Faith Friday: Serving God, Serving Others

As I've mentioned before, Bryan and I started looking for a church at the beginning of the year.  We started visiting a local UMC that literally is one stop sign down from our home.  We like that it was so close, and agreed with the major points in their statement of faith on their website.  We continued visiting because of the welcoming and laid back atmosphere, the lack of theological mandates and the acceptance of multiple points of view.  This past Sunday, we attended a Church 101 class, the focus of which was to introduce us to the history of the Methodist denomination in general and of this United Methodist Church in particular.  After the meeting, Bryan and I decided to place our membership--meaning we now have an official church home!

I don't know much about joining churches of other denominations, but to join a UMC you simply pledge to uphold the church by your "prayers, presence, gifts and service."  This was the first time that I made the pledge as an adult and the first time Bryan made that pledge to a UMC.

On the way home, Bryan and I were discussing our newly-made commitment to the church.  "Prayers and presence" aren't a problem at all, and "gifts" only requires that we look at our budget to figure out how much we can commit to giving right now.  "Service" however is the one aspect we're trying to figure out.  It's as much of an individual decision as anything, as we're each trying to figure out what roles we might want/be able to fill in the church community.  I love that, at this church, there seems to be an equal emphasis placed on all spiritual gifts and acts of service, and that they don't seem to hold any as better than the others.

And all this thinking got me to thinking.

So many times, Christians put a priority emphasis on serving God by sharing His Gospel.  At the church I attended in high school, it seemed like verbally witnessing to someone was the ultimate act of service--and that all of the other areas of service were simply stepping stones towards that goal.  In other words, the purpose of serving others is to create a relationship through which you can verbally share the Gospel.

And that bothers me.

The two-fold Great Commandment of the New Testament says to "love your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" and to "love your neighbor as yourself."  If we love God so completely, than we love what He loves--his children, also known as mankind.  Because God loves our neighbors as much as He loves us, so must we.  I'm totally on board with all  of that.  Not that it's always easy, but I'm on board.

There's another statement known as the Golden Rule--"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  That makes complete sense in light of the Great Commandment.  If we love God, then we love our neighbors as much as ourselves, which means we should treat them how we would want ourselves to be treated.  Again, this can be very challenging, but, so far, I'm still on board.

It's when all of this is made to mean that we should serve people with the end goal of sharing the Gospel that you lose me.  If I needed help, would I want someone to step in and "serve" me?  Absolutely.  Be it by praying for me, be it by putting a new roof on my house, be it serving me food, be it teaching my child something I can't, be it any of the innumerable things that one human being can do for another, if I were in a desperate situation, I would hope that someone would step in with an assist.

However, would I want the reason for that to be so that they could talk about their point of view on faith and God and religion?  Absolutely not.  I would want it to be because they wanted to help--not so that I would feel obliged to listen to them later.  So, if I'm loving others as I love myself, and treating them as I would like to be treated, why in the world would I serve them for this reason?

It seems to me that serving people with the goal of sharing the Gospel verbally means that our hearts aren't quite in the right place.  We should serve people out of love--love both for them, and for the God who loves them so dearly.  We should serve them, no stings attached, because that is how we ourselves would want to be served.  After all, that's what was so radical about the practice of Christianity as the religion emerged.  Not the words that were said, not the way the apostles witnessed, but the way that Christians loved each other and loved the world--no strings attached--because of the freedom that came from God/Christ loving them.

I always have and always will love the quote from St. Francis of Asisi:  "Share the Gospel.  Use words if necessary."  If someone asks why I serve, then I can explain.  If they don't ask and I don't say, that doesn't mean the Gospel hasn't been shared--just that it hasn't been shared out lout.  Some might protest this statement, saying "How can non-Christians be saved if they don't hear the truth?"  Well, for starters, I've already covered that I don't think non-Christians necessarily need saving.  Beyond that, by shoving Christianity down someone's throat without them asking or feeling some sort of spiritual lack in their lives, you're just as likely to turn them off completely as you are to "bring them to Christ".  Especially if they already have their own faith.

Let me end by saying that I am fully aware that there are many spiritual gifts, one of which being the gift of verbally sharing the gospel.  There are those--including many preachers and missionaries--that have this gift.  I'm not by any means saying that they should deny their spiritual gift.  My point is simply that 1) that's not the only spiritual gift and 2) serving others should be done out of love for them, not out of some design to create an opportunity to verbally share the Gospel.

VIA

Faith Fridays: Natural Disasters

Originally, I wasn't going to write a post about the earthquake in Japan.

It's a devastating natural disaster, one that has destroyed countless lives as well as critically injured Japan's economy.  It will take years for that beautiful, interesting country to completely recover.

I wasn't going to write about it because, honestly, no words of mine can do justice to the situation or to the pain and devastation being felt by the Japanese.

So, what exactly changed my mind?

Some fairly obtuse statements made by certain individuals in the Christian community that have been circulated via Facebook status updates.  Quite frankly, they pissed me off.  Yes, there will be a bit of personal ranting in this post...you are warned.  I'm not going to go into every statement in the linked articles that made me say, "Wait, now WHAT?!" but I am going to deal with they two that seem to be the most pervasive.

The first statement that royally pissed me off is that "natural disasters are the result of the Fall and the sinful nature of this world."  Now, this isn't the first time I've heard this.  Someone tried to tell me this back in high school as well, and even at fourteen I realized something didn't quite add up.  Why?

Well, let's start at the beginning.  The beginning of what?  Everything.

(Earth rise over the Moon, photographed by Apollo 17) 

 

If you adhere to Christian theology (or several others), God created the world.  According to Genesis (and common sense) the Earth came into existence before mankind.  Looking back at my 8th grade science education, the world is divided into four parts--the crust, the mantle, the outer core and the inner core.  Furthermore, the crust is divided into tectonic plates.  These plates rest on the semi-molten mantle and sort of float around on it.  Because there is motion involved, there is friction where the plates meet--also known as fault lines.  Depending on the type of fault, the friction can cause mountains, valleys--or earthquakes.

