The Burden of Church

This comes from the heart. I have recently left the church I had been attending for twelve years. I am
frustrated, hurt, lonely, and yes, angry. Big surprise, right. I think it rather queer that as Christians we expect other Christians to feel this way when it comes to "church departures". I mean, are we so two dimensional and limited in our own spirituality that we cannot possibly conceive that decisions like these are rather a combination or varying and complex webs of emotion, desire, and expectation.

Sure, I am angry, but I am also hopeful. I am disappointed, but I am also sympathetic. I am hurt, but I am also encouraged. Do I have to be one or the other? Can't I be both/and? I am a human. I can have two contrary feelings at once, and not have any clue what any of it means. Is this not a more accurate description of the human experience? So while it may be easier for you to characterize or pigeon-hole me try to first understand. I wish to be transparent and open. I wish to be an active participant in my own demise. If I am to fall flat on my face it will certainly be by my own doing. So here I stand. Take your best shot...

I wish I could simply come here to you today and say that I have all these intellectual and rational arguments as to why it was best for me to leave the church. I wish it could exist all in my head, but alas, as a humble philosopher I cannot simply "think" away my life without at first trying out my beliefs and principles in the real world. That said, I have felt for a long time that I did not quite fit in at my church.

I love books. I love to read. I love to read every perspective on an issue. I love to question my own position on issues, and I love to gain new insight that I had not considered before. I love to learn, and I love to teach. I love to simply argue, debate, and dialogue over an issue to force, in a certain way, a truth which perhaps all parties had not considered. I love to stand strong and articulate an idea, a belief, or a principle in such a way that others can understand it, and agree to it, or reject it, and if they reject it that they reject the true "it". This is a raw passion for truth.

This is the core of the falling out I had with the church. My previous church grounded itself on the "mission" to "create relational environments for discipleship"... Sounds good right? I thought so. But as I peeled away the layers of this central tenet over the years banging my head against constant barriers and opposition, I began to see something horrid and deplorable. Something I almost cannot bear to write about, and something I feel needs to be addressed to the utmost seriousness of any church attender.

The wall is anti-intellectualism. Now, I think I can say in full confidence that this is the reason my twelve years of faithful service met in such failure. It's not that I am "too" smart for the church. The church simply does not want to learn. It does not want the truth. It pains me to say it this way, but I have good grounds to conclude this.

I was told by more then one member of staff that this church was not a "teaching" church. I was told that staff was selected for their merits to be "relational" and were not considered for any educational merit. I was told that "intellect" or the engaging there-of was not a relational environment. I was told that it mattered not whether or not a person engaged their mental faculties to understand their faith as long as they stayed married to their wives and remained "good boys and girls", of sorts.

Now you can imagine that this list of charges was not simply stated to me in such a blameworthy manner, but I do feel that this is a fair and true accounting of what I have recently experienced. Here is the reality. I went to a very large church that has recently seen decline in attendance. Younger people are leaving and the older people are becoming more dominant and identical with one another, and wouldn't you know it that for the most part this means being and acting like the head pastor.

So what I pose is the rather honest question... if "relationship" without regard to "intellect" is the best way to discipleship then WHY (for God's sake!) is the church mimicking and parroting what they see and hear rather then acting on their own behalf? When the product is a church that looks identical to each other and also looks like the head pastor then should we not question our approach to relationship? Can we not at least entertain the idea that such an approach to relationship is simply a manipulation and a coercion against the masses designed not to inspire them to discipleship, but rather to subject them to it. If the consequences of such a church resembles this pattern then does it not warrant such a consideration.

Now, I am not a man who lives with his head in the clouds. I get it. I get that you simply cannot argue a person to live a righteous life. But WHY is this the ultimate and final objection to considering another alternative to church????!!!!!! Can I not at this point claim that you cannot mind-control a person to live a righteous life? Both arguments seem valid, but also completely miss the point.

We live in a dangerous new world. And danger is not intrinsically bad. In the right light, this danger can be an adventure, and the church is left in the wading pool. If it is to be respected in the modern world it has to be willing to engage in the intellect of man, and it has to be willing to accept that relational environments does not mean some mushy-gooshy couch crying session where we admit to masturbating or having lustful thoughts. A relational environment can be simply a group of people who know nothing about each other personally but debate and argue with one another with the utmost respect and honor. It can be led by a person who is not "doctrinally" in line with the most enhanced Evangelical confession, as long as such a person is honest, humble, and open to correction. If the church wants to commit itself to discipleship in the modern world it has to be willing to let go of the reigns of power in "relational environments" it has to be willing to let there be a dynamic instead of a program, an energy instead of a structure, and a trust instead of control.

Now I am not saying that it is a either/or. I get the need for relational discipleship. I do, but can we make room for the intellect to be a relational environment, too, and if we do what does that look like? Are we willing to let go of the forces that are clearly manipulating and distorting our vision? Because I ask you, who is truly to blame for what a ministry produces? If you truly want disciples, do you think you can gain them through "relationships"? Or is it a bit more complicated then that? I think it is. And I worries me to my core that this insidious claim might be a bit more pernicious then I think.

