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.

The Rob Bell Kerfluffle

I'm finding the debate about Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, to be very interesting and perhaps revealing of a fundamental struggle that is going on in the evangelical church (at least in North America, where the evangelical church is struggling for survival, IMHO. It's thriving and growing in other parts of the world.)

Some interesting things about this debate are that it began to get ferocious before the book was even released and many of the same things are being said by lots of people who I don't believe have read the book. I haven't read the book, either, but I'm writing about the debate about the book, so I thought it would be good to get down my pre-reading impressions first. (I did buy it. It's on my rather large "To Read in Future" pile.)

The National Post gives an interesting overview of the debate. The whole argument of the book is summed up by Bell's account of seeing a note taped to a Gandi quote that was part of a display at his church: "Reality check: he's in hell." Bell's honest questions are where the debate begins:

Within the national post interview, an evangelical writer (who I've never heard of - Jimmy Spencer - I can't help but wonder from what he says how long he will be considered "evangelical") says this about Bell:

Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther said Christians had the right to read the Bible for themselves and define it for themselves. What you’re seeing in Rob is the use of the same motif. I don’t know if Rob Bell is a new Martin Luther, but at the time of the Reformation Martin Luther wasn’t Martin Luther.

There is an erosion that has taken place within evangelical communities today and Rob Bell strikes at the heart of that divide between whether you think God is inclusive or exclusive.

The worst thing you can be accused of in many evangelical settings today is to be called a "universalist." I've heard it a few times in the recent past as a "you don't want to go there" aside in conversations with other Christians. However, I must say that I would rather be accused of being a universalist, than be accused of being the most contemptible of religious types: "fundamentalist."

Another thing I noticed from the article was an incredibly ignorant statement by someone at Christianity Today, which makes me realize why I no longer subscribe to this magazine:

For Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today, what concerns him about Love Wins is what he calls Rob Bell’s failure to behave like a real pastor.

He leaves readers with more questions because he hasn’t really done his job as a teacher, which is what a minister is supposed to be. Instead, he has become a provocateur.

You walk away thinking this is what Rob Bell teaches, not what the Bible teaches.

This is incredibly naive for two different reasons: Jesus did not answer all questions - he told stories. He didn't even explain what most of his parables meant and left his disciples confused more often than not. Also, a quality of a good teacher is someone who always leaves his students with more questions than answers. A very exasperated grade 3 student once blurted out to me: "Can't you ever give us a straight answer?" Well, no, I can't because I'm a teacher and I'm trying to be a good one.

Do you know what Mark Galli is describing as a good teacher? A fundamentalist. I hate that word and that way of thinking.

If anything does lead to hell, the fundamentalist way of thinking (no matter what religion) does.
Update: Here's an interesting article about the history behind the rejection of hell and universalism. Long story short: Bell's not the first to say these things and be rejected by the church.

Imago Dei

I've begun teaching a grade 4 class here and I was talking one time with them about the concept of what it means to be created in the image of God. All of the kids, except for one, insisted that the idea of image was a physical one: that God had a real body. The one child who disagreed kept repeating, "No, God is a spirit!" Finally, I did weigh in that the one child was the one who had the idea and that the imago dei, or image of God, was not about the physical.

Now, we look at children and understand that developmentally, they go through stages of thinking and believing from the concrete to the more abstract. The idea of imago dei as a literal, physical concept is almost impossible for children to shake until they acheive a certain level.

It has occured to me recently that fundamentalist Christians who take umbrage with the concept that we have evolved at all are, in a sense, stuck at the level of thinking that imago dei is a physical idea. They struggle with, as I have in the past, the idea that we are just a few ticks off, genetically speaking, from the chimpanzee. The concept that we are mammals is uncomfortable for a fundamentalist and my idea here is that, in some unconscious way, they can't get over the idea that imago dei is physical is some way.

This is yet another way that fundamentalist thinking is really a betrayal of the core doctrines of Christianity.

Why Conservatives Can't Be Allowed to Govern

Read this diary at Daily Kos first

That diary I have linked above gives the reason the mainstream media has failed the American public so miserably in the past few decades. It has allowed the fanatical rantings of pundits from the far right (Yes, I'm looking directly at you, Faux News) to become the main points of "debate" in the media. This is false, wrong debate based on false equivalencies, such as the idiotic debate between "creation science" and "evolution" - There are no points of contention. If you want to look at things from a scientific perspective, you go with Evolution. If you want ultimate answers to the meaning of life, you'll have to go with religion or philosophy.

Bill Maher, with whom I disagree quite a bit on some things obviously, had a great segment recently (NSFW language alert!) in which he asserted that we have too many false debates. There are no two perfectly defined sides to every issue or event in the news. We need to stop pretending that people like the birthers have a real point. We need to stop pretending that the truth is up for debate and can be discovered only through proper polling. Case in point, most people seem to be under the delusion that the Arizona immigration law is a good idea. It's not. It WILL lead to racial profiling and the detention of US citizens. There is no debate needed. The truth needs to be told, no matter what the public thinks. The media is supposed to inform the public, not reassure the public that everything they believe is really OK. In this way, the public actually has the ability to decide based on the truth, not based on distortions of interpretations or "misrememberings."