Seeing as many of Earth's mountains and valleys were formed prior to human existence, I think it's pretty safe to say that earthquakes--and thus tsunamis as well--were also taking place before human existence.

Having established that, how in the heck can you say that natural disasters are a consequence of human sin?!?  That's pretty dadgum arrogant if you ask me.  The earth simply continues to operate the way it always has, and since humans live on the crust--and live at fault line sites--we have to deal with the consequences.  This goes for weather patterns and those of us living in hurricane pathways as well.

A second statement that has been irritating me concerns all of the "prophecies" that show that we are living close to or in the "end times"--many of which point to the recent natural disasters as hallmarks of the beginning of the end.  I'm not about to get into whether or not I believe that there are current, legitimate prophets in the world today--that's a whole can of worms that I'm not about to open in this post.

However, I am going to point out that everything that is happening in the world now has happened before--to name a few, economic collapse (hello Roman empire), wars (take your pick!), and climate change (yes, humans have lived through it before).  This list also includes natural disasters.  In ancient times there were plenty--two of the most famous being Vesuvius erupting and Atlantis flooding (yes, I think there was a real Atlantis and recent archaeological findings back me up on that).  Anyone who has taken a World History class knows all of that.  Another sticking point from the theological side is the statement made by Jesus that no one, not even He, knows when the end will come--only God the Father possesses that knowledge.  What that tells me is that whatever the current guesses of today's "prophets" are--yeah, they're wrong.

Anyway, I understand that natural disasters and the suffering they cause are hard to wrap our minds around when we believe in a loving God.  I just wish that people would actually use the brains God gave them to think through what they're about to say before issuing any grand pronouncements on why God "did" this or "let it happen" or, in regards to natural disasters, how humanity "brought this on themselves".

Here's the link to the AmericanRed Cross Donation Page in case you can/want to donate to the Japan Earthquake fund, or any of the other funds listed:

http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main&s_src=RSG000000000&s_subsrc=RCO_NewsArticle

Repost: Forgiveness

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post about forgiveness, which was the topic of today's sermon at church.  When we got home, I reread my old post and realized that my thoughts on forgiveness are still the same as they were last year.  So, instead of writing a whole new post, I'm revising and reposting!  Here are my thoughts on forgiveness--hope y'all enjoy reading!

I was reading a random post earlier today. The person was worrying over their inability to "forgive and forget". They were linking it to a Christian belief structure which, in their interpretation, requires that "good Christians" (what does that even mean anyway?) completely forgive those who have wronged them and to put the deeds against them out of mind. In other words forgive and forget. I honestly think that's a load of malarky.

First, to deal with the forgiveness part. 

I do believe that humans can truly forgive one another. That said, I think that there are two main types of forgiveness: forgiveness after repentance, and repentance-less forgiveness. Now the first type is by far the easier of the two. When the person(s) who wronged us truly feels bad AND tries to make amends (repentance is as much an ACTION as a frame of mind), then it is easier to forgive. It can still take a lot of time, and a lot of soul searching, but knowing that the other party truly regrets their actions and the hurt they caused helps. 

 

The second kind of forgiveness is a much more difficult and self-oriented thing. If the person(s) doing the harming don't repent--or even acknowledge that they perpetrated hurtful acts--it becomes much more difficult to feel forgiving towards them. I think this type of forgiving takes a lot longer, and is done more for a personal benefit than for any other reason. Not forgiving someone who hurt you means those hurt and angry feelings stay...which eventually will hurt your life and growth as a person. So at that point forgiveness is much more a self-oriented thing than an outward expression.

Now to deal with "forgive and forget". 

I understand that Christianity does put a great emphasis on forgiving others' "trespasses against us" as Christ/God forgive us for ours; however, the only place in the Bible that I (in my admittedly non-extensive Biblical knowledge) remember dealing with memory and trespasses is where it talks about God putting our sins as far as east is from west upon repentance. I can only think that this is where people get the "forgive and forget" stuff from. That's understandable, because let's face it, East from West is just about as far a distance as you can get in the world of metaphor and conceptualized distances. However, nowhere in all of that is "forgetting" mentioned.

So, here's my issue with the expectation of "forgive and forget" as expressed by certain interpretation of Christian doctrine.  God is the ultimate, perfect being and (according to the Bible) we were created in His image. Humans have memory, albeit imperfect.  If we are imperfect mirrors of God, then it stands to reason that God is the perfection whose image we reflect. So, take our imperfect memory--presumably, God has a perfect memory (which He'd have to to accomplish a variety of other actions attributed to Him and His abilities). Which means, that He CANNOT forget. Even with the whole East from West thing, nowhere does it say "God accepts your repentance, forgives you, and forgets about it." He just puts it far away.

So transpose that onto humanity. God, with His infinite mind, has the ability to mentally push things as far as East is from West. Yeah, humans?  We ain't got that (:-P). Which means for the really big hurts and wrongs, we won't ever truly be able to forget them. We can choose not to dwell on them, we can not think about them often, etc, but they never truly go away. Big hurts leave scars on our souls, hearts, and minds. They are a huge part of the process that makes us who we are (of course a bigger part of that process is how we react to those hurts, but that discussion is for another time). Which means that while we might be able to forgive the person(s) who cause these wrongs and hurts, we'll never forget that they hurt us.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why "forgive and forget" is such a load of crap. Forgive, definitely. Don't expect it to be an overnight process, and don't beat yourself up if it takes time. But forget? Don't expect to forget about the big hurts and don't beat yourself up about not being able to. Especially since no one is actually asking it of you.

Anyways, I was just thinking :-).

 

On another note, Bryan and I are attending a membership class next Sunday to decide whether or not to place membership at the church we've been attending!  Bryan's enjoys the church and is happy with the idea of becoming members, and I'm super-excited!!!

Today's Sermon and Our First Church Visit

When I decided I wanted to find a church to attend, Bryan and I talked about our upbringings and the theologies of various churches in our immediate area.