After all, I really do believe that everyone at my old church is an honest person, and genuinely believes that

they are honoring God, but what it they simply allow themselves the luxury of believing in this so that they do not have to look deeper to the potentially more malicious intentions? What if they enjoy manipulating and controlling people, so much, that they are willing to be blinded by their faith? The sad reality is that no effort is made on their part to distinguish themselves from this rather dark possibility. And this in my mind, calls forth the most basic and necessary condition for intellectual honesty to exist in a discipleship matrix. How else can you know that you are just not some master manipulator, unless you open your community to freely inquire and develop?

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist: Part IV: Hermeneutical Musings

The basic controversy between Higher Criticism and the Literal-Grammatical Method (fundamentalism) is how to approach the plain reading of the text and the cultural influences of the time. If we can consider these as two separate entities lets identify them as...

1. The plain rendering of the text

2. The cultural background.

Now both sides agree that these two entities exist, and both agree that an accurate interpretation of the Bible requires both these elements, but we disagree as to the order. Fundamentalists are willing and wanting to engage in studies which heighten their understanding of the cultural background, but such knowledge is never able to provide a breach upon the rendering of the plain and simple meaning. 

I believe this is because fundamentalists see the importance of a universally accessible Tome of sacred

writings, due in part to their belief that unbelievers must suffer an eternity in hell. Every unbeliever is informed of his fate in the Bible and those who still choose to disbelieve must suffer the consequences. Thus, fundamentalism is in many ways a self-confirming spirituality that allows the devotee the luxury of knowing that he is right regardless. If a person were allowed to justify their unbelief in hell based on the cultural background of the Jewish people then the reality of spiritual devotion seems to be in jeopardy  So again we see fundamentalists responding to a threat.

In a rather ironic twist which borderlines on paradox the fundamentalist accepts a rather ubiquitous double standard when it comes to his Scriptures. The fundamentalist derides reductionism as a perversion of science and claims that true knowledge must be able to be influenced by sacred scripture, but what the fundamentalist utilizes in approaching scripture is a reductionistic method of interpretation. If a text can only mean what the plain reading renders then you are reducing that meaning and limiting it regardless of the cultural depth we see in the past.

The reality is that fundamentalists only comfort themselves with superficial knowledge of the past only to appease themselves that they are interested in the "heritage" of the Bible. Such knowledge only accompanies what their preconceived interpretations are. They do not look to the past to be informed by it. They believe they are already informed by it. They look to the past to simply find confirming evidence of what they already know. This is understandable, but it is not justifiable. And it fits neatly into the model of fundamentalism that we are seeing. The fundamentalist fears that an honest look into the past will eradicate the Christian faith and because of this he creates a hedge around his beliefs which cannot be penetrated.

Fundamentalism arose during the Enlightenment by overemphasizing (1) the plain reading of the text, and I would say that it operated in tandem with Liberal Protestantism which also arose out of the Enlightenment by and overemphasis on (2) the cultural background. The Liberals were wrong. They wanted to remove the Bible almost entirely, because it was simply a myth, and they wanted to make a religion of rational morality. The fundamentalists were right to oppose them.

Neo-Orthodoxy does not fall into the trap of Liberal Protestantism. They do not remove (1) simply because it is a myth, and they do not focus on the moralizing qualities of (2). The cultural background does have a precedent when it comes to understand what the plain text means, and in this manner there is a priority to (2) over and above (1), but at the same time no text was ever written to simply convey its plain rendering. And Neo-Orthodoxy saves the plain reading of the text by provided a more amiable framework to accept it in. Liberal Protestantism derided the Bible because it was myth, but Neo-Orthodoxy embraces the use of myth in religion as a modicum of humans being able to express their experience of God. Many theologians along the tradition of Higher Criticism have found themes and models present in the Biblical narratives which arise as contrived insertions to make a theological and spiritual commentary upon the event itself.

For instance, Jesus' miracles are in many ways re-creations of Moses' or Elijah's miracles. The fundamentalist sees this as evidence that God miraculously engineered history so that Jesus would repeat the very same miracles Moses or Elijah performed, but the critic sees this as an insertion on the writers part to convey the message that the power or the God they saw in Jesus was the same God that empowered Moses and Elijah. The critic does not call the authors liars or deceivers  but he understands that cultural influences determine in many ways what a piece of work has to say. The message has to be received.

So the plain reading can guide the investigation into the cultural background, but the cultural background always sets the foundation for the plain reading. Neo-Orthodoxy is able to synthesize (1) and (2) together and though they work in a hierarchical structure they are united, unlike Liberal Protestantism and fundamentalism.

I propose that Higher Criticism through Neo-Orthodoxy can provide a more unifying experience of Scripture then Fundamentalism can do through the Literal-Grammatical Method. And I will do this in my next article.