Prometheus and the Christian God

I wrote the following  for The Dialogue, the newsletter of the church where I serve, First Christian Church, Disciples of Christ of St. Joseph, MO.

            Over the weekend, I saw the new movie Prometheus, which if you didn’t know is a sort of prequel to the classic 1981 science fiction/horror movie Alien.  The director of the 1981 film, Ridley Scott, returns to direct this new one.  Whereas the film 30 years ago was in many ways an exercise in simplicity (future astronauts inadvertently bring aboard an alien killing machine and then meet their demise in a claustrophobic space ship), the new film moves to the other end of the complexity spectrum and dares to ask all kinds of really big questions about life, existence, faith, the creation of the universe, etc.  In the end, I guess I found the movie unsatisfying, but it did leave me thinking and actually having interesting conversations about it, which is more than I can say for most Hollywood fare.   

            Director Ridley Scott is no stranger to using the genre of science fiction to ask questions about what it means to be human.  One of my favorite science fiction films is Scott’s 1982 film BladeRunner, in which organic robots called “replicants,” who are indistinguishable from human beings, try to find their creator.  To their dismay, the replicants (who are used for dangerous manual labor in space) discover they were made by a soulless corporation, and the CEO of that corporation views them as products not people.  [SPOILER ALERT: I’m going to start giving out details of Prometheus, so stop reading here if you don’t want to know those details.]  Similarly, in Prometheus another search is underway for a creator, but this time the ones doing the searching are humans.  Set in 2093, archaeologists have discovered ancient pictures of aliens, who apparently initiated the process of biological evolution on earth, and they set off across the stars to find the aliens who made us.

            The very first scene of the movie shows the aliens creating human life, and thus my disappointment began there.  As many movie critics have pointed out, ever since the publication of the book Chariots of the Gods? in the Sixties and the resulting 1970 “documentary” based on the book, it’s been a common sci-fi trope to talk about aliens inspiring ancient human civilizations, if not creating human life itself.  Chariots of the Gods? was ridiculed as “pseudo-history” and “science fiction pretending to be history,” but Hollywood saw an opportunity.  Probably the best example of aliens creating human civilization comes in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: a Space Odyssey.  Of course, there was also the cheesy but oh-so-fun 1980’s TV show Battlestar Galactica which began with the narration: “Some believe that life down here. . . began out there.”  I seem to recall a bad sci-fi move Mission to Mars back in 2000 that had a similar plot point.  Who knows how many other films used the same device?  Prometheus is not exactly breaking new ground here.

            Trite science fiction plot points aside, Ridley Scott has biblical thoughts on his mind.  In a recent interview in Esquire, Scott remarks that his intentions were to address questions of human origins, God and creation.  He says, “I'm really intrigued by those eternal questions of creation and belief and faith. I don't care who you are, it's what we all think about. It's in the back of all our minds.”  At least some of the film’s characters share Scott’s questions (at least the ones not inserted just to be gruesomely killed by aliens).  In Prometheus, the heroine, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, wears a cross and we learn via flashback that her faith in God goes back to her believing father.  Shaw remains faithful even when it is confirmed that human life came from aliens.  When her boyfriend asks why she continues to wear the cross after finding out that aliens rather than God made humans, she replies by asking, “Yes, but who made them?”  Shaw is joined by a human-looking robot named David who seems keenly aware of the human emotions and desires he does not possess.  In one scene, David asks a scientist why he was created; the response: “Because we could.”  David offers the jarring rejoinder that perhaps the aliens created humans just “because they could.” 

            Prometheus may have been overdone, but the questions it wrestles with are real, namely does scientific inquiry reveal that we humans were made by an impersonal process rather than a personal God?  If so, what does that say about the worth and purpose of humanity?  What does it say about me?  The Christian response is that however God created the universe and humanity in particular (divine fiat, evolution, space aliens, etc.) such creation was done with love.  God loves the universe so much so that God came in Jesus Christ “to reconcile to himself all things” (Colossians 1:20).  It is the fear that we are unloved and that our lives have no inherent purpose which drives so much of the Christian response to debates between science and religion.  This is unfortunate, because all kinds of awful things are done when people are afraid.  Besides, we are told in our scriptures that “perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18).  From the Christian perspective, this “perfect love” enables us not to fear what science discovers or even what science fiction dreams up, because we can, along with the father of Prometheus’  Elizabeth Shaw, “choose to believe” that we are loved by our Creator no matter the method of our creation. 