Of those churches immediately around us, there's a Baptist church, several community-type churches, an Episcopal Church, a Catholic Church, a Church of Christ and a whole slew of Methodists.

We went down the list.

Neither one of us wanted to attend a Baptist church--no offense to any Baptists intended.

It's simply that the theology of most Baptist churches is a bit more black and white than either of us are comfortable with.

The community-type churches are neat and have some really cool start-up stories.

That said, the one closest to our house is a pretty big church, and we were hoping for something smaller.

And honestly, there are several churches closer, and we wanted to check those out first.

As for the Episcopalians and the Catholics--well, they're pretty much the same, minus the Pope-centered authority found in Catholicism.

We don't ascribe to several theological aspects found in both--so those were out.

Bryan grew up Church of Christ and, due to some negative experiences, really didn't want to go back.

I was fine with that as there are some attitudes and theologies that I've observed in the Churches of Christ that I attend with which I don't really agree.

Plus, I'd miss the instrumental music ;-).

Which left us with several Methodist Churches to choose from.

I grew up Methodist and have always enjoyed the laid-back, open-to-discussion atmosphere.

Bryan and I discussed it, and we agreed that the Methodist theology and attitude is the most in line with our current beliefs.

Today we went to the closest one--which is literally 2 stop signs down the road!

We left our house at 9:33 and sat down in the sanctuary at 9: 38 to attend the Blended Worship Service.

The whole experience was wonderful!

We were greeted by a few folks as we walked in, but not in a greeter-hiding-behind-the-door-waiting-to-jump-out-and-shake-your-hand-off manner.

It was just pleasant smiles and good-mornings.

The pastor was very friendly--he came around and shook are hands.

Oh, and he's an Aggie to boot!  Whoop!

The combination of traditional hymns and contemporary praise songs to the music of a piano and clarinet was very enjoyable and not at all distracting.

People were dressed in everything from nice dresses to blue jeans and nice tops--the whole atmosphere was very chill, as well as being one of community, happiness and worship.

There was a baby dedication--I loved the format!  A dedication is what Bryan and I want to do for our kiddo as opposed to an infant baptism, which we don't believe in.

The message was a good one--love others.

It was delivered in a sharing format, instead of a traditional sermon.

The church is currently doing a series that highlights their core theological points--Love God, Love Others, Serve the World.

As the pastor said, when you get religion out of the way, it's really very simple.

I couldn't agree more.

We're going to continue visiting for a while before we make the decision whether or not to join.

We want to hear the pastor actually give a sermon as well as get a long-term feel for the congregation and for the church itself.

That said, I think this might be the place--the theology, the atmosphere, the people...it felt like a fit.

Anyway, I'm very excited about going back next week!

Hope everyone else has had a wonderful weekend!

Faith Friday: The Problem of Pain

Well, I'm certainly not starting off with a light topic, am I?
In advance, I'd love to hear y'all's thoughts on this too!

Just to preface, I'm looking at the problem of pain from the point of view of the Christian tradition, as that's what I'm most familiar with. :-)

The problem of pain refers to the conundrum that if God is loving, omnipotent (all-powerful) and just, how can there be pain and suffering in the world?

Or put another way, since there is pain and suffering in the world, how can a loving, all-powerful and just God exist?

This is a question that had broken many a person's faith in God.

For some reason, however, I've never had a problem reconciling the two seemingly mutually exclusive concepts.

I took me quite a few years to actually verbalize why I can reconcile suffering with a loving, just, all-powerful God.

The first and most important point to make is that I believe God gave us free will.

Some might argue that free will is pointless since God is omniscient (all-knowing), but I'll address that next week.

For now, let it suffice to say that I disagree.

Anyway, God gave us free will.

You can't "sorta kinda" have free will.  There are no half-measures involved.

You either have free will or you don't.

Since we do, our decisions are our own, and the consequences of those decisions are ours to bear. 

 Having established that, lets move on.

The way I see it, there are two categories of pain and suffering.

First of all, there's suffering and pain we bring upon ourselves, or suffering and pain whose cause can be clearly seen.

For example, someone gets drunk, drives and gets into a car crash, killing another person.

The person who chose to drink and drive brought their share of the suffering upon themselves, and those who have lost a loved one can see a clear cause-effect relationship between another person's bad decision and their pain and suffering.

Secondly, there's suffering and pain that people do not bring upon themselves, and that seems to be without cause or reason.

For example, the millions of children starving in Africa.

Those children have done nothing to bring their pain upon themselves, and there is no clear person responsible for their suffering.

Now, God is loving--which means that He wants to spare us all pain and suffering.

God is omnipotent (all-powerful)--which means that He has the ability to spare us all pain and suffering.

Generally speaking, everyone's on board and ok with these first two.

It's the third charcteristic--God is just--that causes the problem.

Remember, God gave us free will--total free will.

It's an integral part of who and what we are.

Looking at the first type of pain--the type we bring on ourselves or for which there's a clear cause--OF COURSE God wants to spare us.

After all, we're the ones making the stupid decision that hurts ourselves and others.

Now, in regards to the drunk driving example, God could strip the drunk driver of his free will.

Force him to decide that, no, he's not going to drive in the state he's in.

That would prevent the car crash and the attendant suffering.

 However, would that be the just thing to do?

Of course not.

It's a lesson that I had to teach my high school students over and over again.

Just because something is contrary to what you would like or how you believe things should be, this does not mean that the situation (or the person in charge) is unjust.

One aspect of justice is treating everyone the same.

Since God gave everyone free will, it would be UNjust of Him to pick and choose the moments during which and the individuals from whom it would be taken away.

And a just God cannot be unjust.

Now, looking at the second type of pain--the one that we've done nothing to bring upon ourselves and for which there is no clear cause.

It's important to understand that free will does not just affect those whom the decisions directly touch.

Take the children starving in Africa.

The political and economical situation in Africa is a result of a multitude of factors, including colonialism and its effects, war, corruption, etc.

Each of these factors were brought into the equation by the individual choices that people in the far past and present day have made.

