Kicking Against the Dome

If you are vaguely familiar with Stephen King's book, Under the Dome, which also became an awful TV series; you know about this idea of a town trapped by a dome. It's impenetrable and cuts the town off from the outside world. Now, I have not gotten to finishing the book, so I don't really know where the dome came from. (Part of the reason for that is I got tired of reading the book, so didn't really care.)

I imagine this is similar to Christian sub-culture. By having Christian schools, bookstores, universities, movies, music, etc, we have created a culture in which we can live out our days and never really get a sense of the real world. Please notice I didn't put the word world in quotes because the effect of this dome is to actually cut ourselves off from the actual, real world. I remember this was something I was becoming sensitive to even as I attended a Christian high school. Some friends and I talked about never being a part of this sub-culture. However, through life events, I find myself having completed about 25 years of teaching, all within Christian education.

Hindsight tells me it stemmed from the bullying I was a victim of during my years in the public system. For me, Christian high school was my escape. It was positive in that the bullying stopped and also positive in that I had some very wise teachers who did not let me shy away from "controversial" subjects such as evolution. In that Christian high school was planted the seeds of the constant questioning that is swirling in my thoughts day and night. I can't get away from it. The downside was that the idea of teaching in the public system scares me to this day, probably because I associate it with being bullied.

Beginning with evolution and the origins of life, I became a follower of Christ who was constantly kicking against the dome. I became open to the fact that the downside of all this "Christian" as an adjective, was that we were cutting ourselves off from becoming part of the world. We have so misused the verse about "not being of the world" that we have created a complete world for ourselves. This world is artificial and not based on reality. It is also a world that is under threat as more and more people wake up to the distortions of truth and misapplications of the Bible that are used to justify scientific ignorance, homophobia, contempt of women, immigrants, and the poor.

(In order to preserve this world and maintain it's power, because, let's face it, the Evangelical Church = the Religious Right = Conservative Political Parties in many Western countries. This is why the "church" is so quick to back  Donald Trump. Truth is secondary to maintaining power. It's a truth in all religious fundamental movements, too.)

Where am I at, personally? I struggle with going to a church that I have lost faith in. Meanwhile, I am becoming stronger in my faith. Sometimes the most stressful part of the week is going to church, so I skip it. It's difficult because my family is so involved in the church that I'm not sure what to say. I think and believe differently than most of my co-workers at the Christian school I work at, even though I believe there are very good things happening. I think and believe differently that my wife and daughters, even though I love them fiercely. What to do with that?

Blessed are the peacemakers. Maybe that's my mantra. I just finished reading Peter Enns' book, The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read it. All scripture should be seen through the lens of Jesus' life and teachings. I think that's where I need to start. Begin examining the life and example of someone else who kicked against the dome.

Why I Am No Longer "Evangelical"

I can't do it anymore. I can't identify or be a part of the the ultra-powerful, ultra-rich movement called Evangelical. I reject it. #weneedanewreformation

Why? I think part of it has to do with the Manhattan Declaration which was posted Nov 20, 2009. Basically, it's a call for Christians to unite under the issues of abortion, marriage, and "religious freedom." The only reason I can understand why this document "needed' to be published was the election of President Barack Obama and the fear mongering that came from places like Fox News, and some of many of the signatories of the MD, itself. This document made me realize that the evangelical church had lost it's moorings and continued the drift away from an approach that allows Christians to be in discussion on these important issues and settles them.

The first two reasons, abortion and "traditional" marriage, are not points in which all Christians agree. They never will. There are Christians who reject both and Christians who accept both. Christians, in this diverse, inter-connected world have no excuse for sticking their heads in the sand and being this uninformed about these subjects. Also, I have found in looking at both subjects have many lies supporting their version of the "truth." For example, the old lie that abortion causes breast cancer or reduces the chances of having children in the future. These are not true, yet the so-called pro-life movement clings to these. As for marriage, the historical development of "traditional" (aka man-woman) marriage is not as ancient as the authors of the declarations would lead you to believe. (I guess I should be putting links up, but I say just google outside your comfort zone, evangelicals, and realize the whole rich, diverse world that is actual Christianity.)

The third reason is "religious freedom." Looking again and again at the Evangelical Party the Republican Party we find that "religious freedom" basically means the freedom to be a bigoted, intolerant, uninformed "Christian" without any push back. Say you're "pro-life" and you will get push back in a Democratic society. That's not restricting religious freedom, that's just natural and healthy debate. Not having religious displays on government property or saying prayers before city council meetings is just realizing that historically, the USA was founded as a secular nation to avoid the squabbles that different religious beliefs bring up.

