The Slippery Slope: A New Paradigm

A group of expeditioners formed a team to attempt a summit of the formidable Everest.  They anticipated the journey would be arduous so they spent years training and stock piling the best gear to aid them  with their ascent.  During this time of preparation they, through excited conversations with friends and acquaintances, added many to their numbers.  By the time of departure their group numbered over fifty.

As they set out the air was thick with excitement.  Taking the traditional southern route, the climb began in the small town of Namche Bazaar, Napal.  Yaks and dzopkyos were loaded heavily with supplies.  Sherpas and porters were hired.  The travelers would spend the next 8 days making their way to the Everest Base Camp at a 17,700 feet.  By all accounts the trek, even in its early phase, was far more difficult than they were ready for.  Even many of the most physically fit members had a difficult time adjusting to the thin air.

On that 8th day they finally made it to the Khumbu Glacier which is followed for the final part of the trail to the Base Camp.  The icy path was treacherous for the crew, each footstep was placed firmly to ensure safe passage.  After this obstacle they reached the location where they would rest and acclimate for two weeks.

Tents were pitched, a makeshift kitchen was setup, and the sojourners settled in.  When the winds weren’t whipping too hard they would gather into small groups discussing the journey so far and planning for the next section of the journey.  There were a few core members of the team that were widely recognized as the leaders.  They talked at length with each other about methods for keeping the others following the straight and narrow.  Each afternoon the leaders would call the group together as a whole to go over safety strategies and outline their plans.

Over the first week at base camp other climbers also arrived, setting up their makeshift settlements nearby.  A few of the leaders would go to chat with the newcomers, always reporting back to their own group that the others were inexperienced, ill-prepared, and had little business being on such a dangerous mountain.  Occasionally they would try to convince some of the other groups to come and follow them up the mountain.  Their sales pitches claimed that the only way they would be guaranteed a safe summit was if they learned from them and obeyed their instructions.  Some actually did agree to abandon their own teams to study at the feet of the leaders and to follow them to the mountain top.

Each time a new convert was brought into the group the training sessions would begin again.  Though the delays disappointed the original crew, the leaders explained that it was for everybody’s safety that the recruits received a full and robust training.

The two-week acclimation period passed, then another week, then another.  With each passing day the instructional lessons became more detailed, more rigid, and more strict.  What was a 1 hour informal gathering had now turned into a 2 1/2 hour class taught daily.  Each now had a title and corresponding theme.  One was called “7 Practices of a Highly Effective Climber”, another “Mountaineers in the Hands of an Angry Mountain”.

Eventually some of the members of the crew became disheartened at the postponements and the increasing fanaticism of the leaders.  The mountain grew colder, windier, and more frightening with each passing day.  A group of 5 asked a couple of the sherpas to escort them back off the mountain so they could return home.  As they began to hike away from the camp and down the glacier they could hear mocking from the distance…something about being quitters, being weak, being lost.  From that point on the classes would also contain a section on the failures of back-sliding down the mountain, of sliding down the slippery slope.

There was one young woman in the group, named Amy, who had dreamed of this journey since she was a small child.  The walls of her room as a teenager were filled with posters of Everest.  As an adult her coffee table had been littered with mountaineering magazines for years.  She had taken smaller journeys across many of North America’s most famous peaks.  When she heard of this expedition Amy had convinced her fiance, Brian, to take this trip with her.  Brian had not dreamed of this trip since childhood, but Amy’s enthusiasm proved quite contagious.

Now she was forced to sit impatiently on the side of the mountain, so close…and so far away.  To Amy, the classes being taught each day were little more than pep talks and repetition of lessons she had learned years earlier.  She began skipping the lectures, instead venturing to nearby camps to express her vexation.  She dared not speak her doubts and frustrations among her own team lest they shame her for being on the verge of the slippery slope.

Eventually the quicksand of this base camp became overwhelming for Amy.  She had been thinking about turning back, going back home to return later.  There was one particular group she had been venting to for the past couple days.  When she told them that she was thinking about leaving they offered to let her join their expedition.  Upon hearing the invitation Amy glowed.

She quickly rushed back to Brian and told him they finally had a way to continue on their journey.  Brian was hesitant.  He wanted to join Amy and this new team, but the training was echoing through his thoughts.  The other groups are “unsafe”, “unreliable”…how could he put himself and Amy at such risk?  And of course he knew the shaming would be imminent.  He certainly didn’t want to be a back-slider.

There was one thing, though, that he felt more strongly than any of those fears.  He wanted Amy to be happy.  Brian told Amy he would love to join her and the new climbing team she had found.  As they packed their gear some concerned companions came by to convince them that they should not leave.  They expressed that they were worried for their safety.  Brian and Amy thanked them for their concern but also conveyed that they were going to continue the climb and didn’t believe they could do that with the original expedition.

As they finally began their long-awaited trek out of the base camp they could hear murmurs behind them.  The words they had expected finally came as somebody mentioned the “slippery slope” Amy and Brian were on.  They smiled at each other because now they knew that not all slippery slopes are a descent…some are a long, hard climb towards your dream.

 

3 Spiritual Principles I Learned From Food Network

I have a confession to make…I love the Food Network and spend far too much of my time watching, what many would consider, pointless cooking competition shows.  From Iron Chef to Chopped to Cupcake Wars (do I lose a manly-man point for that last one?)  I find myself glued to the flashing screen in front of me.

In a never-ending attempt to prove to myself that I am not just “wasting time”, I have been contemplating the spiritual lessons I have gleaned from these shows.  So without further ado:

1. Tension and balance are essential.

Many a chef has been “chopped” when a judge utters the criticism that their dish was “one note”.  If there is a secret to making amazing grub, it might just be providing contrasting yet complementary flavors and textures.

Corn Ice Cream w/Habanero Tequila Caviar

If you are going to make a sweet dish, it is a good idea to add a sour or spicy flavor to create an interesting tension.  Likewise, if you are going to make a soup you had better include a piece of crunchy bread to contrast the textures. A meal without contrast is a recipe for a boring dining experience.

