Thursday, October 19, 2006

Diana Butler Bass: The Real Danger of Bad Religion

Found this piece at the God's politics blog over at beliefnet. Diana Butler Bass writes about a real concern of mine, the destructiveness of bad religion in our world today. Tell me what you think! Duh-sciple Tim

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/10/diana-butler-bass-real-danger-of-bad.html

Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Diana Butler Bass: The Real Danger of Bad Religion

Last Sunday’s New York Times reminded me that fundamentalism is, indeed, dangerous. What story underscored this point? Something about religion in the upcoming elections? Religious violence in the Middle East?

No, what caught my attention was the New York Times Book Review. Only two religion books made last week’s list: Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Both Harris and Dawkins attack Christianity, arguing that all religion is bad (not just that bad religion is bad) and that faith is a significant source of evil.

While Dawkins revives a scientific argument against the existence of God, Harris takes a slightly different tact. He argues that all forms of Christianity are intellectually, morally, and politically suspect—with “extremism” being the worst offender. He writes that, “Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries.” Accordingly, the best thing that could happen for civilization is the eradication of religion.

Many people are alarmed about the dangers of extremist religion, especially of the Religious Right—afraid of dogmatism, inquisitions, theocracy, and violence. I worry about crusades, pogroms, and terrorism as much as the next person. But I confess to a different worry: the effects of religious fundamentalism on religion.
Harris and Dawkins go to the heart of my concern. When bad religion becomes the primary way people define faith, the opposite result will not necessarily be good religion—the backlash is often no religion.
Modern atheism was birthed in the late seventeenth century. After a century of religious warfare following the Protestant Reformation, many Europeans opted out of faith. Instead of finding peace in God, they found peace by concluding that no God existed. The option proved comforting, and, for next century, European Christianity struggled to regain both intellectual credibility and popular support.

In the late nineteenth century, during America’s fundamentalist/modernist controversy, agnostic Robert Ingersoll made a career attacking Christianity. Ingersoll’s skepticism fuelled the rise of popular secularism, thus leading to a general decline of church membership in the early twentieth century.
History reveals that bad religion often results in no religion. That books like Harris’ and Dawkins’ should gain traction at this time should come as no surprise. Religious fundamentalism leads those of tender conscience, doubters, and freethinkers to view all people of faith as crazy extremists. Harris, for example, implies that the difference between suicide bombers and religious progressives is merely one of degree.
Thus, the beauty of faith—its compassion, mercy, and love—is obscured in a haze of extremism. In this chaotic age, the potential exists that a weary public will turn not to God’s goodness as a way through our problems but will turn away from God altogether. The bestseller status of both Harris and Dawkins should worry moderate and liberal Christians. The Religious Right has succeeded in resurrecting Christianity’s main intellectual competitor: atheism.

I have nothing against secularism or questioning faith, and I agree with Harris and Dawkins that Christians have done many horrendous things. Despite the fact that some Christians practice Christianity badly, I remain a Christian. Not a “crazy extremist” one, but one that tries to imitate Jesus and follow his teachings—and one who believes those teachings can create a more peaceable world. The greatest danger of religious fundamentalism, with its narrow intellectual and political vision, is not to American society, but to Christianity itself.

Diana Butler Bass (www.dianabutlerbass.com) is an independent scholar and author. Her new book is Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith, from Harper San Francisco.

Jesus admirers versus Jesus followers: Part 2

More contrasts between the Jesus admirers and the Jesus followers:

Jesus admirers: expect others to be perfect
Jesus followers: look for the good in others, realizing they are not going to be perfect

Jesus admirers: satisfied with a tame, easily understood Bible with clear, simple answers
Jesus followers: explore the mystery of the actual Bible, a wild book that cannot be reduced/tamed

Jesus admirers: become crushed/disillustioned when life goes wrong
Jesus followers: see the world as a good creation, but filled with struggles- believe the world with God's grace will grow in wonder, beauty, order, complexity, and variety

Jesus admirers: sit in the stands watching the game
Jesus followers: play in the game

Jesus admirers: worry about getting themselves into heaven
Jesus followers: more concerned when they see others living a hell on earth

To be continued...

Duh-scipe Tim
An admirer seeking to become a follower

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Jesus admirers versus Jesus followers: Part 1

Lately I've noticed that the majority of Christians are Jesus admirers rather than Jesus followers. From the very beginning this was the case.

On Sunday we will read from Mark 10:35-45. In this episode, Jesus has just finished his third seminar on the cross, he says, "I'm going to die a brutal death on the cross." James and John, "That's nice. We've been meanign to ask you something. Could you do something for us?" Outrageous!

