I speak from a Christian perspective here as it relates to the church. But these 10 points can also be applied to any denomination and even any religion. I am in solidarity with those who struggle to stay in the church, with those who have left it, as well as those who desire to be a part of a spiritual community but won’t for various reasons. I consider these my mission field. These points below are only from my experience, and they all can be prefaced with “generally speaking”. Not everyone’s. Just consider them:
- I’ve experienced enough abuse, intrigue, exploitation and alienation within the church, and have heard enough first hand testimonies from others, to realize that it isn’t rare within this institution.
- My experience of church in the past tells me that I am to believe what is expected and what I am told.
- Questions, unless they complement the accepted tradition and dogma, are not welcomed.
- I’ve found that friendship within the church is not based on love for the person, but on a conditional compatibility.
- The church is notorious for supporting codependency. Refuse to play this game and you’re considered cruel.
- Success, in terms of money, numbers, appearance and reputation, is the gauge of choice. If you redefine what true success is and live by that, you’re considered a failure.
- Creativity has difficulty finding a home here. Unless it is religious art.
- Exclusion trumps inclusion. Gays, for example. Diversity is scary and deemed impossible.
- Male dominated. The fascination with power, authority, strategy, chain of command, visions and goals, reflect this.
- The threatening demand to adhere to a literalist interpretation of scripture is always the axe waiting to fall and sever you from the group.
92 Comments
Trackbacks
- 10 Intentions of Our Faith Community - Who in the World Are We?
- Linkie Goodness # 1 « Should Know Better By Now
- Church Difficulties — A Foolish Dissent
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
This might be re-stating a few of your points, but there also seems to be an emphasis on the appearance of faith, more than the faith itself.
I don’t really see people actively studying the doctrines of their own denomination. Showing up and making the right gestures is important. Talking about scriptural origins, the logic behind certain decisions, or the meanings of different phrasings is not so important.
This seems to carry onto the points that are emphasized. Public displays of faith are important for image. So, there’s quite a lot of talk about ‘Merry Christmas’ versus ‘Happy Holidays’. And, there’s a lot of condemnation for sin when it’s visible and practiced by other people. Things that are difficult for outsiders to observe seem to get downplayed, at least relative to their emphasis in scripture.
I agree with Lorelei in a sense. The Bible itself is a challenge most religious communities face, the Old Testament specifically.
The OT is very boring, so most people don’t read it and don’t know whats in it. Now, this means the church may be better off simply not talking about the bad bits(God accepting human sacrifices, God killing children, condoning rape, genocide, etc) because most people will go their entire lives without finding out about it and bringing it up may cause these people to read the book and start doubting.
On the other hand, when those few that do actually read it get to these bad bits, they feeling deceived, like the church is trying to sweep the bad parts of the Bible under the rung(which I think most churches do). This causes greater doubt, but in much fewer people.
RH, I agree with what you are saying also. I know allot of extremely “faithful” Christians who are very active in their community, give sermons on scriptures to their youth groups, hold Bible studies, but are still shocked when I say that the Apostles did not write the Gospels and that scholars don’t know who wrote the Gospels. They are also surprised when I say that the Jews in the early Old Testament had no idea of reward or punishment in the afterlife.
Being able to quote nice-sounding scriptures and regurgitate a few passages is good, but people are rarely encouraged to understand how their texts formed and what doctrines have evolved over time.
Re-reading the above exchange, I’m not sure I see a difference between ‘honest’ questions and questions from doubt.
If I’m teaching something, it’s perfectly honest for a person to ask, “X is going against my intuition. What is the reasoning that lead the field to conclude X, instead of not-X?”
if the person is not particularly confident, or can’t articulate the reasons for their intuition, they might phrase this as, “What does the field think about X?”. Then they’d follow up with some pointed questions to draw the explanation towards X’s counter-intuitive aspects.
There’s no deception in the above. The person has doubts. They know they have doubts. And I can infer it. There’s no meaningful attempt at dishonesty.
The only questions I’d consider dishonest are questions from concealed-certainty. I might be quite well informed about topic Y. Someone without extensive training isn’t going to change my mind about Y, and I can pick apart most arguments easily, if only from my experience with discussions about Y.
Here, me asking questions about Y is probably dishonest. I’m trying to convince the other person via the Socratic method. But, I’m actively concealing this via a /pretense/ of doubt. This is an attempt at deception.