This is also true of our spiritual journeys.  If we think faith is all about believing what we were taught to believe and never about doubting then we can only go so far.  It becomes predictable and repetitive.  However if we truly embrace belief yet are authentic in acknowledging our doubt it usually provides a deeper more robust spiritual experience.  This can also be true with grace vs. justice, metaphysical vs. physical, and truth vs. mystery.  Finding the tension between the two is where the magic happens.

2. Deconstruction of the classics can lead us into a deeper understanding.

Deconstructed Bagel and Lox

Take for example the dish to the left.  It is a deconstructed version of the classic bagels and lox.  The chef has abstracted each of the components: bagel (in crumb form), cured salmon, cream cheese, onion, cucumber, and capers. In this the diner can experience this meal, with a long history, in a new and fresh way.  In so doing they can more easily understand what each component adds to the dish.  The bagels add the starch and crunch.  The cheese adds the creaminess.  The fish adds the smokey savoriness.  The capers add the tart sourness.  I think you get the point…  In addition the eater can play around by tasting a couple of the components in tandem to see how those flavors play off of one another.  The whole experience leaves the diner with a  far greater understanding of the meal they have eaten.

Similarly deconstructing our doctrines and theologies can lead us into a more robust comprehension.  It is easy to let our spiritual ancestors fight through all the questions and arguments for us, consuming whatever is placed before us.  It is a worthwhile effort to dig into them to find out who they were, why they made the decisions they made, what influenced them, and what impacts it has had.  When we truly understand the components that our dogmas emerged from, perhaps we can imagine them in a new way that will bring life to ourselves and those around us.

3. Exposure to diversity can produce creativity

Sea Urchin Carbonara Noodle Bento Box

Culinary lines have long been fought over.  The French will claim their cuisine is the best in the world, the Italians theirs, the Japanese theirs, and so on.  Purists from any tradition will often scoff at the rest of the inferior lot.  If you, like me, have watched the original Iron Chef program, Iron Chef America‘s Japanese predecessor from the 90s, you will have noticed that each of the chefs came from a specific cuisine (French, Chinese, Japanese, Italian).  Many times challengers would enter Kitchen Stadium from opposing classical schools.  Most of the time the chefs would stick to their specialized flavor profiles, but occasionally a spark of creativity would come over them as they “stole” an ingredient or flavor from the rival tradition to elevate their dish.  Over the show’s 7 year run this practice increased as it became known as a winning formula.  The Iron Chef who showed this type of creativity more than any of the others was Masaharu Morimoto, who eventually crossed the Pacific to join Iron Chef America.  In the American version of the show almost every Iron Chef and challenger follow this tradition where they “bring together the pungent flavors of east and west”.

I have found spiritual parallel here as well.  There are a great many spiritual traditions in the world.  For the longest time I saw them as rivals, as an inferior lot.  As I have opened myself to hearing what is important and meaningful to them, I have found inspiration for my own faith tradition.  Many times I have felt myself fall into a rut…thinking the same thoughts, doing the same things, falling into the same patterns.  Having a real appreciation for spiritual diversity (including the agnostics and atheists I know) provides me with the spark of creativity it takes to get out of those ruts…and I’m truly thankful for that.

 

Breaking Up With G-d

Occasionally a song resonates with your soul.  Sometimes that resonation has little to do with the artist’s original intent.  Perhaps that is one of the signs of truly meaningful expressions.  There’s something wonderful about a song that transcends its topic.  I’ve had that experience over the past week.  Goyte’s “Somebody That I Used To Know” has been that song for me.  Rather than a reflection on a former romantic relationship the song has placed melody and lyrics on my former relationship with G-d…the one I knew in my youth…the one I knew from my Evangelical born-again phase.

Reflect with me, if you will, on the lyrics for a moment:

Now and then I think of when we were together
Like when you said you felt so happy you could die
Told myself that you were right for me
But felt so lonely in your company
But that was love and it’s an ache I still remember

You can be addicted to a certain kind of sadness
Like resignation to the end, always the end
So when we found that we could not make sense
Well you said that we would still be friends
But I’ll admit that I was glad that it was over

But you didn’t have to cut me off
Make out like it never happened and that we were nothing
And I don’t even need your love
But you treat me like a stranger and that feels so rough
No you didn’t have to stoop so low
Have your friends collect your records and then change your number
I guess that I don’t need that though
Now you’re just somebody that I used to know

Now you’re just somebody that I used to know
Now you’re just somebody that I used to know

Now and then I think of all the times you screwed me over
But had me believing it was always something that I’d done
But I don’t wanna live that way
Reading into every word you say
You said that you could let it go
And I wouldn’t catch you hung up on somebody that you used to know

But you didn’t have to cut me off
Make out like it never happened and that we were nothing
And I don’t even need your love
But you treat me like a stranger and that feels so rough
And you didn’t have to stoop so low
Have your friends collect your records and then change your number
I guess that I don’t need that though
Now you’re just somebody that I used to know

Somebody, I used to know
Now you’re just somebody that I used to know
Somebody, I used to know
Now you’re just somebody that I used to know

I used to know…That I used to know
I used to know somebody

I should probably specify at this point that I haven’t become an atheist or agnostic.  I still believe in G-d but what that looks like is quite different from what it has been in the past.  I have broken-up with the anthropomorphic projection of my fears, hopes, insecurities, prejudices, self-doubt, anger, and desires.  Moreover, I have ended my relationship with those projections of my culture and the cultures that serve as the foundation of my culture.  There are, I still believe, parts of that affair that were shadows of the divine.  All of those elements were, though, tangled hopelessly into an idea I named “G-d”.