That's like someone saying to me, "I'm entering hospice. The doctors say I have less than a week to live." Me, "Sorry to hear about that. Too bad. But before that happens, if it's not too much trouble, could you do me a favor?"

James and John covet the places of honor at the "glory banquet", sitting to the right and left of Jesus the "superstar". Irony. Soon Jesus will be stapled to a tree, anything but a superstar. To his right and to his left, two other pathetic losers hammered onto splintered planks." No wonder Jesus says, "You don't know what you're asking. You don't get it!" Duh!

What we have here is this: James and John admire Jesus, but they're not yet following Jesus. Mark's Gospel invites us to transformation from Jesus admiring to Jesus following. Consider the contrast between the two.

Jesus admirers: give away their left overs (= what they don't really want).
Jesus followers: give away their first fruits (= their very best).

Jesus admirers: run from trouble.
Jesus followers: work through trouble.

Jesus admirers: hard hearts (=harsh towards others), soft feet (= avoid serving when they might get hurt)
Jesus followers: soft hearts (= tender towards others), hard feet (= tough, willing to serve under brutal conditions)

Jesus admirers: complain that the church isn't perfect.
Jesus followers: don't expect the church to be perfect and love it anyway.

Enough for now. More to come.

Peace,

Duh-sciple Tim
[who is still on the journey from admiring to following]

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Ephesians 4:15

Before you open your mouth

Take your Ephesians 4:15 vitamin

That means you prepare to speak the truth in love

Your aim is to grow into the stature of Christ

The purpose is to be "little christs" to one another

When we speak it should be Jesus who is speaking through us

To put this into practice- before you open your mouth- ask the following three questions:

1. Is it true?

2. Is it kind?

3. Is it necessary?

If you can answer all three questions with the answer "yes", then keep your mouth shut!

Sincerely, The Duh-sciple who is working on it

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Love languages

Here's the deal, I'm going to post some of my "relationship advice" on the duh-sciple blog.

Maybe it's because my "baby brother," Matthew, got married this weekend. [Congratulations Matt and Joanna! I expect you two to have a beautiful, fruitful, and generous marriage.]

Maybe it's because our congregation is focusing on building relational bridges during the next five years.

At any rate, I'd like to share my "relational stuff", beginning with I've learned from Gary Chapman's book series on "love languages." I also encourage you to check out his website http://www.fivelovelanguages.com/ Here's a summary of what I have learned from Gary:


Overview
We all have a primary love language. That means that we have a particular way we prefer to give and to receive love. According to Chapman, there are five love languages. He says that some of us are fluent in just one language, but others are multi-lingual. So if you have a loved one in your life, and he or she speaks a different love language than you do, it is vital, essential that you learn his or her language. Otherwise, you may "love them" but he or she might not feel loved by you.

Love language #1= Words of affirmation
I love you.

Thank you.

You look great.

I think it's awesome you when you...

You are very talented at...

I appreciated it when you did...

Some of us need to hear words of love spoken to us. By the way, this is my primary love language. I need "verbal massages" to feel the love of others.

Love language #2= Quality time
I toss the football outside in the yard with my youngest, Jeremy. Or I take him to the Redskins game.

I take my daughter, Mary Beth, shopping for clothes, checking out all the malls. Or we hang out at home and watch a Netflix DVD together.

When CJ, my oldest, was little, I spent lots and lots of time reading to him, especially the winter of 1994 when we were snowed in for a week!

With my wife, Ann, it's just hanging out, talking, bike riding, and paying attention to just her- not the kids, not the church, not some other distraction.

Love language #3= Receiving gifts
I'm wondering if this might be my daughter, Mary Beth's, love language. Give a gift certificate to buy clothes- and she'll light up. When I take her out and if I buy her something I become the "good daddy." Perhaps this is a love language of many children.

Love language #4= Acts of service
When my wife, Ann, dropped Jeremy off for swimming practice she went to visit with her parents- a wonderful use of time while the practice is going on. One time- she dropped off a computer and is working on helping them to set it up. Another time she cleaned up some stains in the carpeting. Who knows what she'll do in future visits. The point is that she is doing small errands that add to her parents' quality of life. Her parents, by the way, are my all-time champions in performing "acts of service." They combine "acts " with "gifts" by preparing meals for family, friends, neighbors and church members. At any rate, I'm certain that they are feeling Ann's love for them.