Here is from a non believer–I find church therapeutic. I mean singing hymns is awesome(but I can sing on my own time as well). The sermons are straight up brain damage(naturally for me). I mean…I would rather consult a philosopher who can question me at every stage of my thinking—that is true progression(and how science works).
Anyway, in church a priest/pastor will be “omg god is so awesome”…but how? Why? Well one of the reasons is Nature. How about mention of evolution here? It’s such a splendid process that explains so much about life(that is, if a church even recognizes such a process).
Church sermons are so…superficial.
RH,
I appreciate your thoughts above. I think I was somewhat open at first with questions, but studied quite a bit after that, and then I think I WAS certain already of what I thought. So that did make me guilty of posing a question in order to convince the other person.
I did sometimes say “I have a problem with this verse.” I guess it’s more honest to simply bring up the topic and make a statement. Then they know where you’re coming from and can give their opinion.
I did wonder if those who did not jump in were on to me. Not that I was a terrible person, but that I had already made up my mind, so the questions were sort of hostile.
Anyway, I appreciate the way you explained the difference above.
As a born again Christian I attend a bible teaching church, every church has problems, you’ll never find the perfect church, because people aren’t perfect. At the end of the day we are to love one another as ourselves, that goes for everyone, Man, woman,child, straight, gay, bi, we are all sinners and if you have truly eccepted Jesus you will have the Holy Spirit within you to help you do these things, we are to ask Jesus to help us with everything, I find it sad that many christian people don’t feel comfortable in their church, I say don’t let anyone or anything get in the way of your walk with Jesus Christ, remember Grace abounds where sin is and we cannot out give God. The church I attend loves to hear the opinions and differences people think scripture means, so it can be discussed , but in the end you can not change what it says just because you don’t like it. The Hebrew word meanings are very important when translating the Bible. but everyone should know easily what Jesus demands of us, He is never changing and He doesn’t change with society He is not politically correct. He died for our sins so we can go to Heaven if you I haven’t accepted Him DO IT NOW, if not you will have to stand before God in your sin and pay the full penalty yourself, which is a shame as Jesus gave salvation as a FREE GIFT to everyone, but he also gave us the choice to accept it.:)
God bless
Happy New Year
Libby
enjoyed your comments….not because they were enjoyable but because they caused us all to think…and rethink, why we are where we are…or for that matter, are not.
Have experienced these remarkable attitudes during my 66 years and consider it shameful that so many lives are left touched with the pain of non acceptance.
thanks for writing later mimi65
so…we come back to the question: what is the church? can the Bible help us know what the church is? it seems the Christ wanted us to know something of the church [with some amazing perspicuity and detail]. Or, based on the bible+myinterpretation=myinterpretation equation can one not use the scriptures to define churchy stuff? And, based on that formula, and NP’s post here, who’s to say that 1 – 10 aren’t acceptable forms of “church?” seems dogmatic and reeking of modernity to say otherwise…
Discussing what Christ wanted from his church is rather odd, considering that he was (1) an apocalypticist who believed that the end times were imminent and (2) he was Jewish. His preaching centered on informing fellow Jews about how to join him in the City of God, where he would rule with his disciples. He wasn’t talking to some future community of worshippers; he was telling Jews to clean up their acts right then. The church formed after the apocalypse didn’t happen. It was not built by Jesus, who was calling on Jews to form a new covenant with God, but by his followers. The early church concentrated mainly on bringing Jews to the new faith, but if later followers had not allowed gentile members to not first convert to Judaism (and be circumcised), it’s questionable whether the church would have survived.
so does Matt 16:18 mean He failed? the 120 or so were the church? what of the basic corpus of the epistles?
You mean the gospels and epistles, the youngest of which was written sixty years after Jesus’ death, by writers who never met him?
ahh…so that’s where we are…I will leave you with the good news according to Lorelei…cheers…
At least we’ve found another couple of reasons people leave the church: science and history.
whose history? interesting how some presuppositions lead to doubt, others to belief–seems quite attached to modernity…
The history of those who speak Aramaic and Greek, in this case, and have access to the oldest documents and the palimpsests that were the early bible. And I agree, many modern discoveries do tend to undermine faith and make plenty of people uncomfortable with church and the bible.
Lorelei,
I agree. Maybe that IS why the church has such a hard time figuring out what it’s supposed to be doing and how to apply things that Jesus said. He wasn’t talking to people who were meeting once a week, sitting in pews. He thought the end was near.
So what is a pastor to do with a congregation of people with radically different beliefs? Many would reject the view of Jesus as an apocalyptic rabbi. That is quite the challenge you have there.
So I know that Jesus is an apocalyptic rabbi from the Gospels I don’t accept as accurate because they were written by people who never met him. Brilliant. That’s modern scholarship in the works for you. BTW, I know Aramaic and Greek and don’t believe a lick of what you’ve said. You’re conveniently latching on to specific scholarship and not others for the support of your preconceived belief system. Let’s not act like it’s really about science and history. That has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It is appropriate that you lurk here, however, since the emerging church is primarily atheistic in its presupps as well. Ta.
tooaugust “You’re conveniently latching on to specific scholarship and not others for the support of your preconceived belief system. ”
So, how wd we know yr not doing the same?
I didn’t say I wasn’t. The difference is I don’t assume a contradiction where I trust documents for certain elements I want to believe about Jesus and then turn around and say that they’re untrustworthy. I also admit my presupps and selection of theories based upon them, whereas I don’t see atheists doing the same. Tootles.
I confess I take my facts about the universe from science and my knowledge of history from, well, history. I do not select theories. Facts select theories.
Lorelei,
That is without a doubt the stupidest comment I have ever heard. What scientific and historical facts? Walls and coins? And what are these dead pieces of data saying to you? Do they visit you in the night and tell you their stories through magical dreams? What you really mean is that you get your beliefs about the universe and history from what is popular theory applied to data and confuse that with facts. I’m done here. Try reading a book or two before you make such idiotic statements.
I doubt this will do any good, but I thought I should point out that the people who have taught me the most about the history of the Bible, with all its gaps and flaws, are two college professors who are also ordained in the Methodist and Catholic churches (respectively). Understanding the Bible’s history damages only one thing: dogmatic literalism. It does not damage faith if your faith is in God and not some book.
To say, as tooaugust does, that anyone should read “a book or two” before accepting what is taken as fact by the most serious scholars of the Bible and antiquity is simply laughable. Anyone can write the kind of book that says “shut out the facts and listen to me, and thanks for the $24.95!”
It is also interesting to me that the only commenters here who have become abusive are the “loving” Christians, who seem to have completely missed DH’s point.
Follow-up: it is also a little disappointing that such abusive drivel actually got posted since comments require moderation before being published.
Lynn said, on January 4th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I agree. Maybe that IS why the church has such a hard time figuring out what it’s supposed to be doing and how to apply things that Jesus said.
—————Lynn, I respectfully disagree. And I would ask you, what makes you believe that the Church has a hard time figuring out what it is to be doing??? Please don’t blow off that question.
Jesus said in Matthew 28:18-20— “18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”
—I don’t know of any church that doesn’t try and do that. That is the primary directive given to what would become Christ’s Church/Body.
There is no doubt that Jesus also wants His Church to help the poor and the down troddened. And yes, we could do better helping the poor, but I submit, if tomorrow every Christian Church and para-church groups STOPPED helping the poor in America we would encounter a national disaster. In disaster after disaster in America, the Church, yes, the Church is most often the first on the scene to help and give.
And again, there will be those who lament that we don’t do enough. They will lament that there is fraud and the Shisters, and it is true, but then, Jesus did have a thief in his little tribe, didn’t he. And I can tell you this; thousand of very small, country Churches all ove America are the live blood to helping the poor in their small communities—-and that is overlooked by the nay sayers.
Just a few of my thoughts, Lynn.
fishon
Eddie said, on January 5th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Follow-up: it is also a little disappointing that such abusive drivel actually got posted since comments require moderation before being published.
———-Ah Eddie, then you are not very aquainted with the NP [David] and his ways.
He allows all abusive drivel——His, mine–your’s—-anyones.
fishon
So the Popes of secularism say so. Hence, it is laughable to suggest that there are epistemic issues involved in determining which theory is viable in one’s own system. I think the books that should be read are books concerning epistemology and the interpretation of data. Anyone can write the kind of book that says “shut out the facts of epistemic reality in interpretation and listen to me, and thanks for the $24.95!” They do all the time. They’re published by Prometheus. I’m simply saying that Lorelei and his/her ilk ought to do some reading beyond the atheistic bubble (and that includes popular scholarship that is bigotted beyond repair. Later Gator.
fishon,
You asked above how I could say the church has a hard time figuring out what it’s supposed to be doing. I stand corrected. The church has a clear mission as you quoted from Matthew.