I feel particularly connected to the imagery in the video.  The relationship I shared with this G-d was created by filling in a paint-by-numbers pattern.  Piece by piece, doctrine by doctrine, sermon by sermon…the tapestry of our journey together took on shape and color.  It was not until later that the sharp corners and lack of shading began to bother me.  By the end…color drained away all together and the borders vanished.  All that remained was raw human flesh ready to move tentatively toward a new era, a new love.

Breaking up doesn’t mean though that I am free and clear of that previous “personal relationship”.  I will carry the baggage of that failed relationship…it has undeniably become a part of who I am.  It is intertwined with my very being for better and for worse.  That was love and it’s an ache I still remember.

Your friends, divine former lover, still come around to remind me that it’s over.  They snatch back the mementos of our relationship, as if they actually could, to serve as a reminder that you never needed me to begin with.  Though we shared a deep and meaningful history, when that relationship was over your messengers told me I could no longer call myself “Christian”.  I became a stranger and that feels so rough.  You found others who will love you more truly than I ever could.  I did love you, but we found that we could not make sense.  I’ll admit that I was glad that it was over.  

I’m deeply sorry I had to leave. I needed to.  You see, I didn’t feel like I could be myself.  The relationship demanded that I become someone I couldn’t truly be…but I’ll be damned if I didn’t try to become that person.  Every time I failed to accomplish the impossible you claimed to forgive me by acting large and when you did I felt so small.  I realize now that I was always set-up for failure.  And I don’t wanna live that way
Reading into every word you say.

In the end it is better off this way…for both of us.  I will always remember the good times we had and the love that we shared.  The past is the past though.  Now you’re just somebody that I used to know.

Somebody…

…that I used to know.

 

Masculine Christianity: A Cup Half Empty

Earlier this week popular reformed preacher John Piper addressed a crowd of conventioneers at the annual Desiring G-d 2012 event.  His message was entitled “The Frank and Manly Mr. Ryle – The Value of Masculine Christianity“.  Read it here.  It is a fairly long address, so allow me to highlight a couple of pieces (with some intermittent responses.

“God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son.” – Piper

First I’d like to point out that Piper knows his Bible inside and out.  He knows full well that the logic of the first couple of sentences is misleading at best.  G-d is “revealed” in the Bible in the feminine as well as the masculine.  In addition the church is referred to in the feminine many times.  For example: G-d is likened to a mother in Numbers 11:12, Isaiah 49:14-15, Deut. 32:18, Hosea 11:1-4, Psalms 131:2, Job 38:8, and 1 Peter 2:2-3.  G-d is likened to other human feminine images in Psalm 22:9-10, Nehemiah 9:21, Luke 13:18-21, and Luke 15:8-10.  God is liked to other non-human feminine images in  Psalm 17:8, Psalm 57:1, Deut. 32:11-12, Matthew 23:37, John 3:5, John 1:13. The hebrew language has a gender-based linguistic system, much like Spanish.  Certain words are masculine, certain words are feminine.  When the Hebrew scriptures refer to the Spirit of G-d the word used is “ruwach”, which is a feminine noun.

Now the point here isn’t to have a biblical tit for tat with Piper.  It’s simply to point out that when we use terrestrial language to speak of the divine we are always speaking in symbolism.  When we attempt to explain our hopes regarding the nature of G-d we use analogies.  We use something that is familiar to us personally to express something magnificently mysterious.  Asserting that G-d is literally male, a “father”, or a “king” is no more appropriate than using Jesus’ analogy of a mother hen gathering her chicks to assert that G-d is a chicken.

Piper continued: “God appoints all the priests in Israel to be men. The Son of God comes into the world as a man, not a woman. He chooses twelve men to be his apostles. The apostles tell the churches that all the overseers—the pastor/elders who teach and have authority (1 Timothy 2:12)—should be men; and that in the home, the head who bears special responsibility to lead, protect, and provide should be the husband (Ephesians 5:22–33)…From all of this, I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel.”

Many of the prophets consistently uses the feminine Hebrew pronouns (zo’th & shilyah) to refer the nation of Israel.  In the New Testament Jesus and the apostles refer to the church in the feminine metaphor as bride.  There are a lot of powerful women in the Bible.  Most scholars will let you in on the fact that Jesus had female disciples.  Paul, yes that Paul, was discipled in part by a woman named Priscilla.  She and her husband were both pastors of a church in Ephesus.  The women Euodia and Syntyche worked with Paul to teach the gospel.  We could go on and on, but the assertion that only men lead or are called to lead in the Bible is obviously false.

If we move past antiquated chauvinism we will surely enjoy a much more robust and meaningful Christianity. Chauvinism restricts the analogies we can use to express the divine into a subset of what it could be.  If we refuse to see G-d in the feminine then we have lost half of our means to express our hope.  Our symbolic cup does not “runneth over”…it remains half empty.  A Christianity that embraces the feminine metaphors doubles the tools we have to express the divine.

Now what is interesting in this particular speech is that Piper eventually admits that women can do pretty much anything that a man can do (something I doubt to ever hear Piper’s macho-church companion, Mark Driscoll, admit).

“The reason we call such courage “manly” is not that a woman can’t show it, but that we feel a sense of fitness and joy when a man steps up to risk his life, or his career, with courage; but we (should) feel awkward if a woman is thrust into that role on behalf of men…

The point is not that women are unable to lift the weight or bear the pain of the reality of hell. The point is not that they are unable to press it into those who don’t want to hear. The point is that one of the marks of mature manhood is the inclination to spare her that load and its costs….

Again the point is not that a woman is not able to speak this way. The point is that godly men know intuitively, by the masculine nature implanted by God, that turning the hearts of men and women to God with that kind of authoritative speaking is the responsibility of men.” – Piper

This is what is truly unfortunate about this theology.  There is no doubt in my mind that Piper believes that women will be happier living in submission to masculine authority.  What he doesn’t realize, blinded by doctrine, is that most women are not happy in that place.  His view does not match reality.  He doesn’t realize that women too sense a fitness and joy when they “step up to the risks of life, or career, with courage”.  He does not realize that they passionately desire to lead others and help them to make the world a better place.  They too have a nature to turn the hearts of others to the divine.

