Hypocrisy.
That has been the word that comes to mind lately when I think of the church as a whole.
I had a discussion with a friend a few days ago. She has a strong heart for social justice and equality; she describes herself as having "a fire inside." Shortly after coming to Baylor her freshman year, she struggled immensely with her faith. She knew what was right, but could not reconcile her beliefs with the words and actions of so many professed believers at Baylor. Hypocrites. That's the word she used to describe the people around her. Now, she still adheres to the Christian faith and lives out her convictions, but no longer attends church. She is too dissatisfied with the institution.
My boyfriend has had a similar experience. He grew up in church, but after a while, grew to resent the people who so openly condemned others while they themselves were so flawed. He too described them as hypocrites. He comes to church with me occasionally on Sundays, but tells me that the worship is the only thing that keeps him coming. Music is his passion and his connection to God and one of the few things he sees church good for providing.
I too see the hypocrites around me, but I can't abandon the church. I know too little on my own and cannot be my own support. I need the church, even if it has gone astray in many ways. The hypocrites bother me to no end, but I cannot abandon them either. What has happened in their hearts to make them so blind? Is it the same thing that happens in my heart when I am blinded? If I turn my back on the church while it is struggling, it is just as bad the church turning its back on me while I am struggling. I am a hypocrite too, so the church and I must support each other. If I call out the church without holding myself accountable as well, I am not better than the thing I am condemning.
Weber comes to mind and his theories on bureaucracy. The church has inevitably become bureaucratized and according to Weber, this was inevitable. Unfortunately, bureaucracies are difficult to change once they are set and easily corrupted by a single leader. In a social world paper, I argued that reaffirmed individual convictions are the only ways to change a corrupt bureaucracy. That's why I have to stay a part of the thing that causes so many problems. I stay because I love it and it has loved me. I see its history and its potential. It needs the help of those who see its cracks and flaws because those who are blind to them cannot see to patch them up. If the only ones with sight abandon a crumbling building, then eventually it will just fall and crush all of those who were left behind. Individuals must help the church. Role reversal.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
law of the land
Hays, Paul, Jesus, Matthew, Mark, and those other distinguished gentlemen all have me thinking...
I'm getting a little ahead, so I am currently working on the reading for Thursday and I happen to find the passages that Hays highlights fascinating. Mark 10:2-12 tells the story of the Pharisees asking Jesus about divorce and trying to trap him by getting him to oppose the Law of Moses. All too often I feel as though I am living in a culture of the Pharisees. In our technology based world, nothing exists if it cannot be proven, if there are not rules and proofs for its existence. If you don't know the rules of the techno-world, then you will never survive in it. The Pharisees knew all of the rules and were living by rules alone, much as I feel like we are living in a world of rules and facts. This concept applies to the modern Christianity as well. If, in a discussion with a secular member of society, a Christian cannot provide exact citations quoting exact laws proving an exact action wrong, then I feel as though the ideas and ideals of Christians are often discounted.
But more than that.
I feel like we are attacking one another within the church too.
Each side of any theological argument seems to cling to the verses that bolster their argument. Christians everywhere are relentless in proving which specific actions are and are not appropriate by searching for Biblical proof. Proof, facts, condemning verses - all are constantly quested for by Christians.
Or we reject that attitude and simply rely on principle.
Love you neighbor, don't judge, look the other way when someone does something wrong because hey, you've screwed up too.
We warp and twist and take the Bible out of context. We use it to shove our proof of others' wrongness down their throats and hurl our own interpretations of it at our fellow Christians.
This - all of this - strikes me as wrong. So very wrong.
There has to be a balance.
I wish that I knew what the balance was, but I know that we have not found it collectively.
I'm getting a little ahead, so I am currently working on the reading for Thursday and I happen to find the passages that Hays highlights fascinating. Mark 10:2-12 tells the story of the Pharisees asking Jesus about divorce and trying to trap him by getting him to oppose the Law of Moses. All too often I feel as though I am living in a culture of the Pharisees. In our technology based world, nothing exists if it cannot be proven, if there are not rules and proofs for its existence. If you don't know the rules of the techno-world, then you will never survive in it. The Pharisees knew all of the rules and were living by rules alone, much as I feel like we are living in a world of rules and facts. This concept applies to the modern Christianity as well. If, in a discussion with a secular member of society, a Christian cannot provide exact citations quoting exact laws proving an exact action wrong, then I feel as though the ideas and ideals of Christians are often discounted.
But more than that.
I feel like we are attacking one another within the church too.
Each side of any theological argument seems to cling to the verses that bolster their argument. Christians everywhere are relentless in proving which specific actions are and are not appropriate by searching for Biblical proof. Proof, facts, condemning verses - all are constantly quested for by Christians.
Or we reject that attitude and simply rely on principle.
Love you neighbor, don't judge, look the other way when someone does something wrong because hey, you've screwed up too.
We warp and twist and take the Bible out of context. We use it to shove our proof of others' wrongness down their throats and hurl our own interpretations of it at our fellow Christians.
This - all of this - strikes me as wrong. So very wrong.
There has to be a balance.
I wish that I knew what the balance was, but I know that we have not found it collectively.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Functionally godless.
Work with me as I tease through my thoughts.
I just finished reading a chapter out of Richarld L. Rubenstein's "The Cunning of History: The Holocaust and the American Future." While there are about a million things in that book that I could talk about, a few pages out of his last chapter really caught my attention.