I need to be more precise and also not project my problem onto the church. I think I was thinking about things Jesus had said that sound like he thought the end was near-and what he said made more sense in that context. If we try to apply them to today, they don’t make sense TO ME.
I’m too lazy to look them up, but stuff like telling the rich guy to sell all and give to the poor, not to worry about providing for yourself because the lilies of the field don’t work and they are taken care of. That’s all I can think of at the moment.
And maybe part of the problem is that I would sometimes ask myself WHY I was at church. None of it was working for me. I guess it’s all I had ever known, so there I was feeling out of place, lonely, and critical of what I observed.
And if I have read widely and come do different conclusions? If I have read from Maimonides to Alter and beyond and still do not agree? Or is that impossible?
Lynn,
I am not going to try and explain the “rich guy” story or the “lilies of the field,” because then someone will come in behind me and just try and cause confussion. It happens almost everytime someone gives scripture on her or tries to explain scripture in this blog site.
However, I point you to Mark 10:17-31. Read it. Digest it. Pray for awareness of its meaning. If you then have questions you can e-mail me at revfish.k7@gmail.com But, I am guessing that you will discover the answer to what it means if you are truely seeking answers.
fishon
Maimonides to Alter are biblical interpreters. They don’t deal with their own presupps and how one comes to understand data by placing a story/theory to the data based, not on the data itself, but on a preconceived ultimate belief. You don’t, therefore, come to different conclusions because of science and history. You come to different conclusions because of the beliefs that carry the many theories within those fields to their conclusions. My response was due to the extreme hubris of your statement, a statement employed only by the ignorance of our culture supporting a modern fiction about science.
Which modern fiction about science?
fishon,
Thanks. I will read Mark 10 and respond by email if needed. Appreciate it.
Lorelei, seriously. I stated this already in my post. The modern fiction is that science just deals with fact and does not base its theories of non-repeatable events upon beliefs. When you apply science to history, and pretend to believe only fact, then you neither understand the nature of history nor the nature of science. Yet, it is popular to misunderstand it, so the ignorance continues. Good night and good luck.
Non-repeatable events are the realm of thaumatology, not of science. I confess a strong preference for science. I am not pretending when I say I believe only facts. But then facts do not require belief.
When night rolls around here, I’ll do my best to have a good one. Cheers.
You BELIEVE only facts? Really? And what are these facts saying? That Jesus was an apocalyptic rabbi? How is this a fact? It’s a belief, not a fact. Reason number one billion why atheists don’t have a clue: confusion between fact and interpretation of a fact. I just believe in facts too, and all my facts coincide with all of my believes. I guess that makes all of your facts fairytales. Gotta Catcha Bus, Snufflelufagus.
Lynn…I agree with fishon…meditate on that scripture and you will see clearly. To facilitate that I suggest this paraphrase of two prayers which Paul prays in Ephesians 1&3 “May the eyes of my understanding be opened…may my heart be flooded with light…may I know the length and depth and breadth and height of God’s love until I am filled with the utter fullness of God.” Say it mindfully twice a day. If you feel led to use it to intercede for someone else, make sure you have said it for yourself first for at least 30 days, That way you won’t be coming from a condescending position.
preacherlady,
Thanks, might try that.
Ah, yes, facts about Jesus are more difficult, as there is zero direct proof he existed (no writings by him, no governmental records, etc.) But he probably did, and based on writings about Jesus, the oldest reliable writings that concur, and the ones we know didn’t creep into the texts in the endless rewritings of the bible, yes, apocalyptic rabbi fits.
When I saw this list I was so impressed. Intuitively I know #5 is true, but find it hard to articulate. I keep wanting to ask you to expand, but in the end I felt this was lazy and have tried to do it myself.
http://revdlesley.blogspot.com/2010/01/church-culture-and-codependency.html
Is this what you mean by codependency in church? I have looked through your archives and can’t find it spelt out for me
Keep up the amazing work.
I like your article Lesley. That’s what I meant.