            Okay, I’ll confess that my experience of God’s “perfect love” may leave me unafraid of Prometheus’ plot point that humanity was created as a part of an alien race’s biology experiments, but it does little to stop me from screaming my head off when later in the film an alien bursts out of somebody’s stomach.  Some fears are unrelated to the meaning of existence, they’re just fun.

            Grace and Peace,

            Chase

Your God is Too Small

I wrote the following  for The Dialogue, the newsletter of the church where I serve, First Christian Church, Disciples of Christ of St. Joseph, MO.

The point of my sermon this past Sunday (hopefully it came across) was that all of us are in need of a God who is bigger than we are—a God that is not our own creation.  A God whom we fully understand, a God who fits all our own biases or prejudices, or a God who makes no claim upon our lives is a God unworthy of our devotion.  Indeed, we do not and cannot devote ourselves to such an inadequate God; rather we use such a God for our own convenience and to justify our own desires.

            In the moment of preaching Sunday, I left out part of what I had planned to say; it didn’t seem to fit.  I feel it is worth including this week at least in the newsletter, because it further illustrates the point of my sermon which is one I feel we cannot hear too often.  I will probably always remain indebted to a small book by Anglican clergyman and Bible translator J.B. Phillips entitled Your God is Too Small.  (available in full on-line)  Written in the late 1950’s, the slim book (less than 100 pages) divides views of God into two categories: destructive and constructive.  Phillips’ “constructive” or healthy/positive views of God are not too original, but his list of “destructive” views of God remains a helpful and accessible tool for thinking about views of God that limit spiritual growth and promote unhealthy and damaging forms of religion.

            His list of “destructive” views of God includes:

1. Resident Policeman—God is more than our socially conditioned consciences.

2. Parental Hangover—God is more than our experience of earthly parents.

3. Grand Old Man—God is not an out of date religion held by our ancestors.

4. Meek-and-Mild—God is not a sentimental and nonthreatening familiarity.

5. Absolute Perfection—God may be perfect but God loves those who are imperfect.

6. Heavenly Bosom—God is not escapism.

7. God-in-a-Box—God is more than the beliefs of a particular church or denomination.

8. Managing Director—God may “run” the universe but is still concerned with us.

9. Second-Hand God—God can only be “known” by first-hand experience.

11. Negative—God is a source of life and vitality not a mere source of prohibitions.

12. Projected Image—God is not a projection of our own insecurity or self-hate.

Phillips also touches on other “destructive” views of God, such as a God who is only for the elite, a depersonalized God who is only the Enlightenment’s highest ideals and more.

            Phillips’ prose sounds a little archaic to my American ears fifty years after he wrote them, but I am grateful for his insistence that we humans continue to limit our understanding of God in order that God might serve our own purposes.  With that warning in mind, I shall with some “fear and trembling” offer up some other “destructive” or inadequate Gods for you to consider.  (For most of these, I remain grateful to theologians who have written since Phillips’ time.)

• ·       A Male God—Feminist theologians have rightly criticized the church’s long tradition of God’s authority with maleness, reminding us that God is greater than a specific gender and exhibits both masculine and feminine qualities.

• ·       A Caucasian God—African-American male theologians, along with Womanist (African-American female) theologians, Asian and Latin American theologians have rightly charged the church with perpetuating a God who validates the consolidation of power by Caucasians over other peoples.

• ·       A Heterosexual God—LGBT theologians and their allies offer the view that God is greater than sexual orientation or even sexual attraction.  A God who is only heterosexual reinforces the judgment and oppression of LGBT people.

• ·       An American God—Many are the theologians and Christian laypeople outside of the United States who challenge the views that God is the property of our country alone and Americans are a chosen or superior people.

• ·       A Capitalist God—Theologians and ethicists argue for a God who does not operate according to the rules of western capitalism.  God does not operate according to the accumulation of wealth but by graciously giving of God’s gifts to undeserving sinners.

• ·       A Political God—God is not limited by the left vs. right political spectrum and refuses to be limited to one side or the other.  All theologians of any self-awareness recognize that God rejects any human claims to absolute truth in the political sphere or any other.

