 |
|
|
Rector's Blog
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Our staff stumbled into a conversation recently about the value of "pod-casting" Bible study-type reflections from the Rector. I do not know what I think about this.
On the one hand there is a hip-factor. A Pod-casting church, how cool is that? Also, if done well, it could help spread the word about the value of the Word. It may also serve to introduce some people to some of the simple treasures hidden in St. Tim's little corner of God's field.
But I find myself resisting the idea. But I have discovered that my resisting an idea doesn't mean much. I resisted the idea of putting my sermons on the parish website. I resisted the idea of going to an entirely electronic-based parish communication system. I resisted the idea of an Episcopal Church that worships with contemporary music.
I fear my resistance to new ways of being church is more a sign of my age than my wisdom. Fortunately I am surrounded by plenty of twenty- and thirty-somethings who point their fingers and laugh heartily at my resistance.
So on the one hand is the hip-factor. What is on the other hand? (Just in the interest of humoring an old man.)
At the heart of my resistance to pod-casting is this: Faith is a relational reality, not informational. The Word of God is always a word shared among friends. (Strangers who encounter one another in the hearing of the Word of God become friends.)
In the Gospel of John, Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one come to the Father but by me." As the way, the truth and the life, Jesus is also a person. The way is not a set of principles. The truth is not a concept. The life is not individual biological function.
I could say to my wife, "You are the way, the truth and the life, I do not come to the father but by you." Such a statement is (almost) commensurate with what Jesus said. It is of the same order but of a lesser degree: The same order because God the Father is known relationally, not ideologically. Of lesser degree because Jesus' capacity for spiritual intimacy and faithfulness in covenant surpasses our own. (In relationship with Jesus, he teaches me how to be in relationship with you in such a way that we both come to the Father.)
I resist the pod-cast because it projects ideas not relationships. In a group Bible study the object of the study is not just "what the Bible says," but to explore the biblical narrative to encourage relationships within the group of deeper spiritual intimacy. Likewise, in personal Bible the object is not to discover "what the Bible says," but to be drawn into a relationship of deeper spiritual intimacy with Jesus, the person, not the idea.
So to pod-cast or not to pod-cast, that is the question. If pod-casting serves as an invitation to come and risk relationships of spiritual intimacy with real people, okay I feel my resistance weakening.
link | Comments []
[back to top]
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
In a recent response to a post about the Supreme Court and the Ten Commandments (See June 27) an anonymous commentator made two points that pushed me to dig deeper into the issue. This is my second response to anonymous.
Anonymous said,
"As far as the assertion that the First Amendment only refers to the establishment of a religious institution, I think that is over simplification, and not entirely correct. In any case unless one is a strict Constitutional constructionist, I'm not sure that is the only factor one needs to take into consideration: America is far more religiously pluralistic today than in the 18th century. There are many ways of favoring a given religion far short of creating an "institutional church" which have been found unconstitutional."
Does anonymous suggest that "religion" exists somehow apart from a particular and specific religious institution? I often hear people speak this way. People tend to ascribe to "religion" a certain category of being that is something other than a specific instance of a particular religious community.
People sometimes say, "I am spiritual but not religious." What does this mean?
Does it mean: I sometimes think about where the universe comes from.
Does it mean: Sometimes when I sit at the beach and watch the sun go down over the water, I feel sentimental.
Does it mean: When I get into trouble I "pray" that God will get me out of it.
I once heard Tex Sample tell a story about a woman who told him, "I am into Native American Spirituality."
"Really?" He said with genuine interest. "What tribe are you associated with?"
"Oh, no tribe."
"Tell me about the shaman or medicine man who is directing you?"
"Oh, no. It's nothing like that."
"Then what do you mean that you are 'into native American Spirituality?'"
"Oh," she said. "I read a book and saw the movie, 'Dances with Wolves.'"
This is my simple point. Religion does not exist except in so far as it finds expression in the experiences of real live people who embody a specific religious tradition.
Another way to say this: Christianity does not exist. Islam does not exist. Nor does Judaism, nor Buddhism. Theoretical models of specific religious traditions provide a means of talking about the experiences of people who no longer live. But the theoretical model is not "religion."
A "religion" only exists as a "religious institution," or as a "religious community." A community that shares together the life of faith in continuity with a specific religious tradition exists. A theoretical model is only a set of ideas without consequence in the world, except in so far as it reflects the lived experiences of real people. Even the tradition only exists as artifacts of a previous culture, such things as prayer books, hymnals, crosses, candle holders, etc. A religious tradition is meaningless until it finds expression in the lives of real people.
The Federal Government cannot establish a religious theoretical model. It can only establish a religious institution. The First Amendment protects the church from the tyranny of a government that would deny a religious community the freedom to embody faith following the Holy Spirit's gentle movement within one's heart.
link | Comments []
[back to top]
Monday, July 04, 2005
Anonymous responded to my recent post making two points worth more attention. I'll tackle one in this post. Save the second for next week.
Anonymous says:
". . . .it doesn't matter what the origins of the Ten Commandments or the Pythagorean theorem are. What dooes matter is what significance people attach to them -- and the Ten Commandments have religious significance attached to them in a way that the Pythagorean Theorem does not."
The notion of "religious significance" is a puzzle to me. Here's why.
Mathematics (for which the Pythagorean theorem is a symbol) carries much more religious power today than does the Ten Commandments. The fundamental worldview of a technocratic society is materialistic and mathematical. Mathematics have authority over the human experience in ways that far transcends any notion that comes from the Hebrew worldview.
In other words, the god of our age is much more closely associated with the Pythagorean Theorem than with the Ten Commandments. True, we do not call it "religion." It has become too much a part of our common consciousness to be bracketed or limited in this way. It has become too important to us. But this is precisely my point.
Genuine religion forms the mind of a culture. Do not think the word "worship" is a religious word. It simply identifies what people value most. More Americans worship numbers today than ever worship what the Ten Commandments point to.
When Anonymous says, "the Ten Commandments have religious significance attached to them" what does this mean? Does it mean people explore the meaning of the Ten Commandments? Does it mean people discuss how the Ten Commandments contribute to a just and free society? Does it mean people apply the unique insight the Ten Commandments offer to their business practice, to education, and to the delivery of health care?
No, this is what numbers are for. What is the Dow Jones average? What has the Fed done with the interest rate? What is the price of oil? What is the stock value of the HMO?
We do not ascribe "religious significance" to numbers like this. We merely worship them. An appeal to numbers justifies in our society decisions that would have horrified a Hebrew prophet who lived from a very different point of view. The Hebrew prophet worshiped a different kind of god -- not a materialistic god best described in numerical metaphors, but a personal god conceptualized in more humane categories.
Perhaps this is why we live in a society where "Love your neighbor as yourself," violates the First Amendment. But, "Watch your homeless neighbor starve and freeze to death living on the street," is perfectly acceptable.
When the term "religous significance" is attached to something, it is a mark of social irrelevance. It is a way to bracket, or set an idea aside. It identifies a notion as outside the bounds of appropriate public discourse.
I look forward to the day when the Ten Commandments lose their "religious significance" and become a natural part of our public discourse.
link | Comments []
[back to top]
Archive:
12/01/2004 - 12/31/2004
01/01/2005 - 01/31/2005
02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005
03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005
04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005
05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005
06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005
07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005
08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005
|
|