In teaching that leadership, careers, and individual divine calling are strictly for manly men, he robs women of their freedom to be fulfilled.  In this view, the only life they have been “blessed” with is one of perpetual cheerleading and baby-making.  He doesn’t even realize what he is doing…but this is the 21st Century, ignorance is not acceptable.  We have millions of examples of successful and fulfilled female leaders.  You don’t need to look far to find them.  We can easily observe all the diversity in life.  Men don’t always fit the masculine cliches, nor do women fit the female cliches…no matter how much Piper and Driscoll try to tell us everybody should fit into 2 predefined boxes.

 A couple of weeks ago author and blogger, Rachel Held Evans, was in Phoenix speaking at a couple of events.  She reminded us of a biblical story that receives little attention.  The story of Jephthah and his daughter can be found in Judges 11.  To sum up the story in short: Jephthah is called upon by the elders of Gilead to fight their enemies.  If he is successful they agree to make him their permanent chieftain.  During the battle Jephthah cuts a deal with G-d:  If he is given the victory he promises to sacrifice “whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return”. He wins the battle, returns home, and his daughter comes out to greet him.  He is distraught, but Jephthah knows what G-d “requires” of him.  His daughter pleads with him to allow here to spend two months mourning in the countryside before her future and her life are sacrificed to meet the expectations of G-d.  He grants this postponement but at the end of two months “did to her according to the vow which he had made”.

The danger of Piper’s theology is that it asserts that G-d wants us to sacrifice the individual initiative, hopes, and dreams of women.  Many women are currently wandering in the wilderness mourning for the lives they wish they had, if it had not been for this “promise” we made to doctrine.  The good news is that they are not yet sacrificed…though “Masculine Christianity” seems anxious to light the pyre.  We can come to our senses and realize that this is a sacrifice that G-d neither requires nor wants.

For continued conversation check out the flood of responses over at Rachel Held Evans’ blog.

 

Spiritual Abuse: An Allegory

His matted mane rested heavily on the slivered wooden floor.  A large paw stretched forward and began to knead the cold iron bars.  Leo, not a very original name for a lion, gazed longingly across the parking lot from his circus trailer.  It had been many years that he had traveled through the countryside…but tonight he longed for something different, something more.  Weighted pants pushed dust from the floor into the night air.  He knew not what laid beyond the darkness, but wondered.  There must be something…right?

As a cub Leo was bought and sold to a travelling circus.  City after city, show after show he would be presented to the crowds as they oohed and awed at his cuteness.  A story was told during each exhibition of how young Leo was saved out of a cruel life of caged captivity from the small breeder.  He would now enjoy the luxurious life that few lions would ever get the privilege of experiencing.  There would always be new places, new people, new experiences for Leo.  All his needs would be met from food to water to exercise and companionship. The lion tamer traveling with the circus was world-renowned and had years of experience training young lions like Leo.  Surely this would be a wonderfully exciting life for this little cub.

Within a few months of his life as a circus lion Leo started his training.  He would not be small and cute forever, he had to learn the tricks and routines that would keep audiences packing the big tent.  Three other lions filled out the small pride that became Leo’s family, two lionesses and one alpha male.  During the early training sessions the small cub would listen to the tamer bark commands at the older lions.  Upon hearing the tamer they were all impeccably obedient.  They climbed ladders, jumped from platforms, and leaped through hoops as Leo observed with wide eyes.  One particular trick really held his attention.  The large alpha sat gracefully before the tamer.  The man reached forward with two hands and opened the massive jaws of the great lion.  To Leo’s amazement the tamer then slid his head between the razor-sharp teeth of the great cat.  He knew then that this man wielded an awesome power that brought submission and compliance from even the strongest lion.  As Leo continued to watch the older lions obey every command an awareness began to form in his mind…this is what lions were meant to do.

After a few days of observation Leo was led into the middle of the training pen by the tamer.  One of the lionesses joined him.  A command was given and the lioness reacted by jumping up onto a platform.  He heard the command once again and looked nervously at the lioness…CRACK!  A whip had snapped behind him, startling him as he instinctively jumped onto the platform that was in front of him.  He was frightened, but quickly the tamer threw a chunk of meat in front of him.  Apparently he did something right, he was being rewarded.

The training continued day after day, month after month, with intermittent weekends of performances.  Leo learned quickly and was soon catching up with the skill of the older lions.  During one memorable training session he was going through the motions as he jumped through a set of hoops, a section of the act he had gotten particularly good at.  The tamer broke their normal routine as he went over to the hoops, fiddling with them for a while…then WHOOSH!  As flames danced around in frightening circles Leo felt his heart drop.  He cowered and began to crawl towards the pen door…he heard the command, but did not jump.  CRACK!  The whip was back but this time Leo didn’t jump, he only sunk lower.  CRACK!  A burning pain crossed his back.  He looked fearfully at the tamer with a slow side glance.  He had never experienced such pain, but he knew that he deserved it…he did not leap, he did not jump.  Tacitly he positioned himself to jump through the flaming hoops.  As the command was uttered once again, he leapt as quickly as he could.  Leo could feel the heat from the fire as he passed through the flames.  When at last he was past the danger he dropped down in the dirt.  A chunk of meat dropped before him…this time he did not eat.

The details of that day blurred over time, but the lesson did not.  Leo did not want to disappoint the tamer by disobeying a command.  He remained obsessively attentive in his presence.  As a result the young lion grew into a great performing cat.  He mastered the performances…jumping higher, roaring louder, and projecting more personality than all of the other lions in the little traveling pride.  The older alpha waned with age and Leo soon found himself as the centerpiece of the circus.  He enjoyed a couple of years of spotlight success.  His connection with the tamer was never better.  During performances the tamer hardly needed to gesture or call a command, Leo knew exactly what to do and when.  Leo was happy.  He had what he needed and enjoyed a purpose in doing exactly what he was trained to do.

