The Need for Religion

A few disclaimers are necessary before the beginning of this post:
(1) I am a religion major, and a religious individual. I call myself a Christian--mostly because that is the religious tradition in which I have been raised--but draw from many different religions and philosophies.
(2) As a religion major, I am facinated by the presence of religion in society and at awe at the myriad religions of the world, always respectful of each in their own unique circumstance.
(3) I refuse, even though I call myself a Christian, to accept that there is only one "true" religion. I FIRMLY believe it is the believing that is important. The religions of the world hold many of the same tenets in common (namely: truth, justice, peace, love, you know the "biggies"), and no one is better or more "correct" than any other; it is a true question whether "God" created man or many created "God." In either case, the worldly, temporal interpretation of God is incredibly limited and mortal (read: given to fallibility).
(4) This post is not meant to be a rant, or to push a cause. It sprang from several lengthy discussion I had with a friend of mine, which I am terribly greatful for if for no other reason than they made me think twice about why I believe.

That said, here is my essay (which may be shaped or modified in the future, check back!) on the need for religion and why I am a "Christian."

First it should be said that the title we give ourselves, be it religious or otherwise, is closely related to the circumstances in which we are raised. I, raised in a religious, Christian family, call myself a Christian. Yet, my interpretation of Christianity is very much different from many people I know and certainly from the "norm." Am I any less Christian? I do not think so. I think that whatever the believer calls himself (in my case) is what he is. I call myself Christian because that is how I was raised, that is what is comfortable; and yet I draw upon several other religions and philosophies: meditation techniques from Buddhism, many prayers from Islam and Judaism (they are far more poetical, much more beautiful to listen to and say than most Christian prayers), acceptance from Baha'i (actual, the more I read on this, the more I like it). Yet, I was raised Christian, and believe that Jesus and I are tight, which is important to Christianity; and yet at the same time whatever you believe is good too. Again, it's the belief not tenet you believe.
Now, before I get comments about it, there are certain exceptions you may want to hear about but which I will not for the following reasons:
(1) You will want to except Satanism. And while you may have a point, I do not consider this a religion, and therefore will not except it.
(2) It is my firm belief that if you hold strongly to a belief, and act upon that belief, you will reap the consequence of that belief/action (good or bad). Therefore in believing and possibly acting upon Satanism, living in the hedonistic, epicurian manner which cares about comfort and joy now, one will reap the benefits/consequences (depending how one names it) when necessary.
That said, let's move on. I feel it is necessary to define my terminology. Philosophy. Philosophy is a defined set of beliefs with an emphasis on living life for the "now" or the "near future" or the "life." Religion. Religion is a defined set of beliefs with an emphasis on living life in relationship to a given set of "consequences (which can be good or bad)" in the "after-life;" life lived in relationship to "something else." Thus: Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, are philosophies; Baha'ism, Islam, Judaism, Hinudism, Christianity are religions.
I was once asked why I call myself a Christian if I disagree with so many of Christianity's teachings. My answer is several-fold:
(1) Martin Luther considered himself Catholic even though he disagreed with Catholicism and was excommunicated.
(2) Many people disagree with Christianity's teachings. If they were all to just leave the religion, it would die. There are many benefits (after-life excluded) to believing in Christianity. To leave is throwing the baby out with the bath-water. It is more productive and more fulfilling for me to work for change from within. That is, until it was challenged from the inside, women could not be ordained, gay men could not be ordained (which is most Churches except the UCC and the Episcopal Church, USA is still the case). Individuals did not just leave because they disagreed, they worked for change from within.
(3) The Church is different from Christianity. Most of what I disagree with is Church-related. I hate the Church, I think it is a slow-moving, earth-centered, temporally-motivated, power-hungry, bigoted institution which wrongly and selfishly mis-interprets (whether or not it is purposeful is for you to decide, and the subject of a whole other post) Scripture, and history for it's own gain. Christianity--the given set of beliefs set on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth--is not really my problem. We need to remember that Woody Guthrie once sang about, if Jesus came to earth today, the world would call him a communist. He was (and still is if that's the belief you're into) a terribly liberal individual who preached love beyond all things (even beyond the pain of one's own body). The Church has forgotten this in search of more power and gain on earth. That does not mean Christianity has.
(3a) Now, yes, I do still attend liturgy on Sunday mornings (don't I wish Lutherans did the whole Saturday evening thing!). But, as I explained to a friend of mine, liturgy is something very different for me than I think for most people. It is a time wherein I force myself into closer communion with the "something else." Also, I think it is incredibly necessary as this is the only time in most people's hectic lives when they read/listen to scripture and wherein that scripture is interpreted. This is incