I have written before in this blog about the contrast between generic, Judeo-Christian civil religion and authentic Christian faith in a secular pluralistic culture. Kenda Creasy Dean’s article “Faith, Nice and Easy” (Christian Century, August 10, 2010, pp. 22 ff) analyzes the National Study of Youth and Religion. While the study and her article focus on youth and what kind of faith churches are forming in youth, I believe her assessment is applicable to how churches are defining faith for adults as well as youth.
She calls the defective but popular model of faith Moralistic Therapeutic Deism which she says “does not and cannot stand on its own” but infiltrates traditional faith communities unaware that it is very different than orthodox Christianity. She presents a definition or “creed” for Moralistic Therapeutic Deism this way.
1. A god exists who created and orders the world and watches over life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and feel good about yourself.
4. God is not involved in my life except when I need God to solve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.
If a clause was added suggesting that the United States enjoys some favored status with this god, it would pretty well represent generic, Judeo-Christian civil religion. I believe that this Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is not only inadequate for life in a secular, pluralistic society, it is impotent for God’s redemptive transformation through Jesus Christ. By way of contrast Kenda Creasy Dean refers to the Exemplary Youth Ministry study funded by the Lilly Foundation for the characteristics of congregations that do not fall prey to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. Again, I believe these qualities are important for adults as well as youth in any viable church. They will:
1. portray God as living, present and active.
2. place a high value on scripture.
3. explain their church’s mission, practices and relationships as inspired by the life and mission of Jesus Christ.
4. emphasize spiritual growth, discipleship and vocation.
5. promote outreach and mission.
6. develop a positive, hopeful spirit; live out a life of service; and live a Christian moral life.
(I think that this was published in The Christian Century and not a fundamentalist periodical is telling. It certainly is not because fundamentalists are immune to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. They just hang their own words and symbols on it, as do self-identified evangelicals and liberals.)
As a pastor I have aspired to live what she calls “the transforming presence of God in life and ministry,” and I have endeavored to celebrate it in the lives of people in the congregations I have served. Yet, over the years I have observed (with some puzzled amazement) that many church members resist (or at least ignore) this transformative faith and prefer a bland Moralistic Therapeutic Deism by which God can be domesticated and kept on the periphery of life.
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, even with Christian words and symbols hung all over it, is profoundly self-centered and ingrown. Church comes to be about comforting me, inspiriting me, feeding me, satisfying my preferences and tastes, meeting my expectations. Authentic Christian faith is always outward oriented, taking its cue from Jesus, whom Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “the man for others.” An authentic Christian congregation is about mission. It seeks to draw in new people, not so the institution can survive and grow but so people can be transformed by Jesus Christ. The article quotes Jean-Luc Marion who said that “the ethic of giving is the telltale sign that God’s image is under construction in us.”
I am not interested in critiquing other congregations or the congregation I am presently serving. Rather, my passion continues to be to awaken in others a compelling hunger for intimacy with Jesus that propels us into total involvement in the mission of Jesus. I ache for my own life and the lives of fellow pilgrims on the Christian journey to be transformed by and into authentic Christian faith and live together in community as we journey together with Jesus.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Can the Center Hold?
The last few weeks the “ask the pastor” Sunday school group I have been in has explored our response as Christians who are serious about being disciples of Jesus to the cultural trajectory of the United States. At the time of the founding of the nation, even the Deists assumed a generally Protestant cultural consensus. As immigration brought Roman Catholics and Jews, many from eastern and southern Europe, a generic Judeo-Christian civil religion took shape. As the 20th century came to its conclusion global immigration brought a much wider range of religious perspective to the United States, and the whole population became increasingly secular. Most people are not opposed to private religion but do not claim to practicing any religion themselves.
This discussion prompted me to think about what core of shared values might be able to hold together a large, diverse, pluralistic, secular democracy. I tried to think of things that I could support as a Christian that could be equally embraced by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists. I am starting by suggesting these five ideas, with a connection to Christian theology in parentheses. I invite others to engage in this discussion with suggestions of other ideas, deleting some of these, defining what I have just labeled without working out definitions yet.