Something that is demonstrably true: Conservatives will drive the economy into the ground with run away spending if they are allowed to govern. This is not a debate:

The Deficit You're Freaking Out About is Bush's Fault

There is also another chart that demonstrates how the US under President Obama is actually on the road to recovery - this is also known as the "bikini graph," which just makes Rachel Maddow blush:

Both charts together directly contradict the narrative being pushed by the massive conservative media machine that the economy is in some kind of nose dive. No, the economy WAS in a nose dive under Bush and Obama pulled the plane out of the nose dive just like James Bond did at the beginning of Goldeneye. Furthermore, what was happening under Bush is exactly what results in the free wheeling, unregulated economy that conservatives are always screaming for.

Please, please educate yourself on what the economy has gone through in reality before voting in November.

Why We Need Separation of Church and State

This video of the beginning of the Anti-Historical Texas State Board of Education demostrates why the founding fathers wanted this separation.  This "prayer" is full of lies and historical untruths regarding the USA:



I'm actually appalled that a governmental body like this is allowed to open in prayer at all.  At one point in the past, having a little opening prayer was non-partisan, but this prayer is so obviously skewed and demonstrates the warped agenda of the Anti-Christian "Christian" Right that this kind of thing needs to be banned completely.  Just like the Day of Prayer has been hijacked by the religio-political interests of the Dobsonites, the idea of prayer during any goverment event needs to questioned and, perhaps, eliminated.

Persecution? Spare me....

I can't understand why Franklin Graham has gone so off the rails. I do have a lot of respect for his father, but his son is making the move toward mixing politics with religion. His father, Billy Graham, did not specifically endorse political positions and avoided policy talk in his preaching. He understood what the primary gospel message was, but Franklin is buying into this radical right wingnuttery by going down the Faux News victimhood argument.

In the interview given to wingnut Newsmax he says that his "disinvintation" to the Pentagon is some kind of affront to his freedom of religion. It's not. He's giving the interview and talking on Faux News about how he's so picked on. He's free.

However, his comments about Muslims are a relevant issue. How are we going to make any kind of peace with Muslim nations by excluding them, marginalizing them and calling them evil? Even if you want to preach the gospel to Muslims, you don't begin the conversation by saying their beliefs are evil.

Graham has also probably raised the risk factor for those Christian missionaries who are trying to work with the Muslim people in a manner that is not based on the hate that he is employing. As Bush's war on Iraq increased the amount of terrorist attacks in the world, so will Graham's hateful rhetoric increase the actual persecution of Christians.

Obama needs to make peace with Muslim countries. Didn't Jesus say "blessed are the peacemakers"? Compare Graham's talk with Obama's and tell me - who is actually doing what Jesus would do?

Subtle Fundamentalism

I spent a lot of time thinking about Fundamentalism over spring break - Yes, I think it's fun...why do you ask? - Anyway, I wrote a short summary paper about fundamentalism. Looking at the current so-called "war on terror", Craig Unger points out that this war is really a war about religious fundamentalism (both Islamic and Christian) versus the modern world. Terry Eagleton points out that fundamentalism is a "textual affair" - it 'worships' dead text. The very act of preaching should negate fundamentalism, because as soon as we open our mouth - we are interpreting in a new way. Paul Ricoeur shuddered at the very idea of a "sacred text" - because Christianity is supposed to be about worshipping Christ, not the very text that speaks of him.

Fundamentalism is often characterized as obvious - thundering, smashing its way through society. However, I'm beginning to realize how subtle it can be. I stumbled upon this quote in a magazine for Christian school teachers:

"If Christianity is truth, then Christian education is the only true education and therefore the only practical education. There is no education, no truth - nothing - without God, the eternal author of reality."

(quote is attributed to David Claerbaut, Faith and Learning on the Edge)

Oh, really? It seems like a nice comfortable, perhaps pithy kind of quote, but I will contend that it is an example of how subtle fundamentalism will be.

Let's unpack it a bit by looking first at its conclusion: no education without God, no truth without God... Right away, I begin thinking that the rain falls on the evil and the good, doesn't it? If this is true, then isn't this quote a slap in the face of any kind of public education. Does this mean that Muslims could never make an important discovery or speak truth - ever? Obviously, that cannot be true. Not every invention, every innovation, every insight on this planet was initiated and completed by a Christian.

Wait a second....let's back up to the If...then statement...

If Christianity is truth.....

Interesting assumption. The obvious question: Is Christianity truth? Well, I'm not so sure about that. What is Christianity? A belief system...worldview...an interpretation. Christianity is practiced by those who claim to be following Jesus. Christianity look, sounds, and is experienced differently by different people in different cultures in different ways. How can the practice of following Christ by truth?

Christ never said this. He did say: "I am the way, the truth and the life..." Perhaps we are proceeding from false assumptions or am I being fundamentalistic in my interpretation? *shudder* Well, let's put that aside for now....

So Christ/God is TRUTH. So it must follow that truth is embedded in Creation and all people, who are created in God's image, will respond to it in different ways. Therefore, an atheist may discover a deep, hidden truth that, yes, even Christians can benefit from.

Is Christian education the only 'true' education....nope, can't be. Well, at least it can't be based on this line of reasoning. Sometimes in the intense competitiveness between schools, we need to 'sell' the Christian school to make it 'look' better. Perhaps this kind of thinking is a result of that - for fundamentalism is, ultimately, a fear of non-being, of death, according to Eagleton. Some schools are just not able to compete against the government funding of public schools and are fighting for survival. Fundamentalism, ultimately, never works, though. Clearer thinking is needed.