Verse 7 of Jude says that Sodom and Gomorrah, with their sexual immorality and perversion, are examples of "those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." This is another old Testament reference. Notice that lack of hospitality is not the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah in this passage.
Verse 8 says that "In the same way these dreamers (the condemned people this letter is about) pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. This could apply to Jews who have given up following the law of Moses. (See 2 Peter 2:10)
Verse 9 Talks about the archangel Michael disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. Even Michael, himself a celestial being, did not have the nerve to slander another celestial being. (See 2 Peter 2:10-11) Instead, he said, "The lord rebuke you!" This story is supposed to have come from a document called the Testament of Moses or the Ascension of Moses. However, it bears a remarkable similarity to the first verses of Zechariah 3, where a high priest Joshua (same name as Jesus ) is standing before the angel of the lord (Michael?) and Satan. There Satan is rebuked with the words "The lord rebuke you." Some Wikipedia writer suggests that the word 'Moses' has replaced the word 'Joshua' deliberately, to avoid confusion. You're darn right it would be confusing if Jude said that the devil and Michael argued over the body of Joshua (Jesus). Then this verse would clearly be associated with the high priest Joshua of Zechariah 3, and it might be doubted that the author was referring to the first century Jesus. I can see how that would be a problem for those promoting the first century Jesus guy.
Verse 10 says the godless men don't know what they are talking about, and what they do know does them no good.
Verse 11 says the godless men have taken the way of Cain (murder?), Balaam (greed), and Korah (rebelling against leadership). 2 Peter 2:15 also mentions Balaam.
Verses 12 -13 says the godless men are blemishes at (the jew's? or the christian's ?) love feast. (Echoed in 2 Peter 2:13) They are shepherds who feed only themselves, clouds without rain (see 2Peter 2:17), autumn trees without fruit and uprooted, wild waves, wandering stars with blackest darkness reserved for them (see 2 Peter 2:17 again. Notice how 2 Peter draws many phrases and themes from Jude.)
Verses 14-16 is said to quote directly from the the book of Enoch, "See the lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (That's four times ungodly.) My study bible says that "the book of Enoch was not canonical does not mean it contained no truth." Can't that be said of any book, fiction and non-fiction? It goes on to say "Nor does Jude's quotation of the book mean he considered it inspired." Then what does it mean?
The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. The author of the book of Enoch did not even live at the same time Enoch was supposed to have lived. It is fiction.Enoch is most likely a fictional person. How can it be talking about a prophecy that never happened, from a person who may never have lived, and it still be true? My study bible says "Jude uses the quotation to refer to Christ's second coming and to his judgment of the wicked." So? How does that make it true? How is a fictional quote from a fictional man support for anything? It reminds me of "quotes" from famous people found all over the internet today. It seems clear to me that the author of Jude did not consider it fictional at all. He was ignorant of the history of the book of Enoch. We have an advantage over him.
More to come. Because of pressing family matters, The next post will probably be at the end of next week.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Book Review: The Bonobo and the Atheist
I just finished reading The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism among the Primates by Franz De Waal. The author writes clearly about the application of his lifelong work with chimpanzees and bonobos. He intertwines the narrative with another of his passions, the artwork of Hieronymus Bosch. In both he sees lessons about the human condition. I personally found the art aspect added additional interest, but some reviewers did not find it relevant to the topic. They obviously did not get that Franz De Waal's thought on the origins of religion was a big part of the human condition he was exploring. However, I do agree with many critics who say that he was too soft on religion and its effect on the human race. He doesn't seem to think humans can get along very well without the guidance of religion, but he does just fine without it.
Besides exploring evidence of altruism and empathy in apes, the author goes into detail describing the changes in the scientific community over the last decades regarding those topic. Science has come around to his point of view, humans are not unique when it comes to basic humanistic traits. Mr. De Waal is obviously fond of his subject of study and irritated with those who would deny any higher order emotions and motivations to all animals. He does a good job of providing multiple examples of compassion and cooperation among primates. I highly recommend this book.
Besides exploring evidence of altruism and empathy in apes, the author goes into detail describing the changes in the scientific community over the last decades regarding those topic. Science has come around to his point of view, humans are not unique when it comes to basic humanistic traits. Mr. De Waal is obviously fond of his subject of study and irritated with those who would deny any higher order emotions and motivations to all animals. He does a good job of providing multiple examples of compassion and cooperation among primates. I highly recommend this book.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Jude, part 2
You can read the book of Jude here. There are no chapters. I will also be checking each verse against the interlinear Greek. You can do that on bible hub also.
The first section of the letter is labelled "The sin and doom of godless men" in my study bible. Sounds ominous. Jude says he is writing to these nonspecific people because he is worried that godless men who have secretly slipped in among them. In the NIV, these bad people were supposedly written about long ago, but Jude doesn't tell us where or when. The study bible does plenty of speculation, however. Also, if you look at other translations it is not translated as being "written beforehand." Instead it speaks of men who were designated (predestined?) for condemnation long ago. If Jude is written by a Jew to Jews, he might be referring to the Jewish sect known as "the way", later called christianity.
In verse 4, some insiders are accused of changing the grace of god (there's the word grace again) into a license for immorality. They also deny Jesus is the only sovereign and Lord. This sounds very similar to what many christians say about atheists today. "You don't believe in god because you just want to sin." In this case, it would seem that some people in the sect that we would call early christianity did not believe Jesus had any kind of authority over them.
However, if you consider Jude might have been written by a Jew to Jews, not christians, all you have to do is take out the words "Jesus Christ" and verse 4 would still make sense, except it would be talking about god as the sovereign lord. The writer of Jude could very well be telling Jews that just because god has been gracious enough to make them a holy people, doesn't mean they don't have to obey him via the law of Moses.
Verse 5 says "Though you already know all this, (they would know it if they were Jews), I want to remind you that the lord at one time delivered his people (the Hebrews/ancestors of the Jews) out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe." The lord in this verse must be referring to yahweh/god. This would make the previous word lord in verse 4 confusing, if it was referring to Jesus. Are there two lords in this book or one? The ESV fixed the problem by replacing the word lord with Jesus. But even a child in Sunday school could tell you Jesus was not the one who delivered his people out of Egypt.
Verse 6 says, "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great day." This is a unique teaching in the New Testament, found elsewhere only in 2 Peter, another highly disputed text. Scholars have noted similarities in Jude and 2 Peter, and suspect that the 2 Peter author used the Jude text as a reference. 2 Peter is an obviously Christian text. I have come to believe Jude is not. A very interesting tidbit is that this verse appears to draw from a Jewish writing called the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was written at least 300 years BCE. Part of it tells the story of the supposed fallen angels. It is clear that Jude drew from the book in this verse, but my study bible does not mention that at all. That is an interesting ommission. The author of 2 Peter could also have concievably drawn from the Enoch text. There is no way to know. What is clear from reading the linked articles, is that the concept of fallen angels was a Jewish cultural myth that made its way into mainstream Christianity. Fascinating stuff.
More to come.
The first section of the letter is labelled "The sin and doom of godless men" in my study bible. Sounds ominous. Jude says he is writing to these nonspecific people because he is worried that godless men who have secretly slipped in among them. In the NIV, these bad people were supposedly written about long ago, but Jude doesn't tell us where or when. The study bible does plenty of speculation, however. Also, if you look at other translations it is not translated as being "written beforehand." Instead it speaks of men who were designated (predestined?) for condemnation long ago. If Jude is written by a Jew to Jews, he might be referring to the Jewish sect known as "the way", later called christianity.
In verse 4, some insiders are accused of changing the grace of god (there's the word grace again) into a license for immorality. They also deny Jesus is the only sovereign and Lord. This sounds very similar to what many christians say about atheists today. "You don't believe in god because you just want to sin." In this case, it would seem that some people in the sect that we would call early christianity did not believe Jesus had any kind of authority over them.
However, if you consider Jude might have been written by a Jew to Jews, not christians, all you have to do is take out the words "Jesus Christ" and verse 4 would still make sense, except it would be talking about god as the sovereign lord. The writer of Jude could very well be telling Jews that just because god has been gracious enough to make them a holy people, doesn't mean they don't have to obey him via the law of Moses.
Verse 5 says "Though you already know all this, (they would know it if they were Jews), I want to remind you that the lord at one time delivered his people (the Hebrews/ancestors of the Jews) out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe." The lord in this verse must be referring to yahweh/god. This would make the previous word lord in verse 4 confusing, if it was referring to Jesus. Are there two lords in this book or one? The ESV fixed the problem by replacing the word lord with Jesus. But even a child in Sunday school could tell you Jesus was not the one who delivered his people out of Egypt.
Verse 6 says, "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great day." This is a unique teaching in the New Testament, found elsewhere only in 2 Peter, another highly disputed text. Scholars have noted similarities in Jude and 2 Peter, and suspect that the 2 Peter author used the Jude text as a reference. 2 Peter is an obviously Christian text. I have come to believe Jude is not. A very interesting tidbit is that this verse appears to draw from a Jewish writing called the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was written at least 300 years BCE. Part of it tells the story of the supposed fallen angels. It is clear that Jude drew from the book in this verse, but my study bible does not mention that at all. That is an interesting ommission. The author of 2 Peter could also have concievably drawn from the Enoch text. There is no way to know. What is clear from reading the linked articles, is that the concept of fallen angels was a Jewish cultural myth that made its way into mainstream Christianity. Fascinating stuff.
More to come.
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Jude, Introduction
I've decided our next bible study will be on the epistle of Jude, a nice short book. It's also fairly interesting.
Who wrote Jude? The book starts with "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James." Nobody actually knows who this Jude is and what he means by saying he is a brother of James. Is that a literal brother or a figurative brother? Also, is this one of the biblical James or some other James? My study bible speculates that it could be either 1.) the apostle "Judas son of James" in Luke 6:16. That would not be the Judas that was a traitor. 2.) or Judas the brother of Jesus and James, mentioned in Matthew 13:55. I don't think either one is feasible, because of the likely dates of authorship. However, the author may be intending that impression.
My personal speculation: Jude is a form of the Hebrew name Judah. Judah was one of the twelve sons of Israel (Jacob). The tribe of Judah gave its name to the identity of the Jews. I believe it is possible the author is identifying himself as a Jew. Throughout the Old and New Testament, names and their meanings often do double duty. They send a message to the reader. As I said when I went through the book of James, this also may have been what the author of James was intending to convey with his name, which is the Hebrew Jacob, the original name of Israel the patriarch of the Jews. One reason to think this is that there is no specific individual or congregational recipient of the letter. The letter is openly addressed to "those who have been called, who are loved by god the father and kept by Jesus Christ."
When was Jude written? The simple answer is nobody knows. It is speculated to have been written sometime before 96 CE, when it is supposedly quoted in the letter attributed to Clement of Rome. I have been having a hard time finding that quote. We may come across it later. I find the letter attributed to Clement to be quite problematic anyway. The next earliest dates that Jude was quoted or mentioned are from the mid second century. The earliest existing fragments and manuscripts are from the 3rd/4th centuries. (Link and link) That would be from 100 to 200 years after it was originally written. There are no originals.