What the Manhattan Declaration is doing was solidifying the connection between a political party and a church. Remind you of something? I'm thinking of how powerful and influential and just plain rich the Catholic Church was in the 1500s. You know, that same church that inspired Martin Luther to nail those 95 Theses to the door. Ironically, the rich and powerful and influential church of today is claiming that it is the nailer. Nothing could be farther from the truth. 

Where am I in all this? As near as I can tell, I can affirm the Apostles' Creed as the actual declaration in which we find common ground: 

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic and apostolic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,

    and the life everlasting. Amen.

Now, even some of those statements may be up for debate among sincere Christ followers. For example: "What does virgin actually mean in that time in history, in that culture?" We shouldn't be afraid of expansive questioning. We should be afraid of when essentially political statements, like the Manhattan Declaration become some sort of add-on to what makes a "real" Christian. I'm beginning to use #weneedanewreformation on Twitter as a result of all this thinking. I think it's time. However, anything beyond these statements is just an add-on.

(Further reflection: Read this open letter by Frank Schaeffer to the GOP and follow Frank Schaeffer's writings to understand how the Religious Right has risen to such power in the US. I recommend his books, especially Crazy for God which shows how the views espoused by the MD evolved since the 1970s.)

Metaphor Shapes Our World

I recently read the book, I is an Other: The Secret Life of Metaphor and How it Shapes How We See the World. It is about how metaphor is embedded in all languages and even, as Emerson says, "Language is fossil poetry" Many words and phrases we use are actually metaphors, even though we don't always think of it that way. It's not just in phrases such as "Love is a red, red rose." (Shakespeare), but when we say things like "I don't get it." The metaphor is embedded in the phrase. We even will extend the metaphor by saying, "I don't grasp your meaning."

Metaphor is also a powerful way of shaping the way we think about things. Advertisers, politicians, newscasters know this. For example, when the US was fighting the First Gulf War, General Schwarzkopf said that a certain attack would be a "Hail Mary pass." Now that metaphor cast the US Armed Forces in the underdog role, and thus elicited more sympathy for the war by the US public. (Or at least that was the goal).

Metaphors force us to think and confront ideas in new and different ways. We use lots of metaphors implying fighting/war when we're talking about cancer, specifically. We fight, we battle, we're survivors, etc. Some studies have shown that these metaphors can have a negative effect on some patients who don't believe they're going to win. The mindset of battle can actually have a negative consequence.

My personal experience with metaphors came to a head with our new ad campaign at school. I was put off and hit hard by the phrase used: "Custom Fit Learning." Now that shouldn't have been such a hard punch to me, as I'm familiar with the concepts of individualized/differentiated learning and instruction. Somehow, those phrases did not intimidate me as much as "custom fit." That was terrifying and seemed impossible for me. It helped to think carefully about this. Do I want the opposite: "One size fits all" learning? Well, no, I don't like that, either. So after thinking about the metaphor it became clearer to me what the goal of education should be. So I see custom fit as an ongoing process, and thus seems less intimidating. The main point being that it was only when I saw the metaphor, that it got me to think more deeply and clarified what individualized/differentiated was supposed to be about, anyway.

Metaphor also is used by students who receive a grade. "I got an A." As a teacher, I have thought about "giving the student a grade." The downside is it implies that the student is given the grade and the teacher is giving, which is top-down. The teacher is higher and handing the grade down. It can even imply, at least in many students' thinking that I've noticed, that the student has no control over the grade. I've been thanked for giving a certain grade and I try to explain that it was their work and effort. Now, I'm thinking about a different metaphor for grading. How about "show"? I guess the fancy word is "demonstrated", but I think it easier for students to think of "showing" or "displaying" something. The responsibility then shifts from teacher to student. It also takes some of the stigma off a grade, I think. The student may be a great reader, but write little and talk little about their reading. If we let the metaphor of "show" sink in to the culture at large, the student, and parents hopefully, will understand that low grade in reading is only on what they have "shown" or "displayed." As I say to students often, "I'm not a mind reader. I can only go by what you show me. If you hand me a blank page, well I don't have much of a choice, do I?" I really wonder

how different parents and students would react to a grade if they really thought of it as something "shown" and not "given."