1. Respect people – the dignity and worth of every individual. (created in the image of God)
2. Respect community – the shared environment, culture and history. (creation, purpose)
3. Justice – with compassion for the weak and poor, with restorative rather than punitive purpose for those who violate others or the community as well as protection from those whose habits threaten others and the community. (hope and redemption)
4. Integrity – honest, transparent interactions. (truth)
5. Rule of law – predictability of expectations, checks and balances. (accountability)
A corollary issue is whether a large, diverse, pluralistic, secular democracy can have a mission or purpose. The founders of the United States articulated an aversion to foreign entanglements, and an isolationist theme does recur in public opinion, especially when global ventures have gone badly. From the Monroe Doctrine and Theodore Roosevelt’s “big stick” to George W. Bush’s desire to spread democracy, the Puritan’s concept of a “city set on a hill” has taken on a secular direction backed up with military power as the country emerged as a superpower. Neither isolationism nor empire building are practical and probably not ethical. So it remains to identify a purpose broader than national interest for a large, diverse, pluralistic, secular democracy.
My suggested value core and questions about a national mission are raised with an awareness of a fragmenting, polarizing trend in the public arena of the United States today. Strident voices with a “take no prisoners” attitude are arising around a host of volatile issues: immigration, health care, response to terrorism, gun rights/controls, and economics (banking, deficits, taxes).
By suggesting a minimal core of values and seeking some sort of national mission, I am asking whether there is an American center that people of the whole range of political, social and religious stripes can agree to claim together. I am not optimistic about the current atmosphere or about finding such a core and mission, but I think it is worth trying, which begs these additional questions.
1. Is this compelling? Does it inform a social mission or reason for being?
2. Can the center hold?
3. What is a legitimate cultural center for a large diverse country like the United States?
4. What can Christians contribute to defining the cultural center of a secular, pluralistic society?
5. If the center does not hold, how should Christians conduct their own lives, their churches and live with their neighbors?
As a pastor I am particularly concerned about this last question, feeling responsible to help Christians find a center in Jesus that will hold for their personal lives and for their congregations. I have concluded that this is essential as the inevitability of secular pluralism becomes inescapable. It will be even more urgent if as a large, diverse, pluralistic, secular democracy the United States cannot find a center that will hold and fragmented polarization becomes what characterizes this country, and perhaps all of the western democracies.
This discussion prompted me to think about what core of shared values might be able to hold together a large, diverse, pluralistic, secular democracy. I tried to think of things that I could support as a Christian that could be equally embraced by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists. I am starting by suggesting these five ideas, with a connection to Christian theology in parentheses. I invite others to engage in this discussion with suggestions of other ideas, deleting some of these, defining what I have just labeled without working out definitions yet.
1. Respect people – the dignity and worth of every individual. (created in the image of God)
2. Respect community – the shared environment, culture and history. (creation, purpose)
3. Justice – with compassion for the weak and poor, with restorative rather than punitive purpose for those who violate others or the community as well as protection from those whose habits threaten others and the community. (hope and redemption)
4. Integrity – honest, transparent interactions. (truth)
5. Rule of law – predictability of expectations, checks and balances. (accountability)
A corollary issue is whether a large, diverse, pluralistic, secular democracy can have a mission or purpose. The founders of the United States articulated an aversion to foreign entanglements, and an isolationist theme does recur in public opinion, especially when global ventures have gone badly. From the Monroe Doctrine and Theodore Roosevelt’s “big stick” to George W. Bush’s desire to spread democracy, the Puritan’s concept of a “city set on a hill” has taken on a secular direction backed up with military power as the country emerged as a superpower. Neither isolationism nor empire building are practical and probably not ethical. So it remains to identify a purpose broader than national interest for a large, diverse, pluralistic, secular democracy.
My suggested value core and questions about a national mission are raised with an awareness of a fragmenting, polarizing trend in the public arena of the United States today. Strident voices with a “take no prisoners” attitude are arising around a host of volatile issues: immigration, health care, response to terrorism, gun rights/controls, and economics (banking, deficits, taxes).
By suggesting a minimal core of values and seeking some sort of national mission, I am asking whether there is an American center that people of the whole range of political, social and religious stripes can agree to claim together. I am not optimistic about the current atmosphere or about finding such a core and mission, but I think it is worth trying, which begs these additional questions.
1. Is this compelling? Does it inform a social mission or reason for being?
2. Can the center hold?
3. What is a legitimate cultural center for a large diverse country like the United States?
4. What can Christians contribute to defining the cultural center of a secular, pluralistic society?
5. If the center does not hold, how should Christians conduct their own lives, their churches and live with their neighbors?
