Faith in God is NOT a massage: Almost Christian Review Part 2

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism makes no pretense at changing lives, it is a low commitment, compartmentalized set of attitudes aimed at 'meeting my needs' and 'making me happy' rather than bending my life into a pattern of love and obedience to God. (30)

Which reminds me of a song recorded by a folk trio called Cry, Cry, Cry featuring Dar Williams called Lord I Have Made You A Place in My Heart by Greg Brown

Oh Lord, I have made you a place in my heart
Among the rags and the bones and the dirt.
There's piles of lies, the love gone from her eyes,
And old moving boxes full of hurt.
Pull up a chair by the trouble and care.
I got whiskey, you're welcome to some.
Oh Lord, I have made you a place in my heart,
But I don't reckon you're gonna come.

I've tried to fix up the place, I know it's a disgrace,
You get used to it after a while -
With the flood and the drought and old pals hanging out
With their IOU's and their smiles.
Bare naked women keep coming in
And they dance like you wouldn't believe.
Oh Lord, I have made you a place in my heart,
So take a good look - and then leave.

Oh Lord, why does the Fall get colder each year?
Lord, why can't I learn to love?
Lord, if you made me, it's easy to see
That you all make mistakes up above.
But if I open the door, you will know I'm poor
And my secrets are all that I own.
Oh Lord, I have made you a place in my heart
And I hope that you leave it alone.

I believe Almost Christian to be a dangerous book, not just for youth ministers, but for churches. It suggests that many of us who would call ourselves 'disciples' are more interested in 'feeling better' than in allowing our lives to be bent, which means we aren't really disciples at all. At best we are like Peter, hanging around for the reward and running when the following Christ costs us something. Or, as the song suggests, we will make a little guest room for Christ, but want him to leave it alone. What Christ wants to do is Extreme Home Makeover, not hanging new curtains.

In The Peaceable Kingdom, Stanley Hauerwas comments that one of central duties of the church is to teach us that we are sinners.

Almost Christian causes me to wonder if the mainline church in an effort to remain 'relevant' or at least 'successful' or well, open, has lowered significantly the bar of discipleship. There are easier and less costly ways for folks to feel better about themselves, the shelves are full of self-help books and Oprah is incredibly popular. Talking about sin and suggesting that folks are twisted out of the shape God intended for them, and that church is about bending them back into the image of God, that is dangerous. People might not come if that is what they will hear.

Almost Christian suggests to me that we aren't being the disciples Christ calls us to be and that the church has lost is mission and focus, serving the god 'feel better' instead of the living God who burns away the chaff.

I found a quote from Walter Brueggemann
'Israel (the church) under threat is never an easy 'therapeutic' community, and faith in Yahweh is not a massage. It is the embrace and practice of a destiny that make costly demands in the name of Yahweh.

(Essay: Always in the Shadow of Empire. Book: The Church as Counterculture)

What do you think

Why Worship is Important

So last night I posted on a couple of things, including an article in which worship was described is not the most important thing we do as church or Christians. Here is why I feel that is not true. Aside from the theological reason, Christ is present in worship, I think that regular communal time together is vital to our mission or outreach, because it is in worship that we learn how to be the community. Together through the liturgy, we learn how it is that the church serves the community and creates community in the shape of Christ. We confess our sins in our times of prayer and then pass the peace. This teaches us the basic shape of peace-making, which the world is in need of, both locally and internationally. Confession and prayer teach us how to be honest with one another, so that we are a truthful witness in a world where honesty and authenticity are lacking. We offer tithes and share communion, both of which teach us how to share our lives, our belongings and our wealth. We hear the word of God which shows us where to direct our missional actions, to the poor, the ignored and the 'other'. Baptism shows us how to make a community out of diverse ethnic groups, gender identities and socio-economic backgrounds. Without this foundation of worship, the church is doing nothing but copying other social service agencies which probably do a better job than we do assisting others. Not to mention the fact that the church is equipped to do something that agencies cannot do. We can befriend those we aid. We do not need to keep a professional distance. We, as the body of christ, join with them in suffering and in challenge. Their lives are joined to ours in a way that secular agencies cannot reproduce.