As happens, life cannot sustain a single peak of joy and happiness perpetually.  Eventually the circus stopped drawing the crowds that had made it successful.  Financial difficulty soon followed.  The owners ended up selling the other three lions, leaving Leo as the sole big cat in the show.  The tamer was disgruntled at his loss, yet remained determined to bring success back to the circus.  As such, the stunts that Leo was expected to perform became increasingly difficult and dangerous as his leader became more aggressive.  Leo did his best to keep up with grueling training sessions only to find brief relief in short periods of rest.  The weight of obligation rested heavily on his broad shoulders.

It was during this difficult time when he found himself staring into the darkness that fateful night.  Somehow he wished he had done more in the past.  Every stumble in a performance haunted his thoughts, every time it took longer than expected to learn a routine, every disappointed look from the tamer.  He had done so much, tried so hard, but it wasn’t enough.  He came to the realization that there would always be more pressure, more hoops to jump through, more commands, more whips.  Hope clawed back from despair as, for the first time, he questioned what it meant to be a lion.  There could be something else, something more, something meaningful.  Whatever that was he knew that he would not find it from the tamer who told him what he was, what he was to do, where he was supposed to go.  He felt a surge of self-realization rise from within his gut.  He could seek meaning for his life, he decided that nobody else could do that for him.

Yet Leo still laid on his side in his cage.  For all the internal turmoil and wrestling…his body barely moved.  He knew the bars would keep him in place.  He knew that he couldn’t escape.  As hopelessness creeped over his body with an eery chill he continued to knead the equally chilly iron bars.  His large ear twinged as the faint sound of a click pierced the silence.   The cage door moved slightly under the pressure of his paws.  Apparently the tamer had failed to make sure the lock was secure before he left for the night.  Moonlight caught his large brown eyes.  With a shove the door flew open.  Quickly he hopped down, shuddering with excitement as his paws dropped onto the asphalt. For a moment he hesitated.  Could he really do this?  Could he really run?

Just then he heard a holler from a nearby trailer.  The tamer had spotted Leo.  Immediately he found himself at a sprint.  A tree-line appeared in the distance, providing a target for his flight.  The oaks moved closer…closer…closer…BANG!  Leo’s right hind leg collapsed under his weight as he tumbled into some loose gravel.  Burning consumed his thigh.  The determined lion found his way back to his feet…he had been trained to push through pain to accomplish a task.  Leo now sprinted faster than ever and disappeared into the thick forest.  His pace slowed to navigate through all the obstacles, but he continued to flee.  He would not stop, he would not go back.  He ran with chilled nocturnal air rushing through his mane.  Leo felt alive.

Eventually the light of morning sun shone across the horizon.  Exhausted the large cat found a place in the underbrush that seemed safe to collapse.  As breath caught up, Leo’s attention turned to his injured leg.  The dart had grazed him, the wound was shallower than he expected.  It seemed excruciating at the moment of impact but now the pain was little more than dull now.  He licked his wound but felt confident it would heal.

Leo surveyed all that surrounded him.  No concrete, no cages, no tent, no tamer.  Freedom rang in the relative silence of the forest.  A subdued breeze rustled through leaves.  Leo closed his eyes as his thoughts finally caught up to him.  He knew he was free now…captivity and control were in the past.  The emotions of new reality were overwhelming.

Excitement

Liberation

Joy

Insecurity

Loneliness

Hope

Leo had never felt the tensions of such complex emotion before.  He didn’t know what life would hold for him from this point forward. He felt confident that he was moving into a more authentic life…he was now embarking on a journey to find what it really means to be a lion.

Commentary

This allegory was prompted in part by the story of a man who was excommunicated recently from Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill church.  The story was told to the world on Matthew Paul Turner’s blog.  Read about it here:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Spiritual Abuse Must Stop

It is important to note though that this allegory is not meant to simply re-tell Andrew’s story. Over the past week many have been sharing their stories of spiritual abuse and the difficult process of escaping religious control.  Their stories can be found in the comments sections of the linked posts, other blogs, on social media, likely (if you run in religious circles) amongst your friends, or possibly in your own life experience.  The volume indicates that there is a serious and systemic issue that needs to be addressed.  Too often religion has been used to control others.  I agree with MPT, it must stop.  This is my contribution to the fight against the dehumanizing process of caging a diverse, complex and beautiful humanity in the constricting boxes of religious regulations and systems.

 

Satan and Christus Victor in the 21st Century

First, I must apologize for the past couple months of absence from blogging.  Life has been busy through the holidays.  I have found a moment to catch my breath and as such now have time to write a bit more.  I currently sit overlooking an ice covered lake with a backdrop of snow blanketed mountains.  Perhaps this post will find a somewhat more positive tone then the previous…although we should start there to address this topic.

If you haven’t had a chance to read my last post please take a second to do so: An Abusive Relationship with G-d.

This last post was a reaction to a particular doctrine that I formerly affirmed, namely Penal Substitutionary Atonement (I’ll refer to it as PSA for convenience throughout the remainder of this piece).  I felt it necessary to express my frustration with this commonly espoused atonement theory to perhaps point out some of its short comings and the damage that it can do to us personally and our relationship with G-d.  However, it certainly isn’t enough to tear something down and walk away with the dust of the rubble falling off my boots.  So then, I offer an alternative for consideration.  Please keep in mind that what I will present is just another theory.  I am not advocating that this is the final and true atonement theory…only that it is perhaps a better alternative to the popular PSA.  I wouldn’t suggest anybody simply take this explanation and build a rigid doctrine around it, but rather use it as inspiration to continue the journey of finding new ways to experience G-d, love, and life with each other.