As a pastor I am particularly concerned about this last question, feeling responsible to help Christians find a center in Jesus that will hold for their personal lives and for their congregations. I have concluded that this is essential as the inevitability of secular pluralism becomes inescapable. It will be even more urgent if as a large, diverse, pluralistic, secular democracy the United States cannot find a center that will hold and fragmented polarization becomes what characterizes this country, and perhaps all of the western democracies.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Is That Any Way for a Nice Muslim/Christian Girl to Dress?
I happened to catch some of the commentators’ complaints that Miss Michigan Rima Fakih, the winner of 2010 Miss USA, is from a Muslim background. With that also came revelations of pictures of her from a pole-dancing competition and a video production. However, those were less racy than her official lingerie shots taken under the auspices of the Miss USA Pageant. In observing that Rima Fakih is a Lebanese-American immigrant whose family observes both Muslim and Christian holidays, several commentators complained that Muslims seem to be getting some sort of advantage in such contests.
Having seen only the pictures shown on broadcast TV and in the Dallas Morning News, I can’t (and won’t) attempt any kind of comprehensive analysis of any of the Miss USA contestants. And I have nothing at all to say about any advantage for Muslim or Christian or any other kind of young woman in these contests. However, the pictures that were in the public media would seem to suggest that Miss USA is not an observant Muslim or at least not observing Muslim standards of modesty. I do not know her and am in no position to make any judgments about her character, but she would need much more than a hijab for the necessary cover up. I would not be surprised if faithful Muslims in Lebanon (and elsewhere) expressed embarrassment rather than pride, fearing she has been corrupted by the Christian west.
I know that over the years a number of Miss USA contestants have used that platform to make their own Christian witness. Last year’s Miss California, Carrie Prejean, made such a statement which seemed oddly ironic when her own racy pictures were released. Again, I am in no position to judge her or any of them or their motives. I’m not even interested in critiquing beauty pageants. And I am certainly not trying to promote prudish or dowdy fashion for women of any age or enforce some kind of male dominance.
My question goes in a different direction. How does the way we present ourselves in public (from dress to pose to language) communicate who we are or aspire to be as people? In Luke 6:45 Jesus said, “It is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.” Try as I might to manage myself to give a good impression, the façade will slip and my public persona will betray the overflow of my heart. The solution is not better masks or greater skill at keeping them in place but feeding the heart on better things so that neither I nor anyone else feels embarrassed when my heart overflows. Or as the Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 4:8, “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”
While faithful Christians and Muslims have many things about which to disagree, including how modesty should be practiced, it seems to me in the public arena we can be allies in encouraging the principle of winsome modesty for men as well as women.
Having seen only the pictures shown on broadcast TV and in the Dallas Morning News, I can’t (and won’t) attempt any kind of comprehensive analysis of any of the Miss USA contestants. And I have nothing at all to say about any advantage for Muslim or Christian or any other kind of young woman in these contests. However, the pictures that were in the public media would seem to suggest that Miss USA is not an observant Muslim or at least not observing Muslim standards of modesty. I do not know her and am in no position to make any judgments about her character, but she would need much more than a hijab for the necessary cover up. I would not be surprised if faithful Muslims in Lebanon (and elsewhere) expressed embarrassment rather than pride, fearing she has been corrupted by the Christian west.
I know that over the years a number of Miss USA contestants have used that platform to make their own Christian witness. Last year’s Miss California, Carrie Prejean, made such a statement which seemed oddly ironic when her own racy pictures were released. Again, I am in no position to judge her or any of them or their motives. I’m not even interested in critiquing beauty pageants. And I am certainly not trying to promote prudish or dowdy fashion for women of any age or enforce some kind of male dominance.
My question goes in a different direction. How does the way we present ourselves in public (from dress to pose to language) communicate who we are or aspire to be as people? In Luke 6:45 Jesus said, “It is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.” Try as I might to manage myself to give a good impression, the façade will slip and my public persona will betray the overflow of my heart. The solution is not better masks or greater skill at keeping them in place but feeding the heart on better things so that neither I nor anyone else feels embarrassed when my heart overflows. Or as the Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 4:8, “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”
While faithful Christians and Muslims have many things about which to disagree, including how modesty should be practiced, it seems to me in the public arena we can be allies in encouraging the principle of winsome modesty for men as well as women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)