The book has been disputed because it quotes non canonical writings by "uninspired" authors. In fact both Jesus and Paul have been attributed as saying things that are quotes of extra-biblical works. It is important to remember that the canon of accepted works, both Old and New Testament, was determined by mere mortals with human criteria. If Jude was a Jew, I would not find it surprising that he quote popular Jewish authors. I will find it unusual if Jude says his letter is the literal word of god or is inspired by the holy spirit. I'd bet anything that the author had no idea his letter would end up in "the bible." There now appears to have been dozens of christian letters, and writings of various kinds, floating around that never made the cut.
One thing to consider is the possibility that Jude was a real letter of an early christian and that he actually represented teachings of the early church, whereas other writings that have been deemed more authentic might not be. Maybe the canonical winners were just those books that fit the current theology/ideology of the 3rd/4th century church leadership in power. Maybe their theology was not the original theology of the original christian sect, but one that had evolved to become mainstream. This is something I also considered with the book of James. We will keep that in mind as we go through the book.
More to come.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Grace, part two
For your reading, I present the Wikipeda article on Grace in Christianity. The church of christ stance would be considered arminian.
In protestant christianity, grace is often defined as unmerited favor. You get something good from god that you did not earn. Even more than that, you get something good that you didn't deserve. The implication being that you actually deserved something bad, but you got something good instead. What do you deserve? Condemnation. Death and destruction. No ifs ands or buts.
God's gracious act to the human race was supposed to be sending Jesus to die in your place, even though he didn't deserve to die, you did. You filthy trash. Wait a minute, that's quite offensive. I wouldn't want to be called filthy trash even if it were true. Do unto others. Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to spread a little of god's grace around and I'm not going to verbally condemn you, even if I believe you probably are going to hell. I'm going to be gracious because I feel sorry for you. There is no point in making you experience hell any sooner than necessary. We would be in the same sinking boat if I hadn't let Jesus save me. "But for the grace of god, there go I." These kinds of christians are often labelled "liberal."
There are some christians who don't want to be gracious. They want to call a spade a spade and an unsaved sinner an unsaved sinner. They want to prophetically call out the sins that the people are committing. They fear for your immortal soul. So they give you a little taste of coming fire and brimstone, hoping you will learn to fear for your own soul, so they won't have to. No pain no gain. These are the people that the gracious christians call "legalistic."
What does Jesus have to say about grace in the gospels? Nothing. Zip. Nada. I find that quite odd. However, the letters ascribed to Paul have a whopping 89 instances of the usage of the word grace.
The word grace occurs in the gospels four times. This is the same exact greek word that Paul uses.
*Luke 2:40- (speaking of the child Jesus) "he was filled with wisdom and the grace of god was upon him." This is confusing. Would a christian say even Jesus did not merit gods favor? Are there different kinds of god's grace?
*John 1:14 (speaking of Jesus) "The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only who came from the father, full of grace and truth." Does it make sense here to call grace unmerited favor? Clearly it means something else, but what? Does it mean grace is a quantity of unmerited favor that Jesus can dispense?
*John 1:16 &17(speaking of Jesus). "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." But what is grace? If Jesus gave/gives grace, how come he never talked about grace in the only accounts of his words and life?
Here is my take on christian grace: The greek word used in the New Testament is charis. This is defined as a blessing, favor, or kindness. It is where we get our word charity from. There is no implication of being undeserving in the original word at all. In the Luke passage, we might just say god blessed Jesus. (Though what constitutes a blessing isn't exactly clear either) However, christianity has taken Paul's statements in his letters, that we don't work for or earn god's grace through merit, and extended them to mean that noone deserves god's grace, which they have equated with salvation and eternal life. They have equated merit with deserving. Therefore, since noone can do anything to merit god's favor, christianity says everyone who receives salvation is undeserving. In Romans 1:18-32 there are those who are even more undeserving than others. They don't get salvation. According to this passage, they merit death. If you don't fall on the list of the condemned, you qualify for salvation, but don't forget you didn't earn it.
It doesn't seem right to me that you can earn hell but not earn heaven.
In protestant christianity, grace is often defined as unmerited favor. You get something good from god that you did not earn. Even more than that, you get something good that you didn't deserve. The implication being that you actually deserved something bad, but you got something good instead. What do you deserve? Condemnation. Death and destruction. No ifs ands or buts.
God's gracious act to the human race was supposed to be sending Jesus to die in your place, even though he didn't deserve to die, you did. You filthy trash. Wait a minute, that's quite offensive. I wouldn't want to be called filthy trash even if it were true. Do unto others. Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to spread a little of god's grace around and I'm not going to verbally condemn you, even if I believe you probably are going to hell. I'm going to be gracious because I feel sorry for you. There is no point in making you experience hell any sooner than necessary. We would be in the same sinking boat if I hadn't let Jesus save me. "But for the grace of god, there go I." These kinds of christians are often labelled "liberal."
There are some christians who don't want to be gracious. They want to call a spade a spade and an unsaved sinner an unsaved sinner. They want to prophetically call out the sins that the people are committing. They fear for your immortal soul. So they give you a little taste of coming fire and brimstone, hoping you will learn to fear for your own soul, so they won't have to. No pain no gain. These are the people that the gracious christians call "legalistic."
What does Jesus have to say about grace in the gospels? Nothing. Zip. Nada. I find that quite odd. However, the letters ascribed to Paul have a whopping 89 instances of the usage of the word grace.
The word grace occurs in the gospels four times. This is the same exact greek word that Paul uses.
*Luke 2:40- (speaking of the child Jesus) "he was filled with wisdom and the grace of god was upon him." This is confusing. Would a christian say even Jesus did not merit gods favor? Are there different kinds of god's grace?
*John 1:14 (speaking of Jesus) "The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only who came from the father, full of grace and truth." Does it make sense here to call grace unmerited favor? Clearly it means something else, but what? Does it mean grace is a quantity of unmerited favor that Jesus can dispense?
*John 1:16 &17(speaking of Jesus). "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." But what is grace? If Jesus gave/gives grace, how come he never talked about grace in the only accounts of his words and life?
Here is my take on christian grace: The greek word used in the New Testament is charis. This is defined as a blessing, favor, or kindness. It is where we get our word charity from. There is no implication of being undeserving in the original word at all. In the Luke passage, we might just say god blessed Jesus. (Though what constitutes a blessing isn't exactly clear either) However, christianity has taken Paul's statements in his letters, that we don't work for or earn god's grace through merit, and extended them to mean that noone deserves god's grace, which they have equated with salvation and eternal life. They have equated merit with deserving. Therefore, since noone can do anything to merit god's favor, christianity says everyone who receives salvation is undeserving. In Romans 1:18-32 there are those who are even more undeserving than others. They don't get salvation. According to this passage, they merit death. If you don't fall on the list of the condemned, you qualify for salvation, but don't forget you didn't earn it.
It doesn't seem right to me that you can earn hell but not earn heaven.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
What is Grace? Part one.
Grace is a word that is often bandied about in Christianity today. It irritates the heck out of me. Why? Because there is no concrete definition. It is feel-good christianese. Whole books could be written about the various theological meanings of grace. Here is dictionary.com's definition of grace: ( link) Read every definition. In my mind, most of it is just word salad. Almost every definition of grace has a clearer synonym. Notice that grace is not something that can be pinned down. It is ephemeral, a purely subjective and invisible quality. Its presence is guessed at by 1. how well a person does life, and/or 2. how well life treats or has treated them, 3. their unearned, desireable qualities and advantages.
Wikipedia has a few explanations of the theology of grace. First look at what it says about Divine Grace. If you are more enlightened than you were a moment ago, I congratulate you. Each paragraph in that article differed on its explanation of what grace actually is. Sometimes even one sentence to the next differs in the explanation of grace. Unsurprisingly, Catholics and Protestants disagree on the definition.
Very surprisingly, someone has quoted Bill Gothard's definition of grace in the Wikipedia article. Of all the quotable christians in the world and throughout history, in the nonexistent god's name, WHY? Many Christians claim grace to be the opposite of legalism. Mr. Gothard's organization has promoted some of the most virulent teachings of christian legalism over the last few decades.
Let's look at the defining first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. First, grace is said to be "the divine influence which operates in humans to regenerate and sanctify, to inspire virtuous impulses, and to impart strength to resist trial and endure temptation." To boil it down, grace is that quality that keeps some people from acting like jerks when everyone around them is. This is said to have a divine source. Baloney. Some people have been lucky enough to get the right combination of genes, family background, and life circumstances, to engender patience, tolerance, and mercy in their attitudes. They are said to be "gracious." Other people learn those qualities through experience. Other people deliberately set out to cultivate those qualities in themselves. No gods required.
The second part of Wikipedia's definition of grace is "an individual virtue or excellence of divine origin." This could refer to innate desireable personality traits, unique talents, or personal beauty, in an individual. A person who has these things is often considered favored by god, or the gods. These "graces" are bestowed upon them from on high. They didn't do anything to deserve them, they are arbitrary divine gifts. People thus favored could still be jerks. Do you think the idea that beautiful, talented, or wealthy people are favored by god/the gods has died out? It's been around a long time. Just read about the ancient minor goddesses called the graces. Some of the ancient graces include: splendor, mirth, good cheer, blossoms, happiness, banquet, night festivities, sound, light, growth, leader, persuasion, hallucination (? Maybe that means dreams and visions) and beauty. It appears that the visual representation of the graces has evolved into one of three naked young women.
Scroll down the Wikipedia article on Divine Grace till you get to the section on grace in scripture. There you will see that the New Testament word in Greek is Karis. It is generally translated as graciousness of manner or act. The Old Testament Hebrew word is chen. That is defined as favor, charm, and the moral quality of kindness.
Do we know exactly what grace is yet? At the moment, It seems safe to say that grace is an unmeasurable quality that is desirable but not universally available. So, there must be reasons some people have got it and others don't, right? Well, someone somewhere decided that that certain something must be a gift from a god or gods.
More to come.
Wikipedia has a few explanations of the theology of grace. First look at what it says about Divine Grace. If you are more enlightened than you were a moment ago, I congratulate you. Each paragraph in that article differed on its explanation of what grace actually is. Sometimes even one sentence to the next differs in the explanation of grace. Unsurprisingly, Catholics and Protestants disagree on the definition.
Very surprisingly, someone has quoted Bill Gothard's definition of grace in the Wikipedia article. Of all the quotable christians in the world and throughout history, in the nonexistent god's name, WHY? Many Christians claim grace to be the opposite of legalism. Mr. Gothard's organization has promoted some of the most virulent teachings of christian legalism over the last few decades.
Let's look at the defining first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. First, grace is said to be "the divine influence which operates in humans to regenerate and sanctify, to inspire virtuous impulses, and to impart strength to resist trial and endure temptation." To boil it down, grace is that quality that keeps some people from acting like jerks when everyone around them is. This is said to have a divine source. Baloney. Some people have been lucky enough to get the right combination of genes, family background, and life circumstances, to engender patience, tolerance, and mercy in their attitudes. They are said to be "gracious." Other people learn those qualities through experience. Other people deliberately set out to cultivate those qualities in themselves. No gods required.