Let’s start by taking a step back in history, considering where PSA came from and why it emerged.  Throughout most of the first millenium of Christianity the atonement was understood by a vast majority of followers through either of 2 metaphors.  The first would be the Ransom theory. It teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom, paid to Satan, in satisfaction of his just claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. The second is closely related and is known as Christus Victor.  This theory sees Jesus not used as a ransom but rather defeating Satan in a spiritual battle and thus freeing enslaved mankind by defeating the captor.  In the 11th Century the established western church officially rejected both of these theories in favor of the Satisfaction theory at the direction of Anselm, then Archbishop of Canterbury.  Satisfaction theory eventually emerged into PSA under the Reformers 500+ years later.  As a reminder, PSA argues that Christ  was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so G-d can justly forgive the sins.  So here we are in present day…dealing the the Mark Driscolls of the world telling us that G-d hates us and that we need to feel guilty because we aren’t holy enough for him, that G-d demanded a human sacrifice to appease his wrath against us.  If such an assertion came from any other religion we would immediately be able to identify how dangerous such an understanding of G-d would be…but since it comes from our own tradition we seem to be generally quite blind to it.

I’d like to pose this question:  Why did Anselm send us down this path?  Why did he see it necessary to change the path of a millenium of Christians before him.  It is reported that Anselm rejected the ransom theory because he had discerned that Satan, an actual spiritual being, could not have possibly had any just claim to G-d’s creation, thus eliminating the legal requirement for a ransom to be paid.  For Anselm a similar dilema was posed by Christus Victor in that it portrayed Satan as such a powerful being so as to be able to enslave G-d’s creation against His will.  Anselm contended it was much preferable to see us (humanity) as enemies of G-d, through our sin, then to assert godlike power to the spiritual being of Satan.  I wouldn’t argue with Anselm on his identification of a problem, but I would obviously have some contention with his resolution (again, see my previous post).

In the tradition of this blog I would approach the resolution of the criticisms of Christus Victor by exploring the metaphorical interpretation.  We have already established that it is fairly unattractive to view our condition as a subjection of humanity to the literal spiritual power and authority of a being that is not G-d, namely Satan.  If we do this we effectively create another god who is just as powerful as, well maybe just a little less powerful than, the main G-d, in so doing we become polytheists.  So what if Satan is a metaphor for something?  Is there some problem, power, set of issues that humanity faces from which we would need a savior, a hero?  If there were, then perhaps the analogy of the spiritual battle of Christus Victor could still be maintained, albeit slightly modified.

In searching for the villain, our Satan, in the narrative of Christus Victor I would introduce us to, or for some remind us of,  another atonement theory that has seemed to exist in some form or another throughout the history of Christianity.  This atonement theory is known as “moral influence“.  It teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection.  If we let moral influence inform our decision on choosing a metaphorical definition of “Satan”, then it would appear that immorality, as defined by Jesus, would be the villain in our narrative.  If we review Jesus’ teachings it appears that our Satan, the one he came to defeat, is/are the systems and individual interactions that are unloving, those that cause alienation and oppression, those that ignore or perpetuate poverty and need, etc.

This way of approaching the question gives us something real and tangible to work with.  We are no longer fearing and struggling against some lower diety who is manipulating our life events (I hate it when Satan hides my keys on Sunday mornings to keep me from getting to church, but Jesus usually overcomes the attempts of the Devil by helping me find them! PTL!).  Rather we move into addressing real world problems by practicing “The Way” (for those who don’t already know, early Christians identified themselves not as “christians” but rather as followers of “The Way”…that way of course being the one Jesus taught and demonstrated).  We are trying to solve issues like poverty (locally and globally) with generosity and compassion, we try to find ways to create and maintain peace by rejecting the cycles of violence and retribution, we seek to have relationships that are healthy, beneficial, and that demonstrate authentic love regardless of race, class, religion, or sexuality, etc.

If we see the reason for Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection in the context of this collision of Christus Victor and Moral Influence then we effectively resolve Anselm’s problem with these traditional atonement theories while simultaneously avoiding the afore mentioned pitfalls and abuse of penal substitutionary atonement.  I see this approach as much more beneficial, hopeful, and as calling Jesus’ followers to a higher responsibility in the narrative of life and existence in the universe.

 

An Abusive Relationship With G-d

This weekend Mark Driscoll, pastor of the NW mega-church Mars Hill, came right out and said exactly what he thinks that g-d thinks about you…”G-d hates you“.  Watch here (quote starts @ 4:25)…

Those who know me might be surprised by this, but I have a slight problem with that.  It isn’t just that I find his approach rough or his words lacking in tact, even though I certainly do.  My criticism goes beyond the shocking phrases he spews with such malice in this video.  If you have an hour, man he loves to hear himself talk, you can watch the full sermon here.

In the full sermon, Mark goes to great lengths to explain to us how evil we are.  He thinks it is incredibly important that we all realize just how sh*tty we really are and how much his g-d righteously despises everything about us.  We must come to the realization that g-d’s wrath is boiling over and his “justice” eagerly calls out for our blood.  Mark thinks saying all that is okay because it highlights just how great g-d’s “love” is when he finds a way to redirect his wrath onto a substitutionary scapegoat.  The only way we could possibly understand the love of g-d is if it comes in contrast to wrath-filled hatred and the threat of eternal torture performed by our beloved.

Forgive me for being as blunt as Driscoll usually is, but Mark’s gospel is bullsh*t.  I usually wouldn’t be so forceful in this venue, but this kind of theology is severely psychologically and spiritually dangerous.  His message, given with authority to an audience of over 10K, paints g-d with the following characteristics:

• Jealous & Possessive
• Controlling
• Sets Unattainable Standards
• Manipulative
• Prone to Mood Swings
• Conflicting Actions and Words – Like saying he loves the world then eternally tortures most of it
• Punishes For Not Meeting Unreasonable Expectations
• Disrespectful – devalues who you are
• Historically Violent

The real problem here is that these are the warning signs psychologists, psychiatrists, and counselors have identified of abusive relationships.  The analogy of a husband and wife are often used by Christians to symbolize our relationship with g-d.   If Mark Driscoll’s g-d is like our husband, then we are the victims of domestic abuse.  His g-d tells us that we are worthless according to his standards.  We weren’t able to live up to the rules that he made for us, as a result his anger is boiling over. Every time we fail to reach perfection seething words escape through our holy spouse’s clenched teeth promising, “One of these days…one of these days my wrath will reign down on you with unrelenting fury.”