Love language #5= Physical touch
This is how I express my love to Ann. She always dreamed of a husband who would give her back rubs. That's what she described as her primary matrimonial criteria! Through the years I've learned to do exactly that. I've tried to become the husband that she dreamed of. So I'll turn on the TV, pop in a tape, and give her a rub while we watch the movie together. If I'm watching something, the time passes quickly. Sometimes she'll fall asleep, completely relaxed. The point is this. I know this is her love language. This is how she needs to "hear it".

For married couples, of course, the gift of sex is a location where love is expressed. I hear that this is a pretty big love language for me [grin!]

For single people, safe, appropriate hugs is something that they need.

For children, snuggling next to them before bedtime might be important.

For teens, wrestling and rough-housing might be the physical contact that they crave.

Summary
What I try to teach families and couples and singles and children and teens and seniors is that we are to "love one another." Sometimes we are at a loss as to how to love one another.

In our culture we think of love as a feeling- something that you "fall into". Yet the Bible teaches that we are to love our enemies, and others, regardless of whether we "feel" loving or not. Gary Chapman's "love languages" concept teaches us how to love each other. And... he suggests that we become multi-lingual.

Then there's this. Love makes a difference. When we do love, the feelings of love follow. When we perform love, quite often love rebounds to us. Some of you know this "Tim-ism": Loved people, love people. The Bible says that "we love because he first loved us."

Finally, Chapman suggests that we love the unlovable. As I read the Bible, I see quite clearly that that is how God loves us. Not that we deserve it. Not that we've earned it. But that God loves us regardless. This Sunday's Gospel talks about a rich ruler who was unable to walk away from his wealth in order to follow Jesus. Mark says, "And Jesus loved him." He loved him anyway- even though the rich man's Master continued to be money rather than Jesus.

That's all, love ya'll... Duh-sciple Tim

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Fight styles: constructive versus destructive

From my files, an oldy, but goody, something I've used with couples, but it applies to anybody:

CONSTRUCTIVE FIGHT STYLES

Program fights at special times to avoid wear/tear on innocent bystanders—leave plenty of time to handle feelings

Each partner gives full expression to his/her own positive feelings and his/her own negative feelings

Each replays the partner’s argument in his/her own words, to be sure s/he understands it—this is known as “checking out” the other’s feelings

Entertain the “feedback” of the other’s evaluation of your behavior- think about it before rejecting or accepting the evaluation

Define what the fight is really about

Discover where the two positions coincide and differ

Each one defines his/her “out of bounds” area of vulnerability

Determine how deeply each partner feels about his/her stake in the fight—this helps decide how much each one can yield to the other

Offer correctional critiques of conduct- this means for both to develop positive suggestions for improvement in the other

Decide how each can help the other relative to the problem

Recognize the volcano (spontaneous explosion w/o reason)- wait for it to subside-don’t jump in

Keep score by comparing what you learn versus how each has been injured. Winners are those who learn more than they get hurt.

Fight- after thinking- compare your opinions with each other after the leftovers, evasions, and unsettled issues, if any. This is known as “mopping up”

Declare a fight holiday, a truce, a period of no fight engagements- allow for making up, enjoying each other, good sex, etc.

Be prepared for the next fight. Intimate fighting is more or less continuous if it is accepted and expected. If you do this, the quality of fight is less vicious, the fights are shorter, the injury is less, and the learning of new aspects increase

DESTRUCTIVE FIGHT STYLES

Apologizing prematurely

Refusing to take the fight seriously

Withdrawing- evading “toe-to-toe” confrontation- walking out- falling asleep- applying the “silent treatment”

Using intimate knowledge of the partner to “hit below the belt”

Chain-reacting- throwing in the kitchen sink- bringing in unrelated issues to pyramid the attack

Being a “false accommodator”—pretending to go along with the partner’s point of view for momentary peace, but hoarding doubts, secret contempt, resentments

Attacking indirectly (against some person, idea, or activity, value, or object which the partner loves or stands for)

Being a “double binder”—setting up expectations but making no attempt to fulfill them- giving a rebuke instead of a reward

“Character analysis”—explaining what the other person’s feelings are, or otherwise known as “mind reading”

Demanding more- gimme, gimme, gimme- nothing is ever enough

Withholding—affection, approval, recognition, material things, privileges—anything which would give pleasure or make life easier for the partner

Undermining—deliberating arousing or intensifying emotional insecurities, anxiety, or depression—keeping the partner on edge—threatening disaster

Being a “Benedict Arnold”—not only failing to defend the partner, but encouraging attacks from outsiders