The second part of Wikipedia's definition of grace is "an individual virtue or excellence of divine origin." This could refer to innate desireable personality traits, unique talents, or personal beauty, in an individual. A person who has these things is often considered favored by god, or the gods. These "graces" are bestowed upon them from on high. They didn't do anything to deserve them, they are arbitrary divine gifts. People thus favored could still be jerks. Do you think the idea that beautiful, talented, or wealthy people are favored by god/the gods has died out? It's been around a long time. Just read about the ancient minor goddesses called the graces. Some of the ancient graces include: splendor, mirth, good cheer, blossoms, happiness, banquet, night festivities, sound, light, growth, leader, persuasion, hallucination (? Maybe that means dreams and visions) and beauty. It appears that the visual representation of the graces has evolved into one of three naked young women.
Scroll down the Wikipedia article on Divine Grace till you get to the section on grace in scripture. There you will see that the New Testament word in Greek is Karis. It is generally translated as graciousness of manner or act. The Old Testament Hebrew word is chen. That is defined as favor, charm, and the moral quality of kindness.
Do we know exactly what grace is yet? At the moment, It seems safe to say that grace is an unmeasurable quality that is desirable but not universally available. So, there must be reasons some people have got it and others don't, right? Well, someone somewhere decided that that certain something must be a gift from a god or gods.
More to come.
Monday, March 12, 2018
Is the church of christ a cult?
It depends on your definition of cult, the particular shade of church of Christ you are involved in, how long you have been a member, how many family members are in it, and how involved you have been, and how controlling a particular congregation is. I believe churches of Christ can be conducive to cult like attitudes and effects, which vary from family to family, congregation to congregation, and region to region. However, for the most part, churches of Christ do not appear to qualify as cults.
In the Wikipedia article on cults, we see that New Religious Movements (NRM) are often, but not always, considered cults. An NRM is said to be a religious or spiritual group that has come into existence since about the mid 1800's. The restoration movement churches, which include churches of Christ, would seem to qualify as NRMs based on that criteria, but they are not listed in Wikipedia's articles on them (link and link) It appears that they were not unique (strange) enough. Churches of Christ would NOT be classified as destructive cults, doomsday cults, political cults, polygamy cults, racist cults, or terrorist cults.
If we read the Wikipedia article on the sociological classification of religious movements, it seems that Churches of Christ are more institutionalized sects than anything else, halfway between sects and denominations. They have numbers 1,3,5, 7 of the characteristics of denominations. They are not religious pluralists (2). They do not "accept the principle of at least modestly changing doctrine and practice and tolerate some theological diversity and dispute." (4) They do not always insist on formal certification requirements for professional clergy (6). Their membership does not contain many members of the upper classes (8). They are not mystically oriented and not particularly service oriented either, as this article says cults are.
If we look at a second definition/explanation of cults, the ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) has different criteria for judging if an organization is a cult. Let's see if the church of Christ applies.
(1)" Excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (wether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law."- Yes, if Jesus and/or the god of the bible counts. This would also apply to a great deal of Christianity in general.
(2) "Questioning, doubt, dissent are discouraged, even punished." -Yes. Though not usually vicious, the church of christ, while often claiming it accepts questioning, does discourage public dissent. After you question, you are expected to accept the standard answers.
(3)" Leadership is dictatorial and controlling." This varies greatly across congregations. The more conservative the congregation, the more controlling. This is a distinct advantage to the autonomous congregation model. Elders of more liberal congregations may get chastised for not being strict enough.
(4)"The group may be elitist, claiming a special exalted status for itself (yes), its leaders (Jesus as the messiah or avatar of god), its members (yes)." Also the group may claim to be on a special mission to save humanity. Can't this be said to be true of much of Christianity?
(5)"The group may have a polarized us vs. them mentality (yes) which may cause conflict (no, but sometimes withdrawal from socialization.)
(6) "The leader is not accountable to any authorities." No. Churches of christ are big on following the law. Jesus and god, however, are not expected to conform to the laws of the land.
(7) "Exalted ends justify whatever means necessary." No, which is surprising when you think about it. It makes you wonder if they actually believe all the stuff they claim to believe.
(8) "Leadership uses shame and guilt to control and influence members." Not as a general rule, but again, each congregation is different. Also the shaming and guilting are more likely to be used by parents in the private homes of members. That does happen.
(9) "Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends and radically alter personal goals and activities they once had." It depends. There is no firm requirement to cut ties, but members are often encouraged to discontinue previous amounts of socializing with those who might pull them away from the church and its teachings. Very seldom is it insisted upon.
(10) "The group is preoccupied with bringing in new member." Yes. See: mission to save the world.
(11) "The group is is preoccupied with making money." Not as a general rule. In fact, they are not fond of ostentatious wealth.
(12) "Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group related activities." Kind of. The more active and involved you are, the higher standing you have in the community. You are expected to want to attend most worship services, but most other activities are considered voluntary.
(13) "The most loyal members (true believers) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They often fear reprisals to themselves and others if they leave." As a former true believer, I can say that those who leave membership in the church are often mourned as possibly lost to eternal damnation. I am certain that if/when I leave, there will be those who are certain I am doomed. Reprisals may or may not happen, depending. on individual convictions and congregational practice.
The International Churches of Christ have been called a cult. They are often extremely controlling and psychologically abusive. They are in the list of NRMs. The so-called non institutional churches of christ, or "anti" churches, are usually quite small and are generally very strict and somewhat controlling. I consider them somewhat cult like. Mainstream churches of christ are what I have been affiliated with. They are middle of the road, accused of being too conservative/legalistic by some and too liberal by others. Some who have left churches of Christ would still consider them cults. Indeed, many would consider all of christianity a cult.
The things that cross the line for me are shunning, manipulation, and coercion. Shunning is number one. The threat of shunning, even implied rather than stated, is used to manipulate. I would say that if a person is formally shunned by friends and family members for leaving the group for any non-criminal reason, that group is acting like the popular definition of a cult. Shunning and fear of shunning show that something is definitely wrong. Get out if you can.
In the Wikipedia article on cults, we see that New Religious Movements (NRM) are often, but not always, considered cults. An NRM is said to be a religious or spiritual group that has come into existence since about the mid 1800's. The restoration movement churches, which include churches of Christ, would seem to qualify as NRMs based on that criteria, but they are not listed in Wikipedia's articles on them (link and link) It appears that they were not unique (strange) enough. Churches of Christ would NOT be classified as destructive cults, doomsday cults, political cults, polygamy cults, racist cults, or terrorist cults.
If we read the Wikipedia article on the sociological classification of religious movements, it seems that Churches of Christ are more institutionalized sects than anything else, halfway between sects and denominations. They have numbers 1,3,5, 7 of the characteristics of denominations. They are not religious pluralists (2). They do not "accept the principle of at least modestly changing doctrine and practice and tolerate some theological diversity and dispute." (4) They do not always insist on formal certification requirements for professional clergy (6). Their membership does not contain many members of the upper classes (8). They are not mystically oriented and not particularly service oriented either, as this article says cults are.
If we look at a second definition/explanation of cults, the ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) has different criteria for judging if an organization is a cult. Let's see if the church of Christ applies.
(1)" Excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (wether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law."- Yes, if Jesus and/or the god of the bible counts. This would also apply to a great deal of Christianity in general.
(2) "Questioning, doubt, dissent are discouraged, even punished." -Yes. Though not usually vicious, the church of christ, while often claiming it accepts questioning, does discourage public dissent. After you question, you are expected to accept the standard answers.
(3)" Leadership is dictatorial and controlling." This varies greatly across congregations. The more conservative the congregation, the more controlling. This is a distinct advantage to the autonomous congregation model. Elders of more liberal congregations may get chastised for not being strict enough.
(4)"The group may be elitist, claiming a special exalted status for itself (yes), its leaders (Jesus as the messiah or avatar of god), its members (yes)." Also the group may claim to be on a special mission to save humanity. Can't this be said to be true of much of Christianity?
(5)"The group may have a polarized us vs. them mentality (yes) which may cause conflict (no, but sometimes withdrawal from socialization.)
(6) "The leader is not accountable to any authorities." No. Churches of christ are big on following the law. Jesus and god, however, are not expected to conform to the laws of the land.
(7) "Exalted ends justify whatever means necessary." No, which is surprising when you think about it. It makes you wonder if they actually believe all the stuff they claim to believe.
(8) "Leadership uses shame and guilt to control and influence members." Not as a general rule, but again, each congregation is different. Also the shaming and guilting are more likely to be used by parents in the private homes of members. That does happen.
(9) "Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends and radically alter personal goals and activities they once had." It depends. There is no firm requirement to cut ties, but members are often encouraged to discontinue previous amounts of socializing with those who might pull them away from the church and its teachings. Very seldom is it insisted upon.
(10) "The group is preoccupied with bringing in new member." Yes. See: mission to save the world.
(11) "The group is is preoccupied with making money." Not as a general rule. In fact, they are not fond of ostentatious wealth.
(12) "Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group related activities." Kind of. The more active and involved you are, the higher standing you have in the community. You are expected to want to attend most worship services, but most other activities are considered voluntary.
(13) "The most loyal members (true believers) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They often fear reprisals to themselves and others if they leave." As a former true believer, I can say that those who leave membership in the church are often mourned as possibly lost to eternal damnation. I am certain that if/when I leave, there will be those who are certain I am doomed. Reprisals may or may not happen, depending. on individual convictions and congregational practice.
The International Churches of Christ have been called a cult. They are often extremely controlling and psychologically abusive. They are in the list of NRMs. The so-called non institutional churches of christ, or "anti" churches, are usually quite small and are generally very strict and somewhat controlling. I consider them somewhat cult like. Mainstream churches of christ are what I have been affiliated with. They are middle of the road, accused of being too conservative/legalistic by some and too liberal by others. Some who have left churches of Christ would still consider them cults. Indeed, many would consider all of christianity a cult.
The things that cross the line for me are shunning, manipulation, and coercion. Shunning is number one. The threat of shunning, even implied rather than stated, is used to manipulate. I would say that if a person is formally shunned by friends and family members for leaving the group for any non-criminal reason, that group is acting like the popular definition of a cult. Shunning and fear of shunning show that something is definitely wrong. Get out if you can.
Saturday, March 10, 2018
About the church of Christ part three
How do the churches of Christ stack up when it comes to modern issues?
The churches of Christ are traditionally patriarchal and lean toward complementarianism, which is just a modern form of patriarchy. Very few congregations attempt to put women in any public roles. However, women are generally respected, as long as they don't try to "usurp" a man's authority. It's delicate dance of social conventions. Many women wield power through their husband's position, gossip, or complaining to the elders. Others gain respect through benevolence, teaching, and wisdom, but there is a limit to what is allowed. There are no women leading singing or prayers, public preaching, serving communion, or teaching mixed adult bible classes. All but the strictest congregations allow women to contribute to discussions in a bible class setting. Otherwise, women
are relegated to cooking, cleaning, children's bible classes, and childcare. However, they often have special female only functions where they fill all the roles available. These are usually called "ladies' days" and happen on rare Saturdays, when husbands can watch the kids. Women will often travel from regional congregations to attend another congregation's ladies' day.