Maybe one day we might work up the courage to respond to such threats by saying, “Remember when I did that thing you asked me to do yesterday, did that not mean anything to you?”.  He, of course, would respond with an open hand raised and impatience in his tone, “Unless you do everything perfectly, whatever good you think you do is complete and utter garbage!”.

After such an interaction we might cower before him and ask “I really do try to be a good person.  You wouldn’t really hurt me just because I fail sometimes, would y…”.  A booming growl cuts off our words, “I AM THE DESTROYER OF SODOM, OF GOMORRAH, OF UZZAH, OF ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA, OF THE WORLD IN THE FLOOD! DO YOU THINK FOR A MOMENT I WOULD TREAT YOU DIFFERENTLY?”  His voice lowers a few decibels as he continues, “I’ll tell you what, because I am such a merciful and generous g-d I might spare you from my righteous punishment…I could torture and kill somebody who is innocent instead.  You should feel like crap, you made me do it.  You made me torture Jesus, you made me kill him…his blood is on your hands. Live with that guilt for the rest of your existence. Now get down on your knees!  Tell me how horrible and sinful you are.  Acknowledge before me and everybody else that you are nothing without me…a complete waste of human existence.  Say that you deserve my unending torment as retribution for your inability to be perfect, then beg for forgiveness.  Vow to change your disgusting ways.  Admit that it was all your fault that a righteous man died.  SAY IT OR BURN!”

As his voice crescendos, we find ourselves instinctively whimpering the confessions we were instructed to say. As we do, he continues, “Good…now realize what has happened here.  I must love you incredibly to even accept trash like you into my presence.  I ferociously despise you, but my love is greater than my hate…which is saying a lot.  Can you see that?”

“Yes sir” we murmur without making eye contact.

“Very well.  Then perhaps I might be able to do something useful with you.  Go and tell others that they too are worthless sinners.  My wrath burns against them as well, but perhaps they might be able to work out a deal like I graciously extended to you…because if I can forgive and love a P.O.S. like you surely I can do it for anybody.”

The last dig hurt.  For a moment we think to ourselves, “maybe we could just leave, find somebody who didn’t make such threats, find somebody who didn’t set unreasonable expectations, who loved us for us and not despite of us”  As quickly as the thought occurred, fear pulls it back.  If we run he will catch us and we will surely be punished.  If there is one thing we know about g-d, he will follow through with his violent threats…Mark Driscoll told us he would.

UPDATE

• A follow up post can be viewed here: Satan and Christus Victor in the 21st Century

 

Literal Hell?

How dare anybody contend that biblical teachings regarding hell are metaphorical…

 

Of Gentiles and Homosexuals

In the first century a division emerged in the early Christian church.  As we are well aware, Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were Jews.  He taught about the Jewish G-d, and claimed to be His Son.  His followers believed he was the Jewish Messiah.  It seemed destined that Christianity was destined to be a sect of Judaism. Christians were to celebrate the same holidays, follow the same Mosaic laws found in the Torah, and insist new converts become Jews through the traditional conversion rituals.  However, all that changed on a rooftop in a town called Joppa.

The story is told in Acts 10.  You can read the full story for yourself here.  I’ll condense it here for those of you who are too lazy to click on the link 😉  In the account Peter has a vision.  In said vision he sees a smorgasbord from heaven descend right before his eyes.  The buffet was filled the delicious delights like bacon, ham, Philistine National® hot dogs, clams, shrimp, lobster, etc.  It contained every delectable dish that, according to the Torah, was impure and unclean.  A voice calls to Peter from heaven telling him to eat the feast that has been set before him.  Peter, being a good Jew, attempts to correct G-d’s mistake.  Apparently G-d had forgotten that he commanded his chosen people never to eat such animals in His holy, infallible and eternally applicable scripture.  G-d assures Peter he is quite serious…three times.

When Peter comes out of the vision, he hears a knock at the door.  It’s a couple gentiles, inviting him to the house of their gentile master, Cornelius.  Peter starts to get the point of the vision.  Apparently the vision wasn’t as much about discarding Jewish dietary traditions as it was about moving past the exclusivism of his religion, which has traditionally rejected non-Jews.  So Peter goes with them, and once he arrives at Cornelius’s house he makes this declaration:  “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But G-d has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.”

One might imagine how the conservative Christians of the day would respond to Peter’s new-found leniency on issues of Jewishness of G-d’s followers and on the Mosaic Law.  They would likely complain that Peter was teaching a doctrine that was unscriptural. They would accuse him of leading others into sin by encouraging them to pick and choose which parts of the law they would follow and what parts they would ignore.  Surely he just accepted the gentiles because it made him feel good.  They would, of course, say that Peter was denying the absolute truth and authority of G-d’s Word and in so doing was denying G-d himself.

Although it’s of little doubt this debate occurred in the early church, Peter and many other early church apostles pressed forward.  Their love for the gentiles and confidence that G-d did not and would not exclude them caused them to persist despite challenges of the more conservative crowd.  Before long other Christians began to accept the gentiles, then other leaders like Paul and Barnabas followed in their footsteps.  The movement proved to be as unstoppable as an avalanche.  The global, primarily gentile, face of Christianity emerged out of that one vision on that one rooftop, in Joppa nearly 2000 years ago.

From time to time the church takes another inclusive step in this worthy tradition.  In our past, minority races were once put in subservient roles in our churches.  Today such racial discrimination is abhorred by almost all Christians.   There was once a time where women were to remain silent in church and were not allowed to hold any authority over a man.  Although not yet quite as successful as the transition away from racism, sexism is fast becoming a thing of the past in our faith.