Decisions interact with each other, and their effects can and do echo down through time.

Could God stop this interaction?  

Could He spare those in the present day the consequences of past actions?

Not and still be just.

Just as being just means treating everyone the same, it also means allowing all of the consequences of choices to play out, both for good and bad. 

To not do so is to negate the original choices that were made.

If God negates the effects of our choices, He in effect negates our freedom to make those choices.

Since God would have to pick and choose which consequences to allow, and thus whose choices to negate, He cannot do so and still be just.

And that is how I reconcile the problem of pain with a loving, all-powerful, just God.

One last thing to consider.

Pain teaches lessons.

 As a child, you stick your hand in a fire and it burns you.

You learn pretty quickly not to touch fire again.

When you are bringing pain upon yourself, it's important to learn not to make the choices you're making.

If someone else's decisions cause you pain, you also learn what not to do by avoiding making the same decisions they made.

I believe that God hopes that--since He cannot justly prevent our pain and suffering--we learn from the consequences of choice, and grow into stronger, better people thought our experiences with pain and suffering.

Granted, many people close their eyes to lessons brought about by pain and let the pain and the perceived unfairness of it all consume them

But that too is an exercise in free will.  

Church Shopping: Postponed

Last week I posted that Bryan and I are starting the process of shopping for a church to attend!

We had intended on visiting a nearby UMC today, but then my cousin reminded me that today is the first Sunday of the month.

For UMCs, and other churches as well, this means it is communion day.  

Since it is also the first Sunday after Halloween, it is quite possible that the church is celebrating/recognizing All Saint's Day as well.

While both of these rituals/observations are integral parts of church life, attending a new church for the first time on such a Sunday doesn't really let you see the character of the church, or gauge the type of sermon the pastor typically gives, or get a good feeling for the overall temperament of the congregation.

Since that makes evaluating the church based on our shopping list rather difficult, we are postponing our church visit until next Sunday.

That said, I am (finally) starting to read Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman.

He's the same author who wrote Misquoting Jesus, which I thoroughly enjoyed and found very thought provoking.

So, while I will not have a church experience to post about today, I will (hopefully) have a entry later this week over my new reading material.

Church Shopping

I've always found the term "church shopping" amusingly apt, 

at least if you compare church shopping to house or car shopping.

You start out with a list of "must haves" and a list of "hope to haves"

and then you go to several different places, trying to find one that meets most of what's on your lists.

I haven't attended church regularly in a very long time--since high school, in fact.

I haven't really missed it, spiritually speaking.

I've studied the Bible and the history of Christianity on my own, both through my Religious Studies minor and through personal reading of books like Misquoting Jesus.

My husband and I have great discussions about belief and faith, and have had this blog as an outlet to flesh out my thoughts about my faith, to share them with others, and to have discussions with other bloggers.

One aspect of church that I have missed is being a part of a community that is united for a common purpose.

In college, I didn't miss this at all, because I was an Aggie!

At A&M there is a strong sense of unity in the student body, and I was involved in several student organizations.  

And of course there were the football games!

Since college, I was a part of such a community at my former job, as a high school teacher.

At my high school, there was a sense of family among the faculty, and definitely a sense of common purpose.

There was even a unity between the teachers and the students found in our school pride and spirit.

Now, however, I don't really belong to a group beyond my family and circle of friends.

While I love my family and friends to death, I miss belonging to a bigger group which has a common focus AND in which there is the possibility of meeting new people.

I also am desperately trying to develop interests and hobbies that let me get out of the house lol.

Another aspect of church that I have missed is the comforting familiarity of the services.

I'm aware that many Christians these days would see these as lesser reasons to start visiting a church.

However, as I've mentioned before, I've long sense stopped letting what others think of my spiritual and religious journey determine what path I take.

Also, I think church is the social part of the man-made construct of religion, so I don't think looking for a church for social reasons is "lesser".  That said, I do want there to be spiritual aspects that I agree with in the church we eventually attend.

So, with all that in mind, I have decided that it is time to go "church shopping"!

Bryan is wonderfully supportive and is happy to go with me.

He was raised going to a Church of Christ, and I was raised Methodist.

After talking about it, we have decided to start visiting the nearby Methodist churches first.

Why?

Well, though there are a few aspects of Church of Christ theology that we both agree with, there are many things we agree with in Methodist theology.

Also, Methodist theology is much more laid back than Church of Christ theology.

And thirdly, all of the churches that are closest to where we live are Methodist ;-).

So, what are we looking for in a church?

Our "Church Shopping" List

• *Welcoming, non-judgmental atmosphere
• *Good sermon--hopefully with good cultural-context references and solid theological elements that prompts discussion upon our return home
• *A good worship service that's not too contemporary
• A good kids' program and a solid youth group (both for volunteering and future purposes)
• A good variety of Bible study groups/small groups

*MUST HAVES

Next Sunday we will visit our first church.

I have high hopes for this one, based on what I've seen and read on their website.

We'll see how it goes!

 

Just Something God Did

"It's just something God did."

I've come across this statement several times during my life.

 Generally, it's used as an explanation for something happening that seems unexplainable or unfair.  It could be used to explain a Bible story, or some sort of interpreted stricture from the scriptures.  Or it could be used to explain a current event, or an occurrence in an individual life.

There was a time when I could just shrug this statement off as someone trying to turn to their faith to explain what seems unexplainable.

I can no longer just shrug.

Using a personal example, I was told recently that my rheumatoid arthritis was "just something God did."

Blaming God for my RA seems unfair to God.

 Let me first say that I believe God gave mankind free will.  Otherwise why do we have the choice to believe in Him or not? 

(And yes, I believe we do have that CHOICE, not that we are predestined to choose one way or another.)

Back to rheumatoid arthritis. We don't yet know what causes RA, but the theory that best fist my situation is a genetic predisposition coupled with some type of physical stress.  So, let's dissect this.

Is it God's fault that my genetics are what they are?

(I ask that question realizing what a can of worms it could open; however, I'm going to stay focused on the implications it has for me, personally.)

If God is responsible for my genetics, then that means He controlled with whom my forebeares reproduced.  But God controlling my genetics implies that my fore-bearers had no say in whom they chose as a mate, and that conflicts with freewill.  

That doesn't work.  

Therefore, my genetics are a result of the choices my fore-bearers made, and aren't something God "just did".

So, if God's not responsible for my genetics, and I'm just lucky in that regard (*sarcasm*), did He cause the physical stress that triggered my RA onset?

Let's examine what I believe was that stress.  Due to some extreme upsets in my personal life, I loss 60 pounds in three months.  I'd call that a physical stress!  The RA onset was a bit offset from those three months, but I still believe that the aftereffects of losing that much weight in that short of a period were the trigger.

Did God make me not eat?  Absolutely not.  I couldn't eat because of my emotional upset, but God did not cause that either.  The emotional upset resulted from individual choices, both on my part and on the parts of others.  I could have eaten if I wanted to, but I didn't want to. 

So the physical stress was a result of individual choices and was not something that God "just did".

I definitely do not rejoice in having rheumatoid arthritis, and I'll admit that, on occasion, I give in to the "why me's?". However, that question is counterproductive to getting on with my life, and I don't see the point of asking it often.  I realized when I was diagnosed that I could either let this disease beat who I am, or not. 

I choose not.  

I also hope that my having RA means that the genetic marker will skip my kid(s), and hopefully will have skipped all my younger cousins as well.  I know there's no guarantee of that, but I sure do hope.

However, even while dealing with the sadness and worry that sometimes comes during my journey with this disease, I realize that my rheumatoid arthritis is a result of personal choices--both mine and those of others--that, unfortunately, culminated in my genetic predisposition being triggered.  I don't blame anyone--there are too many contributing factors for my RA to be any one person's fault.  And as with the "why me's?" blame would be counterproductive to me living my wonderful life.

And if I don't blame those who made the choices leading to my rheumatoid arthritis, never could I blame God.  

My RA is not His fault, and definitely not something He "just did".

Reflections: Misquoting Jesus

After reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman and writing my review, I feel like I need to address the personal side of the books impact.  As I said in the review, I do not feel like Ehrman undermines Christianity at all with his book.

That said, I can tell you I felt very uncomfortable, the more I read of the changes that were made to the manuscripts that have come to be our New Testament.  As I mentioned in Part II of my Religion is Hard, Faith is Easy post, I have had issues with the seeing the Bible as the inerrant Word of God for many years.  However, I had not realized how very many changes, additions and subtractions had been made over the centuries.  It was very disconcerting to see entire passages that were not part of the original manuscripts, though they might have been in the oral tradition.  It was also alarming how much certain Christian scribes had altered manuscripts to support what they considered "orthodox" Christianity.

I'll admit to a moment of panic--how could an entire faith be built on a book that was so very changed?

Then Bart Ehrman pointed out several facts about how the Bible has been viewed over time.

I was relieved to discover that the idea of basing the Christian faith on "sola scriptura"--only scripture--was actually an idea that sprung up during the Protestant Reformation.  Until then, in the Catholic church, traditions passed down through the church were just as important as the Bible.  It was the Protestant movement--I would wager in an attempt to get away from some rather corrupt traditions that had been made up over the centuries--that started asserting the Bible as the foundation for Christianity.  It was reassuring to me that the Christian faith was not always based only on the written scriptures, but also on the legitimate traditions conserved through the generations.

Another relief came when Ehrman revealed (well, it was a revelation to me) that the idea of an inerrant Bible actually developed in the American colonies.  Before that, the Bible was not necessarily held to be a work without error.  That was comforting because it let me know that for the majority of Christianity's history, people acknowledged that the Bible had moved through human hands and thus had been subject to change and error, even if it was the Word of God.

Another aspect of Misquoting Jesus that I enjoyed was Ch. 7--"The Social Worlds of the Text".  In this chapter Ehrman examines the changes made to the manuscripts in regards to women and Jews.  It was actually validating to me to see that some of the verses that I always had the most trouble with--the chauvinistic ones, the anti-Semitic ones--were actually added in or completely altered in order to give the New Testament its stances.  It was also interesting to see how verses had been altered to make them more anti-Semitic than the original manuscript read.  It was wonderful to see that in the oldest manuscripts, women were leaders in the ancient churches and did speak alongside their husbands in church. 

So, I feel more informed and even more content with my view on the Bible after reading Ehrman's book.  As I've said I still consider myself a Christian, even if I don't agree with the inerrancy of the Bible, or that it needs to be the be all end all of the Christian faith.  After reading Ehrman's book, I have found there is good reason for my views on that score, and that I'm not alone in said views--and that the history of the New Testament actually validates them!

All in all, I feel more secure in my version of the Christian faith than I did before, and I can't wait to learn more of the history of Christianity.  The next book:  Lost Christianities also by Bart Ehrman.

Review: Misquoting Jesus

Back in April, I wrote a two-part post entitled "Religion is Hard, Faith is Easy".  In these two posts I shared a bit of my own religious background and I discussed some of my views on religion, on faith, and on the differences between the two.  In the second part, I mentioned that I was currently reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman.  In this book, Ehrman introduces readers to the concept of textual criticism and discusses its application to the New Testament of the Bible.

I found Ehrman's tone in this book to be very lay-person accessible.  In other words, if you've never hear of textual criticism or ever looked at the Bible from a strictly historical viewpoint, his work is fairly easy to understand.  I don't mean to imply he completely forgoes the use of scholarly language--but he does explain in plain terms what he means as well.  Ehrman takes the reader through a history of textual criticism as it formed around and was applied to the New Testament, pointing out key occurrences that continue to impact the versions of the NT that is read today. 

Ehrman focuses primarily on the Gospels, but does delve into Acts and the Epistles as well.  He follows the history of the manuscripts that came to compose the New Testament, discussing exactly who the people were who were copying these manuscripts as the years went by.  He shows the many ways that scribes accidentally made mistakes in copying these manuscripts.  Ehrman also puts these scribes (both unprofessional and professional) in the context of the religious and social debates of their times, showing how these could have affected--subconsciously or not--the copier's reproduction of a manuscript.