Prepare yourself for a long quote:
"When men and women reflect on the theological significance of Auschwitz, they tend to reduce the issue to the problem of theodicy. How, they ask, could the all-wise, all-powerful Lord of History have permitted so great an evil? Undoubtedly, the question of God and human evil is one of the most serious problems arising out of the Holocaust. However, there are other issues of more immediate consequence. To the best of my knowledge, no theologian has attempted to deal with the problems implicit in the fact that the Nazis probably committed no crime at Auschwitz. The natural temptation of theologians would be to assert the existence of either a natural or a God-ordained law binding upon all men and nations in terms of which the Holocaust can be judged. Unfortunately, even if it were possible to prove that such a law exists, it is difficult to see what practical difference that would make in the arena of contemporary politics.
Let us assume that such a law exists and that leaders of the major religions could agree on its contents. What would the penalties for violating it and the means whereby it could be enforced? In an earlier age, men and women genuinely stood in awe of the punitive wrath of divinity, but is this any longer true? Does not the Holocaust demonstrate that there are absolutely no limits to the degradation and assault the managers and technicians of violence can inflict upon men and women who lack the power of effective resistance? If there is a law that is devoid of all penalty when violated, does it have any functional significance in terms of human behavior? Is not a law which carries no penalties functionally equivalent to no law at all? Even if it could be demonstrated that it exists, can if not be safely ignored? We are sadly forced to conclude that we live in a world that is functionally godless and that human rights and dignity depend upon that power of one's community to grant of withhold them from its members" (90-91).
The earlier age that Rubenstein mentions very much so describes the Biblical ages. If you did not live according to the will of God, if you did not follow his laws concerning human rights then you were in danger of being punished by a wrathful God. God gave his people those rules because he knew that they would follow them if they were truly engaged in a relationship with him and the people knew that there would be consequences if they did not obey. It can be concluded that if God created laws essentially protecting human rights that human rights were being violated. The socially strong had no incentive to respect the rights of others if they were able to gain some good from violating the rights unless the strong were followers of God. If the only incentive to respect others comes from a fear of God, then it makes sense for Rubenstein to conclude that we are living in a functionally godless world. Every violation against another man that occurs strengthens Rubenstien's statement.
So what kind of implications are there when a God-fearing people live a godless world? We see the implications in every instance of religious persecution. In our modern world, Christians and other religious people cannot escape the secular world and as long as we remain in the strong, morally barren secular world, Christians can be expected to be persecuted. And the more separated the church and state become, the more danger we are in of national persecution.
I just finished reading a chapter out of Richarld L. Rubenstein's "The Cunning of History: The Holocaust and the American Future." While there are about a million things in that book that I could talk about, a few pages out of his last chapter really caught my attention.
Prepare yourself for a long quote:
"When men and women reflect on the theological significance of Auschwitz, they tend to reduce the issue to the problem of theodicy. How, they ask, could the all-wise, all-powerful Lord of History have permitted so great an evil? Undoubtedly, the question of God and human evil is one of the most serious problems arising out of the Holocaust. However, there are other issues of more immediate consequence. To the best of my knowledge, no theologian has attempted to deal with the problems implicit in the fact that the Nazis probably committed no crime at Auschwitz. The natural temptation of theologians would be to assert the existence of either a natural or a God-ordained law binding upon all men and nations in terms of which the Holocaust can be judged. Unfortunately, even if it were possible to prove that such a law exists, it is difficult to see what practical difference that would make in the arena of contemporary politics.
Let us assume that such a law exists and that leaders of the major religions could agree on its contents. What would the penalties for violating it and the means whereby it could be enforced? In an earlier age, men and women genuinely stood in awe of the punitive wrath of divinity, but is this any longer true? Does not the Holocaust demonstrate that there are absolutely no limits to the degradation and assault the managers and technicians of violence can inflict upon men and women who lack the power of effective resistance? If there is a law that is devoid of all penalty when violated, does it have any functional significance in terms of human behavior? Is not a law which carries no penalties functionally equivalent to no law at all? Even if it could be demonstrated that it exists, can if not be safely ignored? We are sadly forced to conclude that we live in a world that is functionally godless and that human rights and dignity depend upon that power of one's community to grant of withhold them from its members" (90-91).
The earlier age that Rubenstein mentions very much so describes the Biblical ages. If you did not live according to the will of God, if you did not follow his laws concerning human rights then you were in danger of being punished by a wrathful God. God gave his people those rules because he knew that they would follow them if they were truly engaged in a relationship with him and the people knew that there would be consequences if they did not obey. It can be concluded that if God created laws essentially protecting human rights that human rights were being violated. The socially strong had no incentive to respect the rights of others if they were able to gain some good from violating the rights unless the strong were followers of God. If the only incentive to respect others comes from a fear of God, then it makes sense for Rubenstein to conclude that we are living in a functionally godless world. Every violation against another man that occurs strengthens Rubenstien's statement.
So what kind of implications are there when a God-fearing people live a godless world? We see the implications in every instance of religious persecution. In our modern world, Christians and other religious people cannot escape the secular world and as long as we remain in the strong, morally barren secular world, Christians can be expected to be persecuted. And the more separated the church and state become, the more danger we are in of national persecution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)