am thoroughly convinced that God will let everyone into heaven who, in his considered opinion, can stand it. But "standing it" may prove to be a more difficult matter than those who take their view of heaven from popular movies or popular preaching may think. The fires of heaven may be hotter than those in the other place... There is a widespread notion that just passing through death transforms human character. Discipleship is not needed. Just believe enough to "make it." But I have never been able to find any basis in scriptural tradition or psychological reality to think this might be so. What if death only forever fixes us as the kind of person we are at death? What would one do in heaven with a debauched character or a hate-filled heart? (p. 302)

Willard goes on to suggest that unless our belief results in life transformation, we really haven't believed. My actions will follow my belief and if my actions aren't consistent with what I say I believe in, then what I say I believe in isn't what I really believe in.

I find this convicting because in the last several months, almost a year now, I have slowly allowed things in my life to "slide", excusing myself from following through in areas I am pretty sure a whole-hearted belief in Christ would not be excused. In areas I find myself to act selfishly, rather than ruthlessly going after the selfishness and crucifying the flesh, I tell myself that it doesn't matter anyway--I am single so I can be selfish. In other areas of self-improvement, I have grown lazy and thus have regressed to locations below rock walls that I had once scaled.

Why do my actions not match my beliefs? I have no excuse--"[I]n the final analysis we fail to be disciples only because we do not decide to be. We do not intend to be disciples. (Willard)"

Heaven

I've been reading a book by Dallas Willard called The Divine Conspiracy and in a section where he discusses going to heaven, I found this particularly convicting:

I am thoroughly convinced that God will let everyone into heaven who, in his considered opinion, can stand it. But "standing it" may prove to be a more difficult matter than those who take their view of heaven from popular movies or popular preaching may think. The fires of heaven may be hotter than those in the other place... There is a widespread notion that just passing through death transforms human character. Discipleship is not needed. Just believe enough to "make it." But I have never been able to find any basis in scriptural tradition or psychological reality to think this might be so. What if death only forever fixes us as the kind of person we are at death? What would one do in heaven with a debauched character or a hate-filled heart? (p. 302)

Willard goes on to suggest that unless our belief results in life transformation, we really haven't believed. My actions will follow my belief and if my actions aren't consistent with what I say I believe in, then what I say I believe in isn't what I really believe in.

I find this convicting because in the last several months, almost a year now, I have slowly allowed things in my life to "slide", excusing myself from following through in areas I am pretty sure a whole-hearted belief in Christ would not be excused. In areas I find myself to act selfishly, rather than ruthlessly going after the selfishness and crucifying the flesh, I tell myself that it doesn't matter anyway--I am single so I can be selfish. In other areas of self-improvement, I have grown lazy and thus have regressed to locations below rock walls that I had once scaled.

Why do my actions not match my beliefs? I have no excuse--"[I]n the final analysis we fail to be disciples only because we do not decide to be. We do not intend to be disciples. (Willard)"