I have read several "rebuttals" to Misquoting Jesus but have been left wondering if the authors to these rebuttals even bothered reading the book in its entirety.  I will respond briefly to the three I found to be the most common.

One rebuttal claims that Ehrman's sole purpose is to undermine Christianity.  While Ehrman does give readers an introductory description of his own religious journey--from observant Christian to "born again" to a more relaxed Christianity to agnosticism--I didn't find that he at all attempted to undermine Christianity.  He explores the history of Christianity and looks at the Bible as historical document, which admittedly would be intimidating to many Christians, but he himself (in the Q&A section in the back) tells readers that textual criticism was in no way the reason he decided he could no longer be a Christian (it was the problem of pain and evil).  So saying that this book is supposed to undermine Christianity when the author himself was still a Christian after delving into textual criticism doesn't make sense to me.

Another rebuttal claims that Ehrman misleads his readers, leaving them to think that all the changes made to the New Testament manuscripts were meaning-altering for entire books, when most changes were truly insignificant.  This rebuttal doesn't hold water either.  Ehrman acknowledges that the majority of the changes to the manuscripts were insignificant--misspellings, jumbling word order and the like.  However, as he points out, there were many changes that completely altered the original author's meaning, and while these changes were less numerous than the aforementioned changes, they greatly impacted how Christianity has developed.

A third rebuttal--and this I found to be the weakest of the most common--refutes Ehrman's claim that there is no way to know what the original manuscripts said.  Ehrman never claims that!  In fact, he states the exact opposite, although he does say that the difficulties in discovery were very great, perhaps insurmountable.  Even after saying this, however, he declares the importance of continuing to use textual criticism to try and figure out the original wording.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in studying the Bible (especially the New Testament) from an historical and literary viewpoint.  It was a very interesting read, and I learned a great deal about the journey and transformation of the manuscripts that have come to make up today's New Testament.  Of course, as Ehrman points out, textual criticism is still an ongoing process--it will be interesting to see what else is discovered over the coming years.

***For my personal reactions to this book, go to my Reflections post :-).***

The 10 Commandments

Bryan and I went to our friends' Mark and Alicia's rehearsal and rehearsal lunch today.  They're getting married at Butler's Courtyard tomorrow!  I'm so happy and excited for the both of them.

The rehearsal went really well, and we went to T-Bone Tom's for the lunch.  While there, our conversation with Ben and the Amandas and Brandon and Ashley ranged among a whole variety of subjects.  At one point, someone jokingly threatened to kill someone else, and the question of "who says murder is bad?" was thrown out.  I believe it was Ben that said "the 10 commandments".  One of the Amanda's then responded that she didn't really think the 10 Commandments were valid.  Which brings me to the point of this post!

Here are the 10 Commandments as traditionally represented in the Judeo-Christian tradition:

I tend to divide the 10 commandments into two categories:  what I call the "religious" commandments (1-4) and the "moral" commandments (5-10).  The context of the "religious" commandments is obviously the Judeo-Christian tradition, and these were not what we ended up discussing.  Amanda felt that the "moral" commandments were also only valid withing that tradition:  I completely disagree.

The morality found in the 10 Commandments can actually be found throughout history and throughout various cultures.  Commandments 5-10, I would argue, represent the core morality that humans have agreed is necessary to uphold a functioning society.  Commandment 5--"Thou shalt not kill"--makes complete sense, since no society can persist if its members kill each other off.  Commandment 8 makes sense, because if a society's members are constantly stealing from one another, they will probably turn to violence to protect their property, which leads us back to Commandment 5.  And Commandment 10--"Thou shall not covet"--addresses the motivation that is behind theft, and thus can contribute to interpersonal violence, which again is counterproductive to society.

Now, people have learned that, even when you agree on society's code, individuals will still break said code.  When that happens there has to be consequences--i.e. some sort of legal system--so that everyone else will see the need to uphold the code, as well as to punish those who broke with it.  For such a system to work, Commandment 9 is needed, since you can't enforce consequences if you don't make it clear that lying about someone's actions won't be tolerated. 

Another thing necessary for the continuation of any society is family stability.  While family stability is all well and good in and of itself, the true reason it is necessary is financial stability.  This is where cultural definitions in regards to family and marriage and all that cease to matter.  The family unit in any society is the main financial unit as well.  As such, for a society to persist it must protect that unit above all else (again, cultural definitions on family and marriage can vary widely).

Commandment 5--"honor thy father and thy mother"--has a dual purpose, as far as I can see.  First of all, it keeps children in a subservient role in society until they are adults, which allows any work they do to go to the support of the family.  Secondly, once the children are grown, this morality requires them to care for their parents, which again stabilizes the family unit and allows society to continue to benefit from the wisdom of the older members.  The stability of the family is also the reason for Commandment 7--"Thou shall not commit adultery".  Regardless of the definition of marriage, it is a financial contract along with spiritual and emotional.  In fact, for most of human history, marriage was either all or mostly a financial relationship.  Now, if societal members were to break their marriage contract there would be financial repercussions that would endanger social stability.  (This can be seen even in our society today if you look at the financial ramification of divorces).

I've been discussing these moral values as Commandments, though again they are present throughout history and through many societies.  Amanda agreed with me on these points, but brought up the objection that rape and child abuse should have been on there as well.  While I do agree that these are heinous acts, the fact is that in the context of more ancient societies (and sadly a few modern ones) these actions did not actually threaten a society's continued stability.  For rape to be, well, rape, a woman must be able to say "no" and to have the expectation of society accepting her right to refuse.  The term child abuse itself implies that the treatment of children should be subjected to some sort of societal control.  While I do think that both of these viewpoints are morally correct, the fact is that in many ancient societies, women and children were little more than property that served the function of continuing society.  The only people who really had a voice in their society were mostly men.