I have never seen an openly gay couple in a church of Christ, and I can't imagine I ever will. I saw instances when two different teenagers, in different years, announced their non hetero leanings in social media. They did not stick around. Toleration of homosexuality is not taught, though violence and aggression toward anyone is not condoned. It is the love the sinner, hate the sin, kind of Christianity. I do know of members whose relatives are in same sex relationships. It is not discussed, and I'm not sure how many other people know. There was a highly publicized suicide of a gay young woman from a church of Christ, a few years back.
I rarely hear of divorce in the church any more. Divorce rates in the CoC are low. I think most struggling couples leave before their marriages reach that point. Divorced women are more likely to be found in Churches of Christ than divorced men. Divorced men usually lose all possible positions of privilege, leadership, and service. Living together before marriage, or pregnancy out of wedlock, is not condoned, but presently not condemned as nastily as in years past. These "sins" are more quickly forgiven than they used to be. A fair amount CoC Christians have as many problems with obesity issues as the general American public. I know there have been cases of physical abuse, mental abuse, addiction, alcoholism, mental health problems, and even a case of a preacher's wife murdering her husband. To be fair, these problems are found everywhere.
A lot of church members lead lives that they don't discuss with other members. They drink alcohol, they smoke, they cuss, they watch any movies they want, play violent video games, listen to any music they want, and read anything they want. Social media lets you see everybody's business now, so it's more obvious. There are also a few CoC members who are uber religious and straight-laced on social media. Their posts are often ignored, except by those of like mind. It doesn't seem to matter a whole lot any more, which is better than calling people out and shaming/shunning them for non criminal acts.
Churches of Christ usually practice political nuetrality from the pulpit, in my experience. The members have been allowed to follow their conscience with regard to voting. There always seemed to be a polite avoidance of divisive political discussions in the past. Today, however, social media has become a platform for the political grandstanding, even among members in the church. This has definitely caused some drama. There are those on both ends of the spectrum who think that their way of voting is the only godly way. Usually, those on the right are the ones to leave in a huff for more conservative congregations.
Abortion is hardly ever discussed, but if it is, it will be in opposition. Anyone who has had one is not talking. In my experience, racism is not condoned at all. There are many racially diverse congregations. However, there are traditionally black churches of Christ, and ones that are majority white, often depending on location. Also, many white members use their social media to rant against BLM and immigration. There are very few rich or intellectual elites in the CoC, most are in university towns. A majority of the members are solidly middle class. Blue collar and white collar workers mingle freely. White collar workers are slightly more likely to end up as elders. There is a
large percentage of members in the US military. Most congregations do not have the resources to handle those with addictions, mental health issues, or extreme poverty. Most preachers are not trained professional counselors. People with real, tough problems tend to fade out of church participation.
In short, members have many of the same problems that are found throughout Christianity and in the
broader culture. They also have many of the admired qualities of other good human beings. However, the church of Christ culture is definitely an insulated bubble. Most members seem to like it that way. All this and much more has been my experience of churches of Christ over the last four decades.
The churches of Christ are traditionally patriarchal and lean toward complementarianism, which is just a modern form of patriarchy. Very few congregations attempt to put women in any public roles. However, women are generally respected, as long as they don't try to "usurp" a man's authority. It's delicate dance of social conventions. Many women wield power through their husband's position, gossip, or complaining to the elders. Others gain respect through benevolence, teaching, and wisdom, but there is a limit to what is allowed. There are no women leading singing or prayers, public preaching, serving communion, or teaching mixed adult bible classes. All but the strictest congregations allow women to contribute to discussions in a bible class setting. Otherwise, women
are relegated to cooking, cleaning, children's bible classes, and childcare. However, they often have special female only functions where they fill all the roles available. These are usually called "ladies' days" and happen on rare Saturdays, when husbands can watch the kids. Women will often travel from regional congregations to attend another congregation's ladies' day.
I have never seen an openly gay couple in a church of Christ, and I can't imagine I ever will. I saw instances when two different teenagers, in different years, announced their non hetero leanings in social media. They did not stick around. Toleration of homosexuality is not taught, though violence and aggression toward anyone is not condoned. It is the love the sinner, hate the sin, kind of Christianity. I do know of members whose relatives are in same sex relationships. It is not discussed, and I'm not sure how many other people know. There was a highly publicized suicide of a gay young woman from a church of Christ, a few years back.
I rarely hear of divorce in the church any more. Divorce rates in the CoC are low. I think most struggling couples leave before their marriages reach that point. Divorced women are more likely to be found in Churches of Christ than divorced men. Divorced men usually lose all possible positions of privilege, leadership, and service. Living together before marriage, or pregnancy out of wedlock, is not condoned, but presently not condemned as nastily as in years past. These "sins" are more quickly forgiven than they used to be. A fair amount CoC Christians have as many problems with obesity issues as the general American public. I know there have been cases of physical abuse, mental abuse, addiction, alcoholism, mental health problems, and even a case of a preacher's wife murdering her husband. To be fair, these problems are found everywhere.
A lot of church members lead lives that they don't discuss with other members. They drink alcohol, they smoke, they cuss, they watch any movies they want, play violent video games, listen to any music they want, and read anything they want. Social media lets you see everybody's business now, so it's more obvious. There are also a few CoC members who are uber religious and straight-laced on social media. Their posts are often ignored, except by those of like mind. It doesn't seem to matter a whole lot any more, which is better than calling people out and shaming/shunning them for non criminal acts.
Churches of Christ usually practice political nuetrality from the pulpit, in my experience. The members have been allowed to follow their conscience with regard to voting. There always seemed to be a polite avoidance of divisive political discussions in the past. Today, however, social media has become a platform for the political grandstanding, even among members in the church. This has definitely caused some drama. There are those on both ends of the spectrum who think that their way of voting is the only godly way. Usually, those on the right are the ones to leave in a huff for more conservative congregations.
Abortion is hardly ever discussed, but if it is, it will be in opposition. Anyone who has had one is not talking. In my experience, racism is not condoned at all. There are many racially diverse congregations. However, there are traditionally black churches of Christ, and ones that are majority white, often depending on location. Also, many white members use their social media to rant against BLM and immigration. There are very few rich or intellectual elites in the CoC, most are in university towns. A majority of the members are solidly middle class. Blue collar and white collar workers mingle freely. White collar workers are slightly more likely to end up as elders. There is a
large percentage of members in the US military. Most congregations do not have the resources to handle those with addictions, mental health issues, or extreme poverty. Most preachers are not trained professional counselors. People with real, tough problems tend to fade out of church participation.
In short, members have many of the same problems that are found throughout Christianity and in the
broader culture. They also have many of the admired qualities of other good human beings. However, the church of Christ culture is definitely an insulated bubble. Most members seem to like it that way. All this and much more has been my experience of churches of Christ over the last four decades.
About the church of Christ, part two
The one thing most visitors to churches of christ notice right away is the acapella singing in four part harmony. No instruments are used in worship services. The most strict congregations will sing only approved hymns out of a hymnal. Others allow projectors that put the music up on a screen. Some congregations sing a mixture of hymns and modern praise songs. There is usually only one song leader, not necessarily trained. The members may or may not have experience with music education, usually from public school or private lessons. It is generally not taught in church classes. The singing quality ranges from cringeworthy to sublime, depending on the singing abilities of each congregation. The most liberal congregations may have rhythmic clapping during certain songs, and worship teams (sometimes with women!). There are instrumental churches of Christ, but they are not usually part of the mainstream network, and most traditionalists avoid them like the plague. Many churches of Christ will not allow any kind of instrument in the church building for any reason, including weddings. I no longer sing church songs because I can not say the words in good conscience. No one has commented.
Another feature of churches of christ is weekly communion, also called "the lord's supper." This consists of either homemade "unleavened bread", which is much like pie crust, or store bought matzoh crackers, to *symbolically* represent the body of christ. No transubstantiation here. There is also grape juice (fruit of the vine) to represent the blood of Jesus. Welch's grape juice is an American take on the fruit of the vine. Many churches overseas have no compunction using wine. In the US, there is an almost morbid fear that wine in communion, indeed, any consumption of alcohol at all, borders on irredeemably sinful. It could lead to an alcoholic downfall. Weekly observance of communion is insisted on. All baptized believers are expected to "partake." Many feel guilty if they miss a Sunday. Visitors are given allowances for ignorance, but set straight as soon as politely possible. I still participate in the Lord's Supper because it is just a piece of cracker and grape juice. I don't feel as though I'm compromising myself. Plus, I don't want to be a fodder for gossip. Someone would definitely notice that.
There are no religious calendars, no written creeds, or prescribed prayers in the churches of christ. Though the phrase "guide, guard, and direct us" is ubiquitous enough to be cliche. Churches of christ claim to have no other guide but the bible. However, they are not above using concordances, bible dictionaries, and study guides or literature that is written by members of the church, or that is sufficiently generic christian. The bible is usually interpreted literally, unless the language is obviously metaphorical. The most conservative congregations stick to the KJV. The NIV is very common in mainstream churches. The whole bible is usually considered historically accurate. If anyone disagrees, they keep it to themselves. Historical or textual criticism is practically nonexistent. Discussions of science, politics, and the end of the world, are generally avoided. Generally, with some exceptions, American members lean creationist (old earth and young earth), republican, and amillenial. Churches of Christ are technically Christian fundamentalists. They believe in the divinity of Jesus and the inspiration of the scriptures. They are trinitarians. They believe in heaven and hell in an eternal afterlife. However, they also believe that the age of miracles, healings, and speaking in tongues, ended with the death of the apostles.
There are no Pastors, Fathers, priests, or Reverends, in churches of christ. They are called ministers or preachers, and that is their main function. College educations are not always required. It is possible for a member of the congregation, even a woman, to have as much or more knowledge of the bible than the preacher. Preachers are usually hired for their speaking abilities. They are also expected to not rock the boat, if they want to keep their jobs. They tend to stay away from divisive issues. The preaching all begins to sound the same after a while. The authorities of each congregation are the elected elders, at least two. They are usually senior members with many years in the church of christ. Elders hold a kind of supervisory position. They are usually the final authority on church matters. There are also any number of deacons who serve under the elders and do the grunt work. If there are no elders, all the men of the congregation may be invited to participate in "business meetings." It's a man's world.
More to come.
.
Another feature of churches of christ is weekly communion, also called "the lord's supper." This consists of either homemade "unleavened bread", which is much like pie crust, or store bought matzoh crackers, to *symbolically* represent the body of christ. No transubstantiation here. There is also grape juice (fruit of the vine) to represent the blood of Jesus. Welch's grape juice is an American take on the fruit of the vine. Many churches overseas have no compunction using wine. In the US, there is an almost morbid fear that wine in communion, indeed, any consumption of alcohol at all, borders on irredeemably sinful. It could lead to an alcoholic downfall. Weekly observance of communion is insisted on. All baptized believers are expected to "partake." Many feel guilty if they miss a Sunday. Visitors are given allowances for ignorance, but set straight as soon as politely possible. I still participate in the Lord's Supper because it is just a piece of cracker and grape juice. I don't feel as though I'm compromising myself. Plus, I don't want to be a fodder for gossip. Someone would definitely notice that.
There are no religious calendars, no written creeds, or prescribed prayers in the churches of christ. Though the phrase "guide, guard, and direct us" is ubiquitous enough to be cliche. Churches of christ claim to have no other guide but the bible. However, they are not above using concordances, bible dictionaries, and study guides or literature that is written by members of the church, or that is sufficiently generic christian. The bible is usually interpreted literally, unless the language is obviously metaphorical. The most conservative congregations stick to the KJV. The NIV is very common in mainstream churches. The whole bible is usually considered historically accurate. If anyone disagrees, they keep it to themselves. Historical or textual criticism is practically nonexistent. Discussions of science, politics, and the end of the world, are generally avoided. Generally, with some exceptions, American members lean creationist (old earth and young earth), republican, and amillenial. Churches of Christ are technically Christian fundamentalists. They believe in the divinity of Jesus and the inspiration of the scriptures. They are trinitarians. They believe in heaven and hell in an eternal afterlife. However, they also believe that the age of miracles, healings, and speaking in tongues, ended with the death of the apostles.
There are no Pastors, Fathers, priests, or Reverends, in churches of christ. They are called ministers or preachers, and that is their main function. College educations are not always required. It is possible for a member of the congregation, even a woman, to have as much or more knowledge of the bible than the preacher. Preachers are usually hired for their speaking abilities. They are also expected to not rock the boat, if they want to keep their jobs. They tend to stay away from divisive issues. The preaching all begins to sound the same after a while. The authorities of each congregation are the elected elders, at least two. They are usually senior members with many years in the church of christ. Elders hold a kind of supervisory position. They are usually the final authority on church matters. There are also any number of deacons who serve under the elders and do the grunt work. If there are no elders, all the men of the congregation may be invited to participate in "business meetings." It's a man's world.
More to come.
.
Friday, March 9, 2018
About the "church of Christ", part one
The church of Christ teaches that it is non-denominational, but that is actually not true. It is a distinct, separate, and recognizable brand of Christianity. It has a unique combination of characteristics that are not found in other christian groups in quite the same way. Its history is found in the restoration movement, the teachings of Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone. It has a common history with the Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ. You could probably attend a church of Christ for years and not know or hear about this history. I did not learn about it till I had been a member for over ten years. I've been attending churches of Christ regularly for about 42 years. I've visited, or been a member of, over 20 congregations in the US and Europe.
You can find a picture of a "Basic Bible References" card online. It is a condensed version of the scriptures deemed the most important to support the doctrines and practices of the churches of Christ. These cards can often be found in racks at the entry ways of church buildings. I am not going to cover the scriptural justifications used for the practices that I talk about in these posts. It would take too long.
You can find a picture of a "Basic Bible References" card online. It is a condensed version of the scriptures deemed the most important to support the doctrines and practices of the churches of Christ. These cards can often be found in racks at the entry ways of church buildings. I am not going to cover the scriptural justifications used for the practices that I talk about in these posts. It would take too long.
The one non-negotiable taught in all churches of Christ is voluntary, immersion baptism, for the remission of sins, after the age of accountability. Without it, you are not saved, period. Individual members may hold differing private opinions on this topic, but they do not speak of them publicly. In fact, keeping dissenting opinions to oneself, in order to avoid division, is a feature of this group. Don't rock the boat. See link for religion survey of churches of christ.
The second, most unique feature is that this denomination is a "brotherhood." It is truly a glorified social club and community organization. There is also a popular brotherhood newspaper and online news site, The Christian Chronicle. Even though each congregation is supposed to be autonomous and self policing, they are globally connected through social bonds, relationships, and church of christ literature. If you are a longstanding member and travel, visiting another congregation in another state or country, you are bound to find a member of the church whom you either know, know about, or who is connected to someone you know in some way. Most churches are friendly and welcoming on the surface. The members do extensive networking and generally help each other out in many areas of life. If you have been in the church for decades and have family, friends, and acquaintances in multiple congregations, like I do, leaving could be problematic. It could mean severing important, life long ties and access to resources. News of my defection could potentially spread from Florida to Pennsylvania and from West Virginia to Texas.
The churches of Christ are actually a small blip among all those who call themselves Christians as far as numbers go, but they think big. Most consider themselves the true continuation of the original church started in Jerusalem, oblivious of the fact that other groups teach the same thing and believe it just as fervently. They have trouble understanding why others cannot see the truth about Christianity the way they can, and most of them do not know much about other religious doctrines besides what they hear discussed and denigrated in bible classes. There are dozens of church of christ missionaries throughout the world, sponsored by individual congregations, even in countries that are historically christian. This has caused offense in some cases. There are also several church of christ preaching schools, private christian schools, colleges and universities. These vary in flavor from very strictly fundamentalist to flaming liberal (Pepperdine).
Many members of churches of christ like to do a bit of name dropping, associating themselves with any well known personage who had/has the slightest connection to the church of Christ or the broader restoration movement, even if they are no longer members in good standing. These include Presidents Harding and Reagan; singers Loretta Lynn, Pat Boone, Glen Campbell, Wierd Al Yankovic, and Randy Travis; basketball player David Robinson; author Max Lucado; and olympic figure skater Scott Hamilton.
More to come
More to come
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Why I am NOT a member of the coc, part five
After deciding I was a panentheist, I dabbled in different "spiritual" types of thoughts, including, Buddhism, The Law of Attraction, and looking at the workings of the natural world as a kind of magic. Buddhism lite was, and still is, most appealing to me. It is more a way of living and attitude than anything requiring specific beliefs. I also began to watch youtube videos put out by atheists and read atheist blogs. More and more, I began to see that I didn't actually believe the universe was anything more than the sum of its parts. It didn't have some kind of all encompassing consciousness or supernatural elements. I was just reluctant to give up my belief in the supernatural. January 2014, I said to myself, "I guess I'm actually an atheist."
Nothing happened. The world didn't fall apart. I wasn't sad or angry. I was relieved, and I felt as though I had attained a kind of freedom and enlightenment. I didn't know how to tell my husband. He was still very much a christian. In fact, he had recently announced in a bible class that he would kill our children if god appeared to him and told him to. I had been furious with him at that and yelled at him in front of everyone. I decided I would start disengaging myself from participation in church classes and functions,over the course of the year. My husband never noticed the difference.
January 2015, I felt like I would be dishonest to continue letting my husband think I was a christian. He was not picking up on subtle hints. So I told him. It did not go over well. He wanted someone to blame and couldn't believe I had come to that conclusion through my own efforts. I tried to have discussions about what I had learned about the bible, history and science. He was incredulous. He tried using every tired cliche apologetic argument for god that exists, including "look at the trees." He refused to read any of the books I had read. Instead, he started reading apologists like William Lane Craig and Peter Hitchens. He became uber-christian, sitting in front of me with his bible open at all hours, a thing he had never done before. If I tried to have a discussion about atheism, it would end with us yelling and him telling me his world was falling apart.
I couldn't talk reasonably to my husband about this state of affairs, so I started sending him long messages and links to articles, in my Facebook messages. He quit going on Facebook. Now, we have come to a point where we do not talk about it at all. He acts like he pretends that nothing has changed. He maintains a position in church leadership that he would not have if it were known that I am an atheist. I no longer sing in worship services, speak up in bible classes, pray, or participate in most extra functions. I sit in the back of classes and read on my ipad, if I can. Nobody seems to care or be too put out by my non participation. My body is still present, so I guess they think that means I'm still a member in good standing. I continue to read, study, and learn. For me, there is no going back to what I once believed. I know too much. I don't know how long I will need to attend worship services, but for now, it keeps my family together. Maybe in the future, I will feel more free to come out of the proverbial closet.
I am currently living in the bible belt. I frequently see "friends" posting derogatory remarks about atheists on social media. Besides my husband, maybe one or two people know I am an atheist. There are no atheists in my social circles. I participate in a few online communities where my atheism does not matter.
Out of necessity, I have left out a great many details of my life as a Christian and my process of becoming an atheist. It would have taken up too much space and time and probably bored you to tears. I think I covered the most pertinent parts. Next time, I want to talk about what makes the church of christ unique and why it is so hard for me to physically leave.
Nothing happened. The world didn't fall apart. I wasn't sad or angry. I was relieved, and I felt as though I had attained a kind of freedom and enlightenment. I didn't know how to tell my husband. He was still very much a christian. In fact, he had recently announced in a bible class that he would kill our children if god appeared to him and told him to. I had been furious with him at that and yelled at him in front of everyone. I decided I would start disengaging myself from participation in church classes and functions,over the course of the year. My husband never noticed the difference.
January 2015, I felt like I would be dishonest to continue letting my husband think I was a christian. He was not picking up on subtle hints. So I told him. It did not go over well. He wanted someone to blame and couldn't believe I had come to that conclusion through my own efforts. I tried to have discussions about what I had learned about the bible, history and science. He was incredulous. He tried using every tired cliche apologetic argument for god that exists, including "look at the trees." He refused to read any of the books I had read. Instead, he started reading apologists like William Lane Craig and Peter Hitchens. He became uber-christian, sitting in front of me with his bible open at all hours, a thing he had never done before. If I tried to have a discussion about atheism, it would end with us yelling and him telling me his world was falling apart.
I couldn't talk reasonably to my husband about this state of affairs, so I started sending him long messages and links to articles, in my Facebook messages. He quit going on Facebook. Now, we have come to a point where we do not talk about it at all. He acts like he pretends that nothing has changed. He maintains a position in church leadership that he would not have if it were known that I am an atheist. I no longer sing in worship services, speak up in bible classes, pray, or participate in most extra functions. I sit in the back of classes and read on my ipad, if I can. Nobody seems to care or be too put out by my non participation. My body is still present, so I guess they think that means I'm still a member in good standing. I continue to read, study, and learn. For me, there is no going back to what I once believed. I know too much. I don't know how long I will need to attend worship services, but for now, it keeps my family together. Maybe in the future, I will feel more free to come out of the proverbial closet.
I am currently living in the bible belt. I frequently see "friends" posting derogatory remarks about atheists on social media. Besides my husband, maybe one or two people know I am an atheist. There are no atheists in my social circles. I participate in a few online communities where my atheism does not matter.
Out of necessity, I have left out a great many details of my life as a Christian and my process of becoming an atheist. It would have taken up too much space and time and probably bored you to tears. I think I covered the most pertinent parts. Next time, I want to talk about what makes the church of christ unique and why it is so hard for me to physically leave.