Why talk about inadequate views of God?  Only by doing so can we gain the proper humility before God, and only when we are humble can we begin to serve God.  I hope God blows apart our limited understandings of the divine.

      Grace and Peace,

      Chase

So What Does the Bible Really Say About Homosexuality?

I wrote the following  for The Dialogue, the newsletter of the church where I serve, First Christian Church, Disciples of Christ of St. Joseph, MO.
 

In the press coverage following President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage last week, reporters gathered reactions to the president’s words.  In the coverage I heard, people opposed to same-sex marriage uniformly said they opposed it because the Bible condemns homosexuality.  I wondered how many of them actually knew what the Bible says—and more importantly what it doesn’t say—on the many issues related to sexuality.  Furthermore, I wondered how many people who support civil rights for LGBT people really know what the Bible has to say or not say.

During FCC’s process of becoming Open and Affirming to all people, we studied what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality.  Not all FCC members were present for those discussions, however, and we have had many new additions since that time.  So I feel like it’s time for a brief refresher on the subject.  I suspect some FCC folks are tired of all of the media blitz on same-sex marriage this election year.  If so, just skip this column and file it away until you have energy to spare for it.  For those who can read this brief overview now, I hope it serves as a primer on biblical interpretation in general and the Bible and homosexuality in particular. 

Genesis 19 and Judges19—In these two horrific passages, a stranger or strangers arrive in a town and are threatened with gang rape by the male inhabitants.  Male-on-male gang rape, however, is nothing like the kind of loving and committed relationships that many LGBT people have today.  The Genesis 19 story is infamous, because it tells the story of Sodom’s destruction.  The terms “sodomite” and “sodomy” have a long and convoluted history through centuries of church tradition and western law quite apart from the Biblical text itself, so a careful reader of the Bible should make sure that linguistic and legal history is not read back into the text.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—These two verses prohibit male to male sexual relations, but the problem with all arguments from the Levitical laws is determining their relevance for today.  There are some laws in Leviticus that match up with contemporary cultural norms, but there are many laws that do not.  How does one fairly determine which, if any, of these laws are relevant for contemporary cultural debates?  The Jewish religion, for which these laws are central, has a complex history of interpretation of them.  Within the different sects of Judaism, there are a number of groups who affirm same-sex relationships.  Given the divergence of belief with in Judaism, perhaps Christians should be careful with their interpretations.  (There is also the issue in 20:13 of capital punishment for male to male sexual relations--do we really want to go there?)

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10—Although the terms in these two verses which are often translated as “homosexual” or “male prostitute” are clearly negative in the view of the author, scholars differ regarding their translation.  The 1 Corinthians verse uses the Greek term “malakos” which generally means “soft.”  Although English translations tend to interpret this term as the “passive” partner in male homosexual acts, comparisons with how the term is used elsewhere in Greco-Roman literature reveal a variety of meanings.  The term could mean an “effeminate” male or even some other slang word with a less clear meaning.  The term “arsenokoites” is used in both verses and has been variously interpreted as “male prostitute,” “pederast,” “homosexual,” etc.  Elsewhere in Greco-Roman literature the term seems to point towards economic exploitation sometimes with a sexual connotation and sometimes not.  Given the lack of clarity on how to translate these terms Bible readers should be cautious in their own interpretations.

Romans 1:26-28—If there are Bible verses directly relevant for the contemporary debate, then they are found in Romans 1.  Here Paul writes about homosexual acts to illustrate how human beings have distorted God’s original created order.  He indicates that heterosexual relations were the original norm of God.  Yet, it should be noted that he does so in service to a larger point, namely that all people have fallen short of God’s original intentions lest any decide to judge others.

Given that the verses from Romans are the only ones that really can be considered relevant for the contemporary debate, what do we do with them?  It’s worth considering briefly a few more factors in interpretation.

• ·       Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

• ·       The Biblical authors presuppose that everyone is heterosexual.  The concept of a sexual orientation or that people could be born homosexual or heterosexual developed only within the last 150 years or so.  As far as the Bible is concerned, there are no homosexuals just heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts.  Like many concepts of science, psychology, neurology, genetics, etc. a concept of being born gay or lesbian was completely unknown to ancient writers.

• ·       There are at most seven references to homosexual acts in the Bible.  Compare that number to the hundreds of verses on greed.  Why does homosexuality get so much attention when we pay so little attention to our use of wealth?  There are many verses that condone slavery in the Bible, yet we view slavery as abhorrent.  Why do we reject some verses but not others? 

There is MUCH more to say about sexuality and the Bible, but at least this column provides some basics.  As you hear various views on sexuality this election year, consider the source and ask yourself if that person has really bothered to know what the Bible says or has considered what it means to responsibly interpret it.

Grace and Peace,

Chase

The End of Church

I wrote the following  for The Dialogue, the newsletter of the church where I serve, First Christian Church, Disciples of Christ of St. Joseph, MO.

“Something startling is happening in American religion: We are witnessing the end of church or, at the very least, the end of conventional church. The United States is fast-becoming a society where Christianity is being reorganized after religion.”

With these words, Diana Butler Bass, a scholar of American Christianity, began a recent on-line column.  These words are the thesis of her new book: ChristianityAfter Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening.  She is naming what people who pay attention to the contemporary church have been saying for the past several decades: the church as we have known it is dying.  Despite the way religion is used to bludgeon people in the political sphere and despite the large number of people who consider themselves “spiritual but not religious,” now even people in the pews at all kinds of churches recognize the big change that is happening in American churches.

The so-called mainline Protestant denominations (non-evangelical Protestants such as Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, etc.) have been in steady decline since the 1950’s.  In fact, First Christian Church of St. Joseph pretty much fits the national model of this group’s decline.  Our sanctuary, built in 1918 to hold almost 700 people was packed into the Fifties on Sunday mornings, but from the early 1960’s forward our numbers have declined.  Today, although our sanctuary remains beautiful and deeply cherished by our members, it is many times larger than what we regularly need.  Although this decline in numbers is due to many factors including changes in our community and decisions made or not made by First Christian, one factor among others is that our church building and many of our church practices and events were made for a different time.

We are not alone, however, Catholics and conservative Protestants are also seeing significant declines in membership.  One recent study revealed that 1 in 10 Americans considers herself or himself an ex-Catholic.  About twenty years ago, it was common for evangelical churches to gloat that they were growing and mainline Protestants were not, because they were preaching the truth rather than a watered-down Gospel.  Today, they are no longer gloating.  Sure, there are exceptions; every town has one or even several large evangelical churches, but for every one of them, there are tens or even hundreds of other similar churches in free fall. 

It is easy to look at society’s rejection of church and judge it as a sign of our nation’s godlessness, but Bass offers a different perspective by pointing to people who claim to be “spiritual but not religious.”  "’Spiritual and religious’ expresses a grassroots desire for new kinds of faith communities, where institutional structures do not inhibit or impede one's relationship with God or neighbor. Americans are searching for churches -- and temples, synagogues, and mosques -- that are not caught up in political intrigue, rigid rules and prohibitions, institutional maintenance, unresponsive authorities, and inflexible dogma but instead offer pathways of life-giving spiritual experience, connection, meaning, vocation, and doing justice in the world. Americans are not rejecting faith -- they are, however, rejecting self-serving religious institutions.”

In another on-line column, Bass argues that churches are offering answers to questions that people no longer ask anymore.  “Religion always entails the ‘3B's’ of believing, behaving, and belonging. . . For the last 300 years or so, the questions were asked as follows:

1) What do I believe? (What does my church say I should think about God?)
2) How should I behave? (What are the rules my church asks me to follow?)
3) Who am I? (What does it mean to be a faithful church member?)”

Do these questions sound familiar?  They should, because they are the questions that most churches are designed to answer—including First Christian Church, even though we would rather not admit it. 

Bass says that the questions people are asking and that churches should be trying to help them answer still have to do with the “3 B’s” of believing, behaving and belonging, but they have a decidedly different focus.  “Contemporary people care less about what to believe than how they might believe; less about rules for behavior than in what they should do with their lives; and less about church membership than in whose company they find themselves. The questions have become:

1) How do I believe? (How do I understand faith that seems to conflict with science and pluralism?)
2) What should I do? (How do my actions make a difference in the world?) 
3) Whose am I? (How do my relationships shape my self-understanding?)”

If Bass is correct (along with many other writers and scholars), then churches that help people answer this new set of questions will not only survive but live on to help shape the Christianity of the future.  Churches that exist only to try and answer questions people are no longer asking will find themselves to be living anachronisms—assuming they are still living at all.