Is the church created only to serve? Service is important and vital. But our service is part of a larger mission, which is to show the world what the Kingdom of God looks like. Perhaps we can only do this in part. Definately we cannot create the Kingdom on our own. But we are not called to create the kingdom, which I think the idea that the church is called to serve and not worship leads too, the fallacious idea that we can create the kingdom (fix the worlds problems) through our actions. we can't do that. We show the world a better way and wait faithfully for Christ to return and recreate the world.

A church that serves without worship exists to serve the world alone. A church that serves and worships exists to serve and follow christ.

Dignitas Personae Cont

It is with great pleasure that I share a couple of comments from my good friend 'Theological Snob' regarding my posting on Dignitas Personae.


Darin,I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children.

No, I am not saying I agree with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex is to have children. I think that sex is meant to deepen and strengthen the emotional ties in marriage and be a catalyst for the emotional grouth of the two partners. Sex has a vital and important role in marriage regardless of procreation. So while I would not agree that the main 'purpose' of sex is children, I do think that the Catholic Church offers an important and necessary alternative to the purely recreational view of sex that is predominant in our culture. In my humble opinion this 'recreational view' leave sex devoid of any meaning or purpose but pleasure itself. 'Recreational Sex' is not primarily interested in a deep and intimate experience with another, but in personal happiness and satisfaction, which, in my opinion, leads to a culture which makes the sex partner, an object for the self's pleasure and which leads to the commodification of sex. In everyday life this looks like unwanted pregnancy, disease, marital infidelity and divorce in my experience (not personal experience, by the way) So while I do not necessarily agree with every conclusion the Catholic Church draws as a result of calling procreation a mystery in which humanity co-creates with God, I do think it is the best alternative to 'recreational' ethic of popular culture.



On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice...You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds.

Theological Snob raises an important critique of the idea that the church should be the alternative family for single mothers who feel ill-prepared and unready to raise a child. First, the practical application of that idea, that the church becomes a global adoption agency, is unrealistic. I'm not sure I want to go that far and this is where I ready admit I 'punk out' on my own ideas. I am not suggesting that the church becomes a social service agency. I am suggesting that the churches stance should be clear. We are a community for which abortion is not a viable option. In this way we stand as a prophetic voice to culture, offering a critique to the practice of abortion and showing an alternative way to deal with the 'no-win' situations that Theological Snob mentions. (in this area I am admitedly very influenced by Hauerwas).

As for Theological Snobs concern, that such a view becomes critical legalism, I think that is an excellent point. The alternative, however, leaves us no ground upon which to do pastoral care, which TS is concerned about. If the church does not have a clear and concise theological understanding of what marriage is, sex and procreation... if we do not clearly state that procreation is participation in the creativity of God, that children are such a high value that they should be created in the state of marriage and that abortion is a violation of who God is and how God acts in the world (which by the way the church is meant to be, the ebodiment of a Creative and Grace-full God) than what how do we determine our pastoral counsel? My fear is that if we refuse to have a clear statement about abortion, we have no ground for our pastoral care. If our pastoral care is not grounded on theology, than I fear we end up sliding towards the view expressed in the Nation, where the best way we can serve an un-wed mother ill-prepared and frightened, is to take up a collection for her abortion. Haven't we then ceased to be the church? In other words, how do we do pastoral care if we don't take a definite theological stand for life? If we do not offer a theological or spiritual view of the matter we are nothing but very poorly trained social workers.

While some may use a clear and concise theological statement regarding marriage, sex, procreation, and abortion in a legalistic manner, to throw away a uniquely biblical and theological view of a complex situation simply because some misuse it, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater (in a what is not an attempt at a clever pun). So while there is danger to 'idealism' I think the Liberal Christian church has discovered the danger of 'pragmatism' which is silence and apathy in regards to the issue of life, abortion and human sexuality.

My main concern (I think, because this is all just a theological thought experiment right now) is that the liberal church has failed to be a witness to its faith in regards to this issue. I am not trying to find a way to set social policy, but to return the church to its calling, which is to bear witness to the powerful presence of a living God. How can we do that if we remain so wishy-washy about a topic like Life?