Why I am NOT a member of the CoC, part four
After 20, years in the military, my husband retired. Our family was in upheaval. My husband got a low paying job. That, plus military retirement, had us making 10,000 a year less than before. My parents divorced and my mother moved in with another man. We moved to another home an hour away from our previous home, but closer to my husband's work. It needed a lot more repair work than we had anticipated and my husband was not a handyman. I was pregnant and had a miscarriage. I got pregnant again. We were traveling an hour each way to church every week to remain with our congregation of ten years. After I had the baby, I got an inner ear infection. The birth had been hard and my infant was a fussy child. I hardly slept, my head was spinning and I was crying all the time. I was diagnosed with postpartum depression. It was all too much.
I temporarily went on antidepressants and did some serious soul searching. I came up with my own techniques to handle my panic attacks. I also decided to "let go" of all the things that I could not handle or control. I let go of the need to be doing the right thing all the time. I let go of the striving to be good enough for god. I prayed and told god that I was giving up trying to please him. I was just going to live my life the way that best suited me and if I went to hell, so be it. It took me almost two years to fully recover, but I was much better by the end of six months.
I wasn't done being a model christian, but something in me had loosened up. My husband and I decided to start attending a church of christ that was more conveniently located. When we left our old church, hardly anyone kept in touch with us or said goodbye. It was then I began to realize the members of the church weren't really my family after all. I got involved with the homeschooling and church communities in my new area, but never felt as connected as I once had. Over the years, as my children grew, I became less and less involved, especially after the local homeschooling group began to require a statement of faith and began to assume fundamentalist beliefs were the norm for christian homeschoolers. I had been studying various science books, secular and christian, to try to decide what to teach my older children. They had been getting a steady diet of creationism. I realized that I had been wrong and proceeded to correct that by changing our science sources to more accurate secular ones.
My oldest child graduated and went away to a CoC college. I had a fifth child, my last. About that time, I found a homeschooling message board website with homeschoolers from all over the world. I participated in many conversations about education, life, and religion. I met people from many backgrounds and learned how woefully inadequate my understanding of other religions was. I also met some atheists. A few times I embarrassed myself by making ignorant statements, but then I began to pay closer attention and read suggested books. I realized that all those years I had heard church leaders say Catholics and Mormons never really read the bible or material from groups outside their particular brand of faith, members of the CoC didn't either!
I began to dip my toe in unfamiliar waters by reading books by many progressive christians like Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Karen Armstrong. It was eye opening. I moved on to Bart Ehrman's books and serious doubts set in. I learned about free online college courses (MOOCS) and watched videos from courses in Philosophy, Sociology, Astronomy, Epigenetics, Paleontology, and Jewish history. I bought myself a book called The Bible in History and carried it with me to church, looking up events that came up in bible classes. It became undeniable that there were serious problems with the accuracy and historicity of the bible. I couldn't give up belief in a god yet, so I progressed into a kind of panentheism. Existence/the universe was my god. All this time, I never discussed my findings with my husband. He was never the type to have deep discussions of ideas, let alone, theological ones. His faith was and is a pretty simple one, very trusting of authority. Plus, I might have unconsciously expected to come across information that would set me back on the track of christianity. It never happened.
I temporarily went on antidepressants and did some serious soul searching. I came up with my own techniques to handle my panic attacks. I also decided to "let go" of all the things that I could not handle or control. I let go of the need to be doing the right thing all the time. I let go of the striving to be good enough for god. I prayed and told god that I was giving up trying to please him. I was just going to live my life the way that best suited me and if I went to hell, so be it. It took me almost two years to fully recover, but I was much better by the end of six months.
I wasn't done being a model christian, but something in me had loosened up. My husband and I decided to start attending a church of christ that was more conveniently located. When we left our old church, hardly anyone kept in touch with us or said goodbye. It was then I began to realize the members of the church weren't really my family after all. I got involved with the homeschooling and church communities in my new area, but never felt as connected as I once had. Over the years, as my children grew, I became less and less involved, especially after the local homeschooling group began to require a statement of faith and began to assume fundamentalist beliefs were the norm for christian homeschoolers. I had been studying various science books, secular and christian, to try to decide what to teach my older children. They had been getting a steady diet of creationism. I realized that I had been wrong and proceeded to correct that by changing our science sources to more accurate secular ones.
My oldest child graduated and went away to a CoC college. I had a fifth child, my last. About that time, I found a homeschooling message board website with homeschoolers from all over the world. I participated in many conversations about education, life, and religion. I met people from many backgrounds and learned how woefully inadequate my understanding of other religions was. I also met some atheists. A few times I embarrassed myself by making ignorant statements, but then I began to pay closer attention and read suggested books. I realized that all those years I had heard church leaders say Catholics and Mormons never really read the bible or material from groups outside their particular brand of faith, members of the CoC didn't either!
I began to dip my toe in unfamiliar waters by reading books by many progressive christians like Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Karen Armstrong. It was eye opening. I moved on to Bart Ehrman's books and serious doubts set in. I learned about free online college courses (MOOCS) and watched videos from courses in Philosophy, Sociology, Astronomy, Epigenetics, Paleontology, and Jewish history. I bought myself a book called The Bible in History and carried it with me to church, looking up events that came up in bible classes. It became undeniable that there were serious problems with the accuracy and historicity of the bible. I couldn't give up belief in a god yet, so I progressed into a kind of panentheism. Existence/the universe was my god. All this time, I never discussed my findings with my husband. He was never the type to have deep discussions of ideas, let alone, theological ones. His faith was and is a pretty simple one, very trusting of authority. Plus, I might have unconsciously expected to come across information that would set me back on the track of christianity. It never happened.
Why I am NOT a member of the CoC, part three
We now lived in another military area. I was less gloomy, but still convinced I would go to hell if I died. I started dating my future husband at the age of sixteen. He was a member of the CoC and a nice guy. My mother had told me there was no way my parents could support me going to college. She encouraged me to be serious about my future with (my husband). I had no goals or aspirations other than becoming a wife and mother, even though I was an accelerated student. I wouldn't have known how to go about doing anything else. My father later told me he never realized that.
At the age of 17.5, I married. At that time I was in Community college. My husband went over seas with the military soon after, and I followed a month later. We worshipped with a small church of Christ group on the military base. Now I was an adult in the church and began to be aware of conflicts, disagreements, and hypocrisies among the other adults in the church. Almost nobody was without issues. I began my policy of staying out of these kinds of discussions and being neutral, for the most part. I tend to have a little social anxiety, and a fear of confrontation. My husband followed the neutral policy as well, but mostly because he loves people and just wants to get along with everyone. I don't know if he even noticed some of the problems. In the meantime, I kept watching, listening, and studying. I still believed the main tenets of the CoC, even if there were obvious problems among members with what I saw as negotiable points of doctrine.While we were there, I had myself rebaptized (in a bathtub) and experienced a great feeling of relief. Now I was safe.
We moved back to the US and became involved with a loving congregation with few problems, that I knew of. My first child was born. When the preacher retired and we got a new younger preacher, issues began to crop up, questions about divorce, alcohol consumption, and salvation of others who called themselves christians. The atmosphere became tense, but we left for another duty station soon after.
At the next church, I began to teach children's bible classes. There, I heard about homeschooling for the first time. Plus, I was publicly berated in front of the whole congregation on a Sunday morning, for having called the church office to tell someone I couldn't teach my Wednesday night bible class that week. When I called, the preacher answered the phone. I gave him my message. He took it without remark. Then, without mentioning my name, he blasted me from the pulpit, saying his PHD self was too busy and important to take messages. There were proper channels for that kind of thing. I cried during the whole service.
We moved soon after, to a location with a congregation full of young military families with children. There was a disfellowshipping over a divorce soon after we got there. That was barely a blip on my radar. I had another child and my husband was deployed in Desert Storm. The young mothers in this congregation were very supportive of each other. They got together often for bible studies and socializing. I got to know one who was homeschooling her kids and became curious. She loaned me a bunch of literature, which I read hungrily. I was always a reader, curious, and interested in learning. Not only that, I had an obsession with doing the right thing and living in a godly way. That material convinced me I needed to homeschool my children to save their souls from the influence of the wicked world. I also became convinced birth control was a sin. I had a miscarriage and then another child.
I now had three children and was very involved in homeschooling and church. Various issues continued to crop up at church. We had an adulterous preacher who left in a hurry, and a traveling fundraiser for a bible printer ran away with money the congregation donated. There were disagreements over new song books, new preachers, overhead projectors, Promise Keeper involvement, building renovations, use of musical instruments in weddings, Max Lucado, small groups, and many other topics. My husband and I continued our practice of remaining neutral. I don't even know how many of the conflicts my husband was aware of. Nevertheless, that church became like family to us, or so we thought.
At the age of 17.5, I married. At that time I was in Community college. My husband went over seas with the military soon after, and I followed a month later. We worshipped with a small church of Christ group on the military base. Now I was an adult in the church and began to be aware of conflicts, disagreements, and hypocrisies among the other adults in the church. Almost nobody was without issues. I began my policy of staying out of these kinds of discussions and being neutral, for the most part. I tend to have a little social anxiety, and a fear of confrontation. My husband followed the neutral policy as well, but mostly because he loves people and just wants to get along with everyone. I don't know if he even noticed some of the problems. In the meantime, I kept watching, listening, and studying. I still believed the main tenets of the CoC, even if there were obvious problems among members with what I saw as negotiable points of doctrine.While we were there, I had myself rebaptized (in a bathtub) and experienced a great feeling of relief. Now I was safe.
We moved back to the US and became involved with a loving congregation with few problems, that I knew of. My first child was born. When the preacher retired and we got a new younger preacher, issues began to crop up, questions about divorce, alcohol consumption, and salvation of others who called themselves christians. The atmosphere became tense, but we left for another duty station soon after.
At the next church, I began to teach children's bible classes. There, I heard about homeschooling for the first time. Plus, I was publicly berated in front of the whole congregation on a Sunday morning, for having called the church office to tell someone I couldn't teach my Wednesday night bible class that week. When I called, the preacher answered the phone. I gave him my message. He took it without remark. Then, without mentioning my name, he blasted me from the pulpit, saying his PHD self was too busy and important to take messages. There were proper channels for that kind of thing. I cried during the whole service.
We moved soon after, to a location with a congregation full of young military families with children. There was a disfellowshipping over a divorce soon after we got there. That was barely a blip on my radar. I had another child and my husband was deployed in Desert Storm. The young mothers in this congregation were very supportive of each other. They got together often for bible studies and socializing. I got to know one who was homeschooling her kids and became curious. She loaned me a bunch of literature, which I read hungrily. I was always a reader, curious, and interested in learning. Not only that, I had an obsession with doing the right thing and living in a godly way. That material convinced me I needed to homeschool my children to save their souls from the influence of the wicked world. I also became convinced birth control was a sin. I had a miscarriage and then another child.
I now had three children and was very involved in homeschooling and church. Various issues continued to crop up at church. We had an adulterous preacher who left in a hurry, and a traveling fundraiser for a bible printer ran away with money the congregation donated. There were disagreements over new song books, new preachers, overhead projectors, Promise Keeper involvement, building renovations, use of musical instruments in weddings, Max Lucado, small groups, and many other topics. My husband and I continued our practice of remaining neutral. I don't even know how many of the conflicts my husband was aware of. Nevertheless, that church became like family to us, or so we thought.