A new movement is afoot in today’s Christianity.  Many christians are now tiring of holding homosexuals at arm’s length.  The preconceived notion that they are an abomination, that they are immoral, that they are not worthy of G-d’s love is losing popularity.  Of course the fundamentalists will pull out their bibles as if they were weapons and attempt to brow beat our acceptance of and love for the LGBT community back into submission. They will proclaim the corruption and impurity of gay people.  They will insist that because they are gay, they must be rejected by G-d.

When they do, I hope that we respond in the manner Peter did when he faced the same criticism: “Brothers, you know that some time ago G-d made a choice among you that LGBT people* might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. G-d, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test G-d by putting on the necks of the LGTB community* a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”  – Acts 15:7-11

*My word replacement, LGBT for Gentile.

 

King Nebuchadnezzar and The Pledge of Allegiance

From time to time the Pledge of Allegiance’s controversial “under God” clause surfaces in public dialogue. Recently, NBC ran a montage during the U.S. Open featuring the Pledge.  The phrase “under God” was edited out.  To nobody’s surprise the Christian right flipped out.  Immediately social networks were flooded with Christians shaming NBC for the omission.  NBC officially apologized for the omission, twice.  Leave it to my brethren to live Christ’s teaching by refusing to forgive them.  A perfect example is found on the Christian Post: NBC Pledge of Allegiance Apology ‘Too Little, Too Late;’ Christians Demand Explanation.

The message Christians have sent to the rest of the country is clear.  Anybody who chooses to make a pledge to our nation without the specification of swearing by our God will be publicly shamed and alienated.  Once the process of alienation has begun, even if an “offender” were to apologize, there will be no mercy.  If you choose not to validate our beliefs in the form of public oath, we will take your personal religious beliefs as an “attack” on our faith and will label you an enemy of Christianity, our nation, and of God himself.

Now there is a defense that “God” is a generic word for a deity, so it isn’t necessarily speaking of the Christian God.  Might sound like a reasonable defense as far as other religions go…but then there are these conflicting facts:

• Christians created the language in private religious groups before it was accepted into official use.
• It was birthed in its public form in an actual Christian sermon, given in a Christian church, when witnessed by a newly Christian president in 1954.
• A Christian majority Congress passed the amending resolution in 1954.
• The only consistent public defenses for the clause has come from Christians.
• In cases like the afore-mentioned, it is the Christians who embark on public campaigns to berate the “offender”.

There is not, to my knowledge, any reasonable defense of requiring atheists or agnostics to recite a national pledge containing a religious clause.  In cases where there is no “requirement” to recite the clause…just try leaving it out, as NBC did, and see how the Christians respond.  Could you imagine if a Muslim American substituted the Arabic word “allah” or “الله” for our english word “god”?  It is the exact equivalent, just in a different language, so I’m sure the Family Research Council would be fine with that, right?  Imagine if a Hindu said “gods” instead of “God” since they are not monotheistic.  Would the religious right be alright with that?  It’s obvious that the Christians who lobby for and defend this language are absolutely seeking a pledge made to and sworn by their Christian God.  Make no mistake, the same people lobbying for “under God” in the Pledge are the same ones who believe there should be no separation between church and state and that America is a “Christian nation”.

Ok, so where is my metaphor…I should stay true to the theme of the blog so here it is:

Excerpt from Daniel 3
King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, sixty cubits high and six cubits wide, and set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. He then summoned the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials to come to the dedication of the image he had set up. Then the herald loudly proclaimed, “Nations and peoples of every language, this is what you are commanded to do: As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe and all kinds of music, you must fall down and worship the image of gold that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace.”…At this time some astrologers came forward and denounced the Jews. They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “…there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego—who pay no attention to you, Your Majesty. They neither serve your gods nor worship the image of gold you have set up.”
Furious with rage, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. …Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the image of gold I have set up? Now when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe and all kinds of music, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image I made, very good. But if you do not worship it, you will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace. Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?”
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to him, “King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”

Many of us know the rest of the story. They don’t bow, Nebbie has them thrown into the oven, they don’t die and walk through the flames with God.  One one level, this story is one of the many “our God is better than your Gods” stories found in the Old Testament; but on another level this story is about religious freedom and standing up to the tyranny of theocracy.  Ask yourself if this story would lose its power and meaning if we swapped some of the religious identities.  What if we moved the story from Babylon to Jerusalem, and the leader was a Jewish king burning religious minorities alive.  Would that be morally superior just because they were doing it in the name of the “right” God?  I would contend it is not.  Or perhaps move the story to America, in our time.  Should a Christian majority in a democracy be permitted to force religious minorities to follow their religious laws and force them to make pledges of allegiance to their God?  Should we be proud that we are have become more civilized and have swapped a furnace for ostracizing a person or group for not sharing our religious beliefs?  This story, as well as the historical record, should have taught us that when religious leaders govern minority faiths (or non-believers) it tends to end in oppression.  This absolutely holds true for Christianity; but it also holds for Islam and I would say includes an atheism that forces its belief structure on others as well.

As a Christian, I have no desire to live under the religious control of the Christian right.  I feel no obligation to take a pledge that affirms their religious ideals.  But let me go further, I have little more desire to live under the religious control of Christians who share my theologies.  If I am unwilling to live under the religious coercion of another faith, than I should absolutely not do such a thing to others.  I don’t feel any just and free society should have the ability to demand religious allegiance; especially in the form of national pledges.  No person should live in fear of religious oppression, whether the “punishment” for unbelief is being brutally executed or publicly shamed and alienated.  No citizen should feel like an outsider or be demoted to second-class status simply because they do not share the same religious convictions with the majority.

So on this Independence Day, I encourage my fellow Christians to lend the strength of our numbers to minority religions, agnostics, and atheists.  I believe that we can show them love by pledging our allegiance to the principles of religious freedom.