More on Religion: Miroslav Volf

On Sunday I heard a fascinating interview with Miroslav Volf on NPR's Speaking of Faith about the relationship between religion and violence. He articulated so clearly the difference between "thin" and "thick" religion: the religiosity that one can manipulate according to one's own desires is thin. Thick religiosity looks at the contexts: scriptural, historical, and tradition, that don't lend themselves easily to extremes in violent expression, cultural manipulation, or social programs. He argues that the problem with religious violence is a problem of "thin" religion, and he particularly looks at Christianity in the Croatian context, which only makes sense, as he is Croatian. It was refreshing to hear such an obviously intellectual man speak about something so delicate (and potentially inflammatory) with a balance of conviction, intelligence, and godliness. If you have a chance, listen to the interview!

He also questions Thomas Friedman's claim that the three monotheistic religions need to give up their claims to truth in order to get along. What these three religions need to do instead is engage in scriptural reasoning: read their own scriptures together and come to understand each other better (appreciate, challenge, etc.) It is an insult, he says, to say that you can't disagree with someone and still be nice to them! And I agree: obviously, we can't all be right. But it doesn't mean we can't be nice to each other. And if it's intolerant for a religious person to make a truth claim, isn't it equally intolerant to ask that person to give that claim up? In each case, someone is "forcing their morality" on someone else, and we have no clear standard by which to guage which "morality" should prevail: do we go with the popular vote? The one with the longest historical tradition? The person who has the most education? So it's a dead end and Volf's point stands: the way through it is to come to a point as an individual where you decide not to be threatened by other people, faiths, beliefs, and choose to pursue relationships and reason instead of sound byte philosophy.

Coffee?

Hi, my name is Lisa and I'll be your server today. Can I start you off with some coffee?

...Loay, I'm talking to you. (See Jan. 16 post.)

Poor Luther

The Internet Monk has delved into how evangelicalism is attempting to "throw Luther from the train." It got me thinking.

I grew up in a red-state evangelical environment and scarcely knew anything else until I boldly moved from the Evangelical mecca (how's that for a mixed metaphor?) that is Colorado Springs to a mecca of another sort, Los Angeles. This was a little scandalous, and I was warned about What Could Happen if I up and moved There... but I didn't become a heathen, or get mugged, or get plastic surgery or meet celebrities every day. But I did learn a lot about my faith and I met a lot of people who challenged it and I began thinking about how to apply head knowledge to the practical issues of my life. And since college, I have been questioning the actions of some of the more outspoken Evangelicals. More particularly, I have been questioning the "movement" itself: what people are doing in the name of evangelicalism, which has come to equate, for many people, Christians and non-Christians, "American Christianity."

First a note on the literal meaning: Dictionary.com (it's on the internet, it must be true!) defines evangelical as "1: relating to or being a Christian church believing in personal conversion and the inerrancy of the Bible especially the 4 Gospels; 2: of or pertaining to or in keeping with the Christian gospel especially as in the first 4 books of the New Testament 3: marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause." By this definition, I am an Evangelical Christian. But by the modern American connotation of the word, well, I'm not so sure, and I'm not sure the word "evangelical" (or any word) can even accurately sum up everything that a Christian is.

Because if you say "evangelical" to an average American, what reaction do you get? I usually get rolled eyes, or a suspicious stare, or raised eyebrows. I think they equate me with Jerry Falwell, who has somehow become the spokesman for evangelicalism through his poignant observations such as, "Theologically, any Christian has to support Israel…If we fail to protect Israel, we will cease to be important to God." (I just...just...yeah...it renders me speechless. There's enough in those last 14 words for many rants. Next post, maybe.) No matter who they equate evangelicalism with, it's not who I want to be equated with: Jesus. Why is that?

I can't answer that thoroughly, let alone on a blog post. But I think the iMonk is onto something when he lists the ways modern evangelicalism has strayed from Luther's Reformation. To name a few:
-The rejection of confessions, creeds or any meaningful statements of faith for churches or their members.
-The widespread abandonment of constitutional church government, and in many cases the modeling of the church after business models.
-Increasing opposition to accountability relationships and structures, whether through denominations or regional/local oversight.
-The distressing proliferation of the self-credentialed ministers claiming direct authority and communication from God ("anointing") and accountability to no one.
-The steady decline of the place and quality of preaching and the increasing place of entertainment in worship, especially through music, drama and technology driven visuals.
-The decline of the Bible in every aspect of worship and church life, and the increase in the place of secular worldviews or direct spiritual experiences as authoritative.
-The dividing of the congregation into segments based on demographics, "felt needs," and the resulting loss of congregational identity.

So my point is that when Christianity becomes more concerned with attracting new members to church, or making people feel good, or aligning themselves politically, instead of knowing and serving Jesus Christ and living by his Word, the result is those raised eyebrows and suspicious stares. Why should people listen to me talk about Jesus if they suspect that I'm doing it for a political motive? Or if they suspect that I'm not serious, it's just so much cotton candy that tastes nice and then disappears? Or if they think it's just a fad religion, a result of modern society and nothing else?

It is dangerous to forget our history: not only Jesus' teachings (which of course take precedence) but those who have reminded us, sometimes very harshly, of what is important in the faith: Calvin, Luther, Edwards...and all those others we don't really talk about so much. When we forget those, and we forget the Great Foundation Christianity has, we are so much more easily tempted to embrace a feel-good version of religion, one that satisfies our wants instead of teaching the Truth. And if people can't detect the Truth (Jesus) in our lives because it is covered with cotton candy, well, they *should* look at us suspiciously.

Dessert and Coffee

The Guest of Honor, Loay, who is about to leave us for the Egyptian Winter and whom we will all miss terribly.



Lisa in her elegant dress and Jed, who wears fedoras with aplomb.

The Keeper of The Matrix

My job varies from the very boring to very urgent (and urgent=exciting.) Some days I stare at the computer screen until the gray walls start to throb around me and I can taste the air getting stale. Some days I meet fascinating people and they say fascinating things and I leave feeling like I know a little bit more about the world, or at least know how to ask better questions. Sometimes we have to deal with the beast of bureaucracy.

I am The Keeper of the Matrix. The Matrix, which is our fancy name for an excel spreadsheet, has all sorts of information that is changing every day. In order to eliminate an excess of matrices, everyone is supposed to forward the information to me, and I update The Matrix. Otherwise, we have many matrices, and many informations, and none of them match and that is inefficient times ten. Then I send out the update to everyone who needs to know. This is not that hard. If it were just our office that dealt with The Matrix, things would go swimmingly.

But there is a different office, one who thinks they are in charge of The Matrix, although they clearly are not, since I am The Keeper. They think that they are helping out by taking an old version of The Matrix, changing to format to be more user-friendly, and then sending it out to everyone. This, as you intelligent readers can clearly see, only serves to confuse every single person who gets the e-mail. This New Matrix has different colors and outdated information and then I get to go through it - again - and update all the information, which has already been updated on The Original Matrix. This is a Royal Pain. I keep telling them that it is a pain and that if they do not want to upset The Keeper, they should leave well enough alone and stop messing wth my Matrix without my permission. But they heed not.

I think from now on I will put at the bottom of my e-mails, "$20 reward to anyone who finds, tars, and feathers those who are sending out obsolete matrices without my permission."