So while Amanda's objection that the 10 Commandments are too narrow in scope is completely valid from the moral perspective of our culture here today, historically morality's purpose was to preserve society. The moral commandments express the necessary moral code that mankind had observed and experienced that did fulfill that need.

***My friend Brandon pointed out that "Honor thy father and mother" also serves another purpose in that the "elders have seen and experienced dangers that children haven't. This helps to ensure that children survive to adulthood and continue the population."  Good point!***

Religion is Hard, Faith is Easy (Part II)

Part I of this post gives a basic rundown of my religious upbringing and experiences, and the lessons they taught me.  This post exists as an exploration of my current ideas and beliefs, and exactly what I meant when I said I do not ascribe to some of the basic assumptions and tenants of Christianity.

To sum up from the last post, the lessons I have learned that currently shape my views on religion and faith: 
1)the Bible is a product of a different time and culture2)other religions offer valuable insights to faith and God, and some of them make more sense to me than some Christian viewpoints
3)one can still belong to a religion while disagreeing with different aspects of it
4)I have a very hard time seeing in black and white, or believing in that manner
5)it does no good to let the opinions and beliefs of others, or their disapproval, determine what I believe or how I think about faith and religion
6)I LOVE discussions about religion and such--they help me articulate my thoughts--but I don't like arguments about religion and such

Concerning the Bible, many Christians believe that it is a Holy book, either literally written by God, or "God-breathed"--that is, directly inspired by God.  Specifically, they believe this most strongly about the New Testament.  I don't agree.

Through my fascination with historical context, as well as my Religious Studies classes, I have learned quite a bit about the history of the Bible.  The Old Testament is a product of the Jewish religion and culture.  The Jewish Torah--which most Christians know as the Pentateuch--makes up the first 5 books of the Old Testament.  The rest is combination of writings and stories that were extremely important in Jewish culture--prophecies, poetry, stories of cultural happenings and leaders, and Jehovah moving through all of it.  Obviously, these writings were written and accumulated by individuals over centuries, not by God himself.

In regards to the New Testament, there is no difference in the origin and manner of compilation of these books in my mind.  They were written by individuals, and as such were the product of individual points of view, backgrounds and agendas, and had specific purposes.  This point of view gets me in trouble with the Christians who believe God wrote the Bible.  Others who believe that the Bible was God-inspired might be willing to consider these assertions, but then, I am not done.  This group of Christians still believe in the general infallibility of the Bible, and of the books therein.  Again, I disagree.

Without going into too much detail, which would take entirely too much space, I have read several books dealing with scribal error and textual reconstruction in regards to the Bible.  The current book I'm reading on the subject--Misquoting Jesus--talks about these issues in a very clear and concise manner.  Suffice it to say, as with all works from antiquity, scribal errors and additions and removals were made as the letters and written stories that were to eventually form the Bible traveled through the centuries.  In regards to the compilation of the books we currently know as the Bible, the Council at Nicea worked to make a uniform orthodoxy out of all the various versions of Christianity that existed at the time (this is where the Nicene Creed comes from) and as part of this effort they determined which religious writings would be cannon and which would not.  This council was a group of individuals, again with their own agendas and points of view, and so I cannot believe in the infallibility of their decisions.

All this said, I still think the Bible is an amazing book, and think that the fact that all of those writings survived long enough to be compiled (regardless of their closeness to the original writings) is incredible.  I do think what I call the "red lettered" parts--or the sayings of Jesus--probably came from one source, potentially a record of Jesus' actual sayings written down from oral tradition.  Because these were the words of the prophet/messiah himself, they might have made it down the years with less alteration, but there is no way to know that for sure.  Also, I think that the Bible still describes a pretty good way to live your life, regardless of the "truth" of its holiness (the stance on the matter taken by my DeeDee).

Also, I do not agree with Christianity's blanket condemnation of those who do not adhere to its beliefs, nor do I agree with the condemnation of people who have never even heard of Jesus.  In regards to the other religions in the world, I can no longer bring myself to believe that they are ALL wrong.  Granted, they cannot all be right, but I do not see how one can have the claim to the "Truth" over all others.  This obviously gets my into trouble with traditional Christians.  It has been my experience that at this point in my discussion many Christians try to affirm the truth of Christianity by pointing to the Bible (which, as discussed above, I don't see the same way they do) or by pointing out unique aspects of their religion.  Some point this out calmly and we continue on with our discussion; others get upset and point this out vociferously and get either 1)angry or 2)fearful for my soul lol.  For example, one point they try to bring forward is the resurrection of Jesus.  They, and myself back in the day, have been told and taught that no other religion has an "empty tomb".  This is just flat out false.  There are many older religions with resurrection stories that actually predate or are contemporaries of Christianity--for example, the Egyptian god Osiris.  Christian morality is also very similar to the morality of most major religions, and many minor religions as well, so any claims of moral uniqueness fall flat with me too.

To speak against the condemnation of the ignorant, I use one of Christianity's own definitions.  God is defined as perfectly just.  It is not just to hold people accountable for a decision that they have never had the opportunity to make.  Thus, God would not condemn those who have never heard of Him/Her/Itself or of Jesus.  At this point someone tries to argue that either A) we cannot truly understand the justness of God or how it operates or B) since God sacrificed His/Her/Its son, he can judge people however He/She/It wants.  In regards to A) if you are going to define something as perfectly just, you cannot turn around and logically argue that you cannot understand your own definition.  In regards to B), that's just silly.  If God is perfectly just, then He/She/It must ALWAYS be just--and I don't believe that God would be petty enough to rescind justice just because of a personal sacrifice.   