The good news is that God is bigger than any church and even bigger than any idea of church.  God will still be at work in our world and in our society; just not in the same way.  Love will still be love.  Grace will still be grace.  But the church. . . who can say?  A community of believers that remains faithful to God rather than to a past way of doing church, however, will still be around for whatever ways God will work next.

Grace and Peace,
Chase

Why Go to Church? Really, Why?

I wrote the following  for The Dialogue, the newsletter of the church where I serve, First Christian Church, Disciples of Christ of St. Joseph, MO.

            This past Sunday morning I was part of one of the most important discussions I have experienced in my five-plus years at First Christian Church.  It was a discussion about why we go to church.  It’s my job to inspire people to come not to a building but together as a community in order to grow in their faith and worship God, but I have to confess that it’s often a mystery to me  why people come or don’t come—especially here at FCC.  Some people come every Sunday, but others come once a month or once a year.  Some whom I had expected to get involved and become committed have not done so; others who were involved and committed have stopped coming.  Sometimes people stop participating in the life of the church due to a dispute with another member or a disagreement over theology or practice, but more often something undefined (at least to me) occurs in their life and church does not hold the same priority for them.  Others whom I was sure would never truly commit to a church like ours have done so despite my expectations.  Maybe I’m just really lousy at determining who will be involved and stay involved.  In any case, I was very interested in what people would say about why they come to church.

            Before I share the answers of the 20 or so people present, I should explain the context of our discussion.  We are using a study by the religion writer Phylis Tickle called The GreatEmergence.  Tickle’s thesis is that every 500 years the church goes through a dramatic change in terms of authority.  500 years ago it was the Protestant Reformation which was, among other things, a debate about whether authority for the church should be found in church tradition or in scripture alone.  1000 years ago was the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western churches.  1500 years ago was the fall of the Roman Empire and its enforcement of the state church.  She argues that now we face another such radical shift, but now the shift in authority is moving (or maybe already has moved) to the individual’s experience and choice. 

In other words, now when it comes to Christianity people are in general no longer concerned with what a particular denomination says (they will either go to a different church or just do what they think is right anyway—think of American Roman Catholics and birth control). They no longer subscribe to the idea that the Bible is their sole authority (if they care about the Bible at all, they shop for a church that interprets the Bible in a way that suits them).  They may not even care about a traditional understanding of church at all (they may patch together their own religious practices).  Technology, especially the internet, has made it possible for people to connect with others outside their own community who share their beliefs—even people on the other side of the world.  (Tickle is not alone in pointing out these changes.  For example, Diana Butler Bass’ new book Christianity AfterReligion says much the same thing.)

Folks in our Sunday morning study all pretty much admitted that their religious authority was their own experience.  No one claimed that they held to a particular belief because the Bible or a religious official said so.  All said that their life experience including their individual experience of God was their ultimate authority.  Granted they made these honest admissions with humility; no one claimed to have a monopoly on truth to the exclusion of others.  Frankly, I wasn’t surprised to hear people at FCC St. Joseph express such a point of view.  When it comes down to it, I would say that more or less I feel the same way.

So, I asked, if you do not believe you are going to hell for missing church on Sundays and if you do not believe attending church is the only way to know God’s truth, why come at all?  Here are some of the answers they shared:

·       “The relationships at church matter to me.”

·       “We can hold each other accountable so we’re not off on our own believing something crazy.”

·       “I find support for difficult times.”

·       “We can learn from each other and grow.”

·       “It pleases God when we come to God’s house.”

·       “We are all so busy that it’s nice to just come and make time for God.”

·       “I experience an intimacy here that I haven’t found at other churches.”

·       “Meeting with others face-to-face is more meaningful than e-mail or social networking.”

·       “It’s an essential part of my week.  When I can’t come, something is missing.”

·       “We experience God through our relationship with one another.”

·       “God is everywhere, but I experience God in a special way at church.”

Given that you can choose to be elsewhere on Sunday mornings (plenty of folks make that choice) and given that at FCC we do not declare “You must come to church or else!” why do you come to church?  (A more appropriate question for some may be “Why don’t you come to church?”)  I, as your minister, would love to know.

Grace and Peace,

Chase