Searching for God # 57

 Noticing that I am both decrying the prevalence of judgements being made on a regular basis by those inside the church of others inside the same pews, I am also engaged in a process of judging, far beyond my ‘pay grade’.

The notion that ‘faith’ for many is a ‘belief’ in a set of narratives, stories that demonstrate the tradition on which one’s belief is based, and that belief carries with it a set of moral expectations, somehow linked to those narratives in the gospel, as contained in the Decalogue, is a very prominent and strongly held ‘position.’ It is as if such a position is analogous to a platform of a political party. And adherence is signified through committed giving, attendance, reading, prayer and altruism.

Another notion of ‘faith’ as a pursuit of things ephemeral, ineffable, mystical, mysterious and even bewildering and overwhelming, in a culture heavily reliant on literal, empirical provable facts and laws, suffers from a perception and a judgement that it is fanciful, indeterminate, non-orthodox, and not either able to be proven or adhered to.

In religious terms, the prominence of the spirit or the letter of the Mosaic law, has been a theme from as far back as the first century CE.

In  famous Talmudic story, it was said that Hillel had formulated a Jewish version of Confucius’s Golden Rule*. One day a pagan had approached Hillel and promised to convert to Judaism if Hillel could teach him the entire Torah standing on one leg. Hillel replied: ‘What is hateful to yourself do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole of the Torah and the remained is but commentary. Go learn it. ( Karen Armstrong, The Case for God, p. 79)

*From philarchive.org, in a piece by Robert E. Allinson, entitled, The Confucian Golden Rule: A Negative Formulation, we read:

It has perhaps been a source of wonder why Confucius sought to formulate the so-called Golden Rule of Morality in a negative fashion.

Never do unto others what you would not like them to do unto you.

It is my contention a formulation is first of all consonant with other basic implicit Confucian attitudes such as modesty or humility, naturalism, humanism, and the belief in the inherent goodness of human nature, and is, as such, consistent with what we might then term the more inclusive framework of Confucian morality. Secondly, that such a formulation might very well have the intent and/or the effect of promoting moral growth and preventing moral harm.

Upon witnessing the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, in 70 CE, ‘Rabbi Joshua had been unable to contain his grief: Woe is this place, where the sins of Israel find atonement, is laid waste.’ But Rabbi Yohanan replied calmly, ‘Grieve noe, we have an atonement equal to the Temple, the doing of loving deeds, as it is said., ‘I desire love and not sacrifice.’ Kindness would replace the temple ritual; compassion one of the pillars on which the world depended, was the new priestly task. Compassion was also the key to the interpretation of scripture. (Armstrong, op. cit. p. 79)

A similar tension between literal constructionists, revering the ‘letter’ of the American Constitution, and those who revere its spirit or intent occupies considerable space in the public square in the United States. The more formal, strict, and historically valid (according to the constructionists) view, is a model held and revered quite tightly among conservative Chrsitian scholars and practitioners.

In the progressive Christianity camp, American Episcopal Bishop, John Spong,  argued that the Christian church must change or die. Many scholars have taken that to mean ‘embrace the science’ that was allegedly eclipsing many of traditional Christian beliefs.

From  the gospelcoalition.org. in a piece entitled ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal Christianity’ by George Sinclair#, April 2, 2019, we read:

First of all, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are political, not theological words….The words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, when applied to churches, are indicators of a profonde difference, which has no connection to how the words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are usually used. In the Protestant world, a ‘liberal’ Christian is one who is redefining the Christian faith so that it is shaped by one or mor contemporary philosophies and/or ideologies. In other words, the philosophies or ideologies change the ‘Christian’ faith so that the ‘faith’ is aligned with, and does not contradict, the philosophy of ideology in question. Fifty years ago, he liberal Christian faith was changed to fit with Marxism and/or the sexual revolution and/or Rogerian therapy and/or philosophical naturalism. Today it might be postmodernism and/or feminism and/or queer theory and/or transgenderism  and/or native spirituality.

.

So-called “conservative Protestant Christianity seeks ‘straight up’ ‘historical’ biblically faithful, biblically controlled Christianity—a Christianity which is prepared to dissent from the dominant philosophies and ideologies of society because Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour that people is every time and every people group truly need to be made right with the true and living God, creator and sustainer of al things.

#George Sinclair is currently Rector of Church of the Messiah in the heart of urban Ottawa, as part of the Anglican Network in Canada (AniC) separated from the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC)

Generally this ‘separation’ has come about because of the conservative theological leanings of its laity and clergy. This scribe, for better or worse, without embracing fully all of the prevailing ideologies, cites by Sinclair, leans towards the ‘liberal’ especially as the traditional ecclesial position has isolated, abandoned, segregated and despised many groups in its history….In my personal experience, I was being considered as a potential candidate for an Episcopal church in Boulder, Colorado, where the rector was a strong ‘conservative’ theolog. He was proud to have sponsored a candidate for ‘conversion therapy’ who was then a student at the divinity school, undergoing therapy to revert back to being ‘straight’ from being homosexual. Knowing that a turbulent collision was about to erupt, if I were to be considered seriously, I wrote the rector explaining how God’s grace, divinity and image were not segregated into gay or straight, and that my God was not about to exclude any of His children from full association within the Episcopal church and, in my theology, would welcome them into his sanctuary. Needless to say, I received an immediate response declaring, “We simply cannot work together!” as I fully anticipated.

In previous posts, the matter of human sexuality and the Christian church has been broached, briefly.  In this space, it seems time to dig a little deeper into the tension between the Christian faith and gender diversity.

From the Human Rights Campaign website, hrc.org.we read:

When Christians think about gender, they tend to go back to the beginning. In Genesis, we find two stories about how things came to be, one of which says, ‘So God created humankind in him image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27) If you grew up hearing these stories and living with people who seemed to fit inside these gender boxes, the existence of transgender people may seem to fly in the face of God’s created order. However, when we look a little closer at each of these passages we find a much more complex and beautiful world. For instance, when God creates man and women in Genesis 1, it’s after creating opposites in every other corner of creation—day and night, land and sea, flying birds and swimming fish. Humans then, are also created in an opposite pair-male and female. But the problem with a literal reading of this text that even though Genesis 1 sets up these binaries, God’s creation exists in spectrums. In between day and night, we have dawn and dusk; between land and sea, we have coral reefs and estuaries and beaches; between flying birds and swimming fish we have penguins and high jumping dolphins, not to mention that uncategorizable favorite the platypus! No one would argue that a penguin is an abomination for not fitting the categories of Genesis 1, or that an estuary isn’t pleasing to God  because it’s neither land nor sea. In the same way, God gives every human a self that is unique and may not always fit neatly into a box or binary.

For some, these words may remind them of a story I heard from a friend psychologist. His son was repeatedly coming home with sad faces from his teacher until one day, the little boy came home with a ‘Happy Face’  and a gold star. Father, surprised and excited asked, “How did this happen?”

The young and brilliant son’s reply warrants repeating:

“Oh, well, Dad, the teacher was always complaining that my drawing was not fitting inside the lines. So, today, I drew my picture first, and then drew the lines around the picture.”

Sometimes, we have to think more like that little creative genius. And, the search and pursuit of God is more about ‘colouring outside the lines’ than it is in fitting our lives inside some previously determined lines of conformity and compliance.

And while that theological, psychological, as well as moral and ethical premise makes some quite uncomfortable, let those know that the inverse also makes many of us ‘others’ uncomfortable also.