Now that I've more or less expressed my disagreement with two of the most fundamental aspects of Christianity--the Bible and that Christianity is the one "True" religion--some might wonder why I still consider myself a Christian.  A great deal of the reason is that I do agree with the moral teachings of Christianity, and I do agree with the methods by which they are delivered--in a community of fellow believers.  It goes without saying that it is also the parents' job to deliver moral instruction to their children, but I also agree with Christianity's emphasis on family and community.  Some Christians denounce the idea that community and social interaction could be just as important as the spiritual aspect of their religion, but I hold that very view.  While one can observe the spiritual aspects of Christianity in solitude--prayer, meditation, reading from the Bible, etc.--one cannot employ the morals of interpersonal interaction without having a community with which to interact.  I in no way mean to imply that other religions do not also posses this characteristic, but Christianity is the one with which I was raised, and the one that I best understand.  Just because I do not agree with all of the Christian religion does not mean I'm willing to toss the whole thing.  So, while I could research and learn and convert to another religion, my familiarity and familial connection with Christianity is another big reason why I remain tied to the Christian faith.

Some would say that this is not good enough, that I must be spiritually committed to my religion.  I understand their position.  Personally though, I am spiritually committed to my FAITH.  Religion is a man-made thing and I do not wish to spiritually adhere to such a construct.  Faith however is a much easier thing to ascribe to.  I have faith in God, and have faith the He/She/It has an overarching plan.  I believe we have to do our own part, though, and that "God helps those who help themselves".  I believe that Jesus was a remarkable man of faith, and hey, if we was the Son of God who died for our sins, awesome (there was much debate about this fact even among Christians immediately after his crucifition.  Today's Christianity won out at the Council at Nicea.).  Deep in my heart, I believe that's who he was and what he did, but I do not believe that he is the only way to God.  I believe in questioning my faith and adding and subtracting to it as my explorations continue and my understanding increases--be these additions and subtractions from the Christian religion or other religions.  And I have faith that God loves me, and has created me to be the person I am--seeking, questioning, exploring.  All of these things I have faith in. 

For me, religion a man-made construct set up to express faith.  As such, it is hard for me to find a religion with which I entirely agree.  Since I cannot entirely agree with religion, I take it much less seriously than I once did.  Eventually we'll find a church we can stand, but I know that I will never truly be at peace with religion. 

Defining my religious views--that's hard. 

Faith though--a faith that stands as an ever-changing compendium of beliefs and thoughts that is always open to adjustment and change--for me, that's the easy part.            

Religion is Hard, Faith is Easy (Part I)

This post is inspired by a conversation with my mom yesterday.


Looking back on it my religious upbringing and comparing it to my beliefs today, I still call myself a Christian, but I'm sure most Christians would disagree that I should use that title.  The reason?  My beliefs are still undergoing a process of questioning and changing, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.  I don't adhere to some of the basic assumptions of the Christian religion--and that fact alone would get me in trouble.  But I walk the road I have been given to walk--and I truly believe I was set on this path long before I could realize where my steps would take me. 

The first church I attended as a child taught me much about the natures of people.  There are your good and bad, of course, but there are also the accepting and judgmental, the inclusive and the snobbish, those that value the important things in life and those that value solely the materialistic, and many more.  As a young child, I didn't understand the lessons I was learning through the way I was treated, but in hindsight they become clear.  I also underwent Confirmation at this church when I was about 11 years old.  During my Confirmation class we learned phrases in Latin--my first experience with the fact that the Bible was NOT written in English lol.  This also was the first time that I became truly aware that the Bible comes from a time and culture so very different from our own.  We also visited both a Catholic Mass, and a Jewish Synagogue.  Our meeting with the Rabbi remains one of my clearest memories.  He explained how in Judaism, there is not an overwhelming emphasis on asking only God for forgiveness for every little sin, but rather and acknowledgment of the import of asking forgiveness for those that you hurt through your actions.

"For example," I recall him saying,"if I were to step on this young lady's foot, I would not ask God for forgiveness.  I would ask her for her forgiveness.  After all, my stepping on her foot did not hurt God!"  The young lady in question was myself and, aside for making me self-conscious about my rather large feet, this encounter also showed me that, at times, other religious viewpoints made more sense to me than the ones that I had been taught in the church.  We did leave that particular church once the worth of someone within the congregation became judged not on who they were or how they served, but rather on how MUCH they donated.

I don't recall the Catholic Mass I attended, but I tagged along for the one my brother went to during his Confirmation at the second church we attended.  After the service, we chatted with the priest, who, when queried, expressed his disagreement with the Catholic Church's position against women in leadership roles in the clergy.  His assertion made me see that one can still belong to a religion without agreeing with all aspects of it.  This church was less a spiritual experience for me than a social one; regardless, we left and started attending Faithbridge UMC as I started high school.

The Faithbridge youth group was the first time since my own Confirmation class that I had a truly spiritual church experience.  Starting out, I learned much about my faith and religion.  Our youth leader brought up historical context in his teachings, and was always willing to have theological discussions with us.  As time went on, however, I felt more and more separated from those around me.  It seemed to me that I saw greater value in historical context than those around me, that I was able to see more gray than the black-and-white religion to which they ascribed permitted, and, as a result, that I questioned their assertions more than made them comfortable.  I tried to conform, to simply accept what I was told, but I never could.  Partly I think this was because my mom and I have long had a practice of discussing church teachings openly, and questions were always welcomed. 

Finally, I tired of trying to conform, and simply lived my life and my faith according to my beliefs.  This did not win me acceptance among some of the youth leadership, but I was much happier--this taught me to not seek the approval of others in regards to my beliefs.  In college this lesson was driven home even farther.  I searched for a church to attend, but found all the ones I visited to be of the same cloth as the youth group I had just left.  So, I gave up on that.  I minored in Religious Studies, however, and lived for the discussions in those classes.  I learned much more about historical context, and about many religions other than my own.  That learning, combined with the engaging and challenging discussion in and outside of class, has kept me on the path I find myself currently.

Bryan and I are starting to think about thinking about visiting local churches.  While we both claim the Christian religion, Bryan's journey has been both similar and different than mine.  Similar, in that his views on Christianity have changed quite a bit, and different in that we've had different experiences, and our views do not always align.  That's fine with me though...it makes for great discussions!  And our views are similar enough on the truly important issues.

I'm going to cut this post off here, and make a "Part II"....this one is already plenty long!