Why I am a NOT a member of the CoC, part two.
When we got back to the continental US, it wasn't long before my mother started looking for a place for us to go to church. Frankly, I think my mother did not want my father at loose ends and she needed a social outlet. First, we visited a Church of God one Sunday morning. It seemed okay, but my parents went back without us kids that night and everyone joined hands to pray for a "happening." That didn't go over well. Then we tried out a local Baptist church for a few Sundays. That was better, until my parents were told they had to sign some kind of contract and get rebaptized to become members. No thank you. My mother then resorted to the phone book. She called around asking about church beliefs and practices until she got to the church of Christ. They sounded exactly like what my father and mother were both looking for. Plus, they didn't celebrate "pagan" holidays like Christmas and Easter.
To their credit, we were treated well in that church. They told my parents that their baptisms were a matter of their own consciences, if they understood what they were doing. My mother opted to be rebaptized. My father did not. My family settled in. I was soon asked to join the youth group. Since I had not grown up in that church, I was unaware of the many unwritten rules. So were my parents. We were never berated or talked down to, but we had ample opportunities to notice we were different. So we made adjustments. I learned about the hypocrisy of christian modesty when the youth group went to the beach for a devotional. Having run around in shorts most of my childhood, I discovered that it was taboo when in front of church members, especially those of the opposite sex. No-one told me this directly, but a teen girl notices when she is the only one in shorts at The Beach in Florida. Never mind that I had seen the other girls in shorts at their homes.
That church was the first place I had ever heard of and witnessed the disfellowshipping of a member. It was over the issue of a divorce. A church friend also introduced me to the concept of the anti-Christ. President Jimmy Carter was the anti-Christ of that era, poor man.
Little occurrences, various subtle teachings, certain reactions to things I said or did, all affected me, gently molding me into a model member of the church of Christ. It was the velvet glove treatment. It works. I became a daily bible reader, so I could raise my hand proudly in services when asked. I memorized scripture in a spirit of competition with my less enthusiastic Sunday school mates. I agonized over when I should take the step to go forward and be baptized. Then it was all taken out of my hands. My mother decided I had reached the "age of accountability",which was unofficially thirteen. She made an appointment with the minister for me to have "a talk." The minister deemed that I knew everything I needed to know, my mother deemed I should be baptized right then and there. I barely remember how I ended up in the water. It seemed to have nothing to do with my own free will. Of course, I said I believed Jesus was the son of god, when I was asked, because I did. I felt like I had no way to gracefully back out or postpone the event. In later years, I became rabid about people leaving my children alone to let them decide for themselves whether or not to be baptized.
Since, my baptism had not been voluntary, in my mind, I was scared witless. I became afraid to "sin" lest I destroy the cleanness of my soul that I had been told was a result of the baptism. I tried to live an exemplary life at thirteen. That lasted about two weeks. My father noticed that I gave up trying to be perfect. He wanted to know what had happened, why was I back to acting like a normal sassy kid (not in so many words.) I had no way to explain to him what had happened to me because I didn't understand it myself, at that time. I just knew I was probably going to hell. I lost interest in excelling at anything because I had realized I could never be good enough. I went through bouts of depression that I hid from everyone. I listened to a lot of music and read a lot of books, some Christianity oriented, to escape my feelings of inadequacy. I continued to fervently study the bible. I cried a lot.
We moved again.
To their credit, we were treated well in that church. They told my parents that their baptisms were a matter of their own consciences, if they understood what they were doing. My mother opted to be rebaptized. My father did not. My family settled in. I was soon asked to join the youth group. Since I had not grown up in that church, I was unaware of the many unwritten rules. So were my parents. We were never berated or talked down to, but we had ample opportunities to notice we were different. So we made adjustments. I learned about the hypocrisy of christian modesty when the youth group went to the beach for a devotional. Having run around in shorts most of my childhood, I discovered that it was taboo when in front of church members, especially those of the opposite sex. No-one told me this directly, but a teen girl notices when she is the only one in shorts at The Beach in Florida. Never mind that I had seen the other girls in shorts at their homes.
That church was the first place I had ever heard of and witnessed the disfellowshipping of a member. It was over the issue of a divorce. A church friend also introduced me to the concept of the anti-Christ. President Jimmy Carter was the anti-Christ of that era, poor man.
Little occurrences, various subtle teachings, certain reactions to things I said or did, all affected me, gently molding me into a model member of the church of Christ. It was the velvet glove treatment. It works. I became a daily bible reader, so I could raise my hand proudly in services when asked. I memorized scripture in a spirit of competition with my less enthusiastic Sunday school mates. I agonized over when I should take the step to go forward and be baptized. Then it was all taken out of my hands. My mother decided I had reached the "age of accountability",which was unofficially thirteen. She made an appointment with the minister for me to have "a talk." The minister deemed that I knew everything I needed to know, my mother deemed I should be baptized right then and there. I barely remember how I ended up in the water. It seemed to have nothing to do with my own free will. Of course, I said I believed Jesus was the son of god, when I was asked, because I did. I felt like I had no way to gracefully back out or postpone the event. In later years, I became rabid about people leaving my children alone to let them decide for themselves whether or not to be baptized.
Since, my baptism had not been voluntary, in my mind, I was scared witless. I became afraid to "sin" lest I destroy the cleanness of my soul that I had been told was a result of the baptism. I tried to live an exemplary life at thirteen. That lasted about two weeks. My father noticed that I gave up trying to be perfect. He wanted to know what had happened, why was I back to acting like a normal sassy kid (not in so many words.) I had no way to explain to him what had happened to me because I didn't understand it myself, at that time. I just knew I was probably going to hell. I lost interest in excelling at anything because I had realized I could never be good enough. I went through bouts of depression that I hid from everyone. I listened to a lot of music and read a lot of books, some Christianity oriented, to escape my feelings of inadequacy. I continued to fervently study the bible. I cried a lot.
We moved again.
Why I am NOT a member of the church of christ, part one
Why I am a Member of the Church of Christ by Leroy Brownlow sat on my family bookshelf for years. It was hardly ever read, but it was standard equipment for the library of a member of the church of Christ (CoC) when I was growing up. I would like to tell you the story of how I became a member of the church of Christ, and why I no longer consider myself one, even though I still attend services Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings.
Since a child is not born with a religion, the story of its religious life begins with its parents. My mother grew up as a nominal catholic. Her mother and stepfather had been married and divorced more than once, so they weren't considered Catholics in good standing. My mother briefly attended a Catholic school when young and hated it. She was struck on the hand with a ruler for minor infractions and was told that saying the rosary was mandatory because Mother Mary said it, which made no sense to her, of course. My maternal grandparents believed they were probably going to hell.
My father grew up generic Baptist flavor christian. His father was a deacon and involved in community service of all kinds, when my father was young. They were not fanatics, however. By the time I came along, my grandparents were happy just being nominal protestants and did not go to church regularly. They were some of the most loving people I've ever known.
My parents eloped, were married in a military chapel, and seemed to have no deep religious convictions. When I was about two, we lived in Germany and my parents started attending Lutheran services, at least part time. My younger brother was born and my mother decided to have him baptized. Since I had never been baptized, they did a two for one. I still have the little white bible I was given afterward. My earliest religious memories are of watching a parent go up to the altar for what I know now as communion. Then, I just thought it was merely bread and water. We also had a large white, illustrated family bible, with gold edges and detailing. I loved to look at the pictures. As far as I know, that was the extent of religion in our household for a few years.
Later, we lived in Puerto Rico, on a military base, and were not attending any church services. My mother sent me to Sunday school classes, held in the base elementary school. Family friends later invited us to go with them to a local congregation made up of a mixture of continental American military families and locals. The church was run by a Methodist missionary and his wife. They were rather pious, serious, and gloomy, but the Puerto Ricans were a lively, exuberant bunch. The singing was terrific, joyful and noisy, in English and Spanish. Many of the women kept time with tambourines. It is one of the most delightful memories of my childhood. I still remember some of those songs.
Around the same time, my father had a kind of spiritual revival. He became very interested in reading the bible. He also began to listen to radio broadcasts of Garner Ted Armstrong and the World Wide Church of God. He subscribed to their free magazine, The Plain Truth. He often gave me the magazines to read and would discuss them with me, almost as if I was a grown up. The teachings of this organization led my father to decide our family would no longer celebrate Christmas, which was a terrific blow to my mother, as we found out in later years. Easter and Halloween participation were also discontinued. My father also decided he needed to be baptized for the remission of his sins. The Methodist missionary took a group to the beach and a number of people were baptized in the ocean, including my father and mother.
While we lived in Puerto Rico, a neighbor gave me an old, worn copy of a King James bible, printed by the Gideons. I began to read it. I believed wholeheartedly in God with the simple faith of a child and could not remember a time when I hadn't. At the age of eleven, I encountered my first atheist, Mrs. Szesniac (sp.?). She was my sixth grade English teacher. One class period, she angrily said the bible was just a bunch of fairy tales and we shouldn't believe it. I mentally stuck my tongue out at her.
Then we moved to Florida.
Since a child is not born with a religion, the story of its religious life begins with its parents. My mother grew up as a nominal catholic. Her mother and stepfather had been married and divorced more than once, so they weren't considered Catholics in good standing. My mother briefly attended a Catholic school when young and hated it. She was struck on the hand with a ruler for minor infractions and was told that saying the rosary was mandatory because Mother Mary said it, which made no sense to her, of course. My maternal grandparents believed they were probably going to hell.
My father grew up generic Baptist flavor christian. His father was a deacon and involved in community service of all kinds, when my father was young. They were not fanatics, however. By the time I came along, my grandparents were happy just being nominal protestants and did not go to church regularly. They were some of the most loving people I've ever known.
My parents eloped, were married in a military chapel, and seemed to have no deep religious convictions. When I was about two, we lived in Germany and my parents started attending Lutheran services, at least part time. My younger brother was born and my mother decided to have him baptized. Since I had never been baptized, they did a two for one. I still have the little white bible I was given afterward. My earliest religious memories are of watching a parent go up to the altar for what I know now as communion. Then, I just thought it was merely bread and water. We also had a large white, illustrated family bible, with gold edges and detailing. I loved to look at the pictures. As far as I know, that was the extent of religion in our household for a few years.
Later, we lived in Puerto Rico, on a military base, and were not attending any church services. My mother sent me to Sunday school classes, held in the base elementary school. Family friends later invited us to go with them to a local congregation made up of a mixture of continental American military families and locals. The church was run by a Methodist missionary and his wife. They were rather pious, serious, and gloomy, but the Puerto Ricans were a lively, exuberant bunch. The singing was terrific, joyful and noisy, in English and Spanish. Many of the women kept time with tambourines. It is one of the most delightful memories of my childhood. I still remember some of those songs.
Around the same time, my father had a kind of spiritual revival. He became very interested in reading the bible. He also began to listen to radio broadcasts of Garner Ted Armstrong and the World Wide Church of God. He subscribed to their free magazine, The Plain Truth. He often gave me the magazines to read and would discuss them with me, almost as if I was a grown up. The teachings of this organization led my father to decide our family would no longer celebrate Christmas, which was a terrific blow to my mother, as we found out in later years. Easter and Halloween participation were also discontinued. My father also decided he needed to be baptized for the remission of his sins. The Methodist missionary took a group to the beach and a number of people were baptized in the ocean, including my father and mother.
While we lived in Puerto Rico, a neighbor gave me an old, worn copy of a King James bible, printed by the Gideons. I began to read it. I believed wholeheartedly in God with the simple faith of a child and could not remember a time when I hadn't. At the age of eleven, I encountered my first atheist, Mrs. Szesniac (sp.?). She was my sixth grade English teacher. One class period, she angrily said the bible was just a bunch of fairy tales and we shouldn't believe it. I mentally stuck my tongue out at her.
Then we moved to Florida.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part eleven
We will take a quick look at the sermon in Luke (6:20-49) that is similar to Matthew's sermon on the mount. The location of the sermon is quite similar, yet worded differently. As in Matthew, Luke's sermon begins with some "blessed are" phrases. Again, they are similar, but worded differently. They are different enough to actually have different meanings. Luke goes on to parallel his blessings with curses, in "woe unto" statements. These do not appear in Matthew.
Luke's sermon is significantly shorter than the one in Matthew. All the remaining passages of Luke's sermon, after the blessings and woes, are found in Matthew. These include the sections on loving enemies, not judging, bearing good fruit, and the wise man built his house upon a rock. The order of the passages and the order of the phrases in the passages are not exactly the same in all details, but close enough. Both Matthew's and Luke's sermons end with the parable of the wise and foolish men.
Much of the extra material in Matthew's sermon is found in other random parts of Luke, some is not. Matthew's sermon appears to be well structured and logical in sequence. Jesus goes into detail about how to be more righteous than the pharisees by going one step further. Luke's beatitudes have a unique structure, but also appear well thought out. The rest of Luke's sermon is quite condensed, with no sense that Jesus is trying to preserve the law of Moses. In Luke, Jesus gives only one "do not." Luke's author seems more concerned with how the disciples actually treat other people than with what they are thinking. In his sermon, Matthew addresses religious acts of praying, giving, and fasting. Luke only addresses giving in his version.
After the sermon in the mount, both books have Jesus encounter a centurion with a sick servant. It seems clear to me that Matthew's and Luke's timetables are the same. So, why the discrepancies in the two accounts? Which one came first? Obviously, they were written by two different people. Neither author is known to history. Matthew's book might appeal more to a Jewish audience, since he focuses on the law and the prophets and Luke doesn't. If we were to take the sermon as the core of Jesus's message, would we get the same impressions from each? Suppose I had only one story, and someone else had the other, would we have the same religion? If I were to take the stories literally, how could I justify the discrepancies?
I was going back over both sermons to see if I missed anything, and I noticed something about how Jesus referred to himself. In Matthew's sermon, Jesus says, "blessed are you when people (insult, persecute, and slander) you because of Me. Luke's sermon has has Jesus saying, "blessed are you when men (hate, exclude, insult) you because of the Son of Man.
In Matthew, Jesus says he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. He does not say so in Luke. In Matthew, Jesus gives examples of things that were said to "the people long ago." He follows each example with "but I tell you," setting himself up as an authority greater than the traditions of the Israelites. He does not do that in Luke's version. In Matthew, Jesus also says "I tell you the truth" multiple times, implying either that other people did not tell the listeners the truth or that some have called Jesus a liar. Luke's version does not include this phrase.
In Matthew, Jesus says, "not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven." He then implies that people will perform miracles in his name. "Lord" here is kyrie in the greek, which has the root kurios, and means master. It is a title of respect and authority. Matthew uses passive future tense language in this passage, but Luke is more direct and present tense. His version says, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" Christianity often presents this statement as something god will say to all humans in the judgment. Luke presents it as a rhetorical question Jesus said to the disciples that day.
That ends my look at the sermon on the mount. Over the next few posts, I will tell you about my journey through and out of religion.
Luke's sermon is significantly shorter than the one in Matthew. All the remaining passages of Luke's sermon, after the blessings and woes, are found in Matthew. These include the sections on loving enemies, not judging, bearing good fruit, and the wise man built his house upon a rock. The order of the passages and the order of the phrases in the passages are not exactly the same in all details, but close enough. Both Matthew's and Luke's sermons end with the parable of the wise and foolish men.
Much of the extra material in Matthew's sermon is found in other random parts of Luke, some is not. Matthew's sermon appears to be well structured and logical in sequence. Jesus goes into detail about how to be more righteous than the pharisees by going one step further. Luke's beatitudes have a unique structure, but also appear well thought out. The rest of Luke's sermon is quite condensed, with no sense that Jesus is trying to preserve the law of Moses. In Luke, Jesus gives only one "do not." Luke's author seems more concerned with how the disciples actually treat other people than with what they are thinking. In his sermon, Matthew addresses religious acts of praying, giving, and fasting. Luke only addresses giving in his version.
After the sermon in the mount, both books have Jesus encounter a centurion with a sick servant. It seems clear to me that Matthew's and Luke's timetables are the same. So, why the discrepancies in the two accounts? Which one came first? Obviously, they were written by two different people. Neither author is known to history. Matthew's book might appeal more to a Jewish audience, since he focuses on the law and the prophets and Luke doesn't. If we were to take the sermon as the core of Jesus's message, would we get the same impressions from each? Suppose I had only one story, and someone else had the other, would we have the same religion? If I were to take the stories literally, how could I justify the discrepancies?
I was going back over both sermons to see if I missed anything, and I noticed something about how Jesus referred to himself. In Matthew's sermon, Jesus says, "blessed are you when people (insult, persecute, and slander) you because of Me. Luke's sermon has has Jesus saying, "blessed are you when men (hate, exclude, insult) you because of the Son of Man.
In Matthew, Jesus says he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. He does not say so in Luke. In Matthew, Jesus gives examples of things that were said to "the people long ago." He follows each example with "but I tell you," setting himself up as an authority greater than the traditions of the Israelites. He does not do that in Luke's version. In Matthew, Jesus also says "I tell you the truth" multiple times, implying either that other people did not tell the listeners the truth or that some have called Jesus a liar. Luke's version does not include this phrase.
In Matthew, Jesus says, "not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven." He then implies that people will perform miracles in his name. "Lord" here is kyrie in the greek, which has the root kurios, and means master. It is a title of respect and authority. Matthew uses passive future tense language in this passage, but Luke is more direct and present tense. His version says, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" Christianity often presents this statement as something god will say to all humans in the judgment. Luke presents it as a rhetorical question Jesus said to the disciples that day.
That ends my look at the sermon on the mount. Over the next few posts, I will tell you about my journey through and out of religion.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Book Review- We Are Our Brains
I would like to recommend a book I just finished, called We are Our Brains by D. F. Swaab. This book contains very important information on how our brains develop "from the womb to alzheimers." The author gives lay readers an easy to understand survey of how the biology of our brains determines and influences who we are, our sexuality, our character, and our choices. It also tells how our brains react to hormones, drugs, and other environmental factors. In my opinion, this information is very important, and all educated people should be introduced to it in some way, at least by adolescence.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part ten
The next section of Matthew's version of the sermon is 7:15-21. There Matthew tells the disciples to watch out for false prophets. Then he gives multiple metaphors that boil down to "By their fruit you will recognize them." That's not very specific is it? Jesus does not explain how to tell the the difference between bad fruit and good fruit. However, since this passage was written decades after Jesus's death, and there were probably already a few versions of Christianity put out by other prophets, I'm guessing the author has something in mind. This sentiment is also found in Luke's version of the sermon, 6:43-45
Verses 21-23 tell us not everyone will get into the kingdom of heaven, even some of those who prophesy, drive out demons, and perform miracles in Jesus's name. Then who will, pray tell. Verses 24-27 tell us that it is everyone who hears these words of Jesus (in the sermon) and puts them into practice. That person will be like the wise man who built his house upon a rock. Do you know the song? The wise man is also found in Luke's version, 6:46-49
That is the end of Matthew's version of the sermon on the mount. So what are the concrete, specific things that Jesus said in Matthew's version of the sermon that could actually be put into practice?
*Rejoice when being persecuted because of Jesus. Verse 5:12
*Be more righteous than the pharisees, by....
Not insulting your brother
Reconciling differences before making offerings
Settle matters quickly with those who are suing you
Do not lust after women
Do not divorce except for marital unfaithfulness
Do not swear oaths (make cross your heart hope to die promises, oops we skipped that)
Turn the other cheek
Do not resist an evil person
Give to anyone who asks
Love your enemies
Pray for those who persecute you
Be perfect (whoa!)
Give in secret
Pray in private
Keep your prayers short and to the point
Do not advertise your fasting
Do not store up treasures on earth
Do not worry about food, drink, or clothing
Do not worry about tomorrow
Do not judge
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
The people who do these things are the ones Jesus was talking about. They are the ones who will get into that kingdom of heaven by the small gate and the narrow road. They are building their houses on rock, not sand. How many Christians do you know that do ALL these things? Forget all, how many do you know that are perfect? How many do you think will get into the kingdom of heaven?
How many of those things are actually of practical use for day to day living, if there is no god? Maybe six. The most practical, of course, is do unto others as you would have others do unto you, or the so called golden rule. But Jesus wasn't the only person in history to give us a version of that principle.
Verses 21-23 tell us not everyone will get into the kingdom of heaven, even some of those who prophesy, drive out demons, and perform miracles in Jesus's name. Then who will, pray tell. Verses 24-27 tell us that it is everyone who hears these words of Jesus (in the sermon) and puts them into practice. That person will be like the wise man who built his house upon a rock. Do you know the song? The wise man is also found in Luke's version, 6:46-49
That is the end of Matthew's version of the sermon on the mount. So what are the concrete, specific things that Jesus said in Matthew's version of the sermon that could actually be put into practice?
*Rejoice when being persecuted because of Jesus. Verse 5:12
*Be more righteous than the pharisees, by....
Not insulting your brother
Reconciling differences before making offerings
Settle matters quickly with those who are suing you
Do not lust after women
Do not divorce except for marital unfaithfulness
Do not swear oaths (make cross your heart hope to die promises, oops we skipped that)
Turn the other cheek
Do not resist an evil person
Give to anyone who asks
Love your enemies
Pray for those who persecute you
Be perfect (whoa!)
Give in secret
Pray in private
Keep your prayers short and to the point
Do not advertise your fasting
Do not store up treasures on earth
Do not worry about food, drink, or clothing
Do not worry about tomorrow
Do not judge
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
The people who do these things are the ones Jesus was talking about. They are the ones who will get into that kingdom of heaven by the small gate and the narrow road. They are building their houses on rock, not sand. How many Christians do you know that do ALL these things? Forget all, how many do you know that are perfect? How many do you think will get into the kingdom of heaven?
How many of those things are actually of practical use for day to day living, if there is no god? Maybe six. The most practical, of course, is do unto others as you would have others do unto you, or the so called golden rule. But Jesus wasn't the only person in history to give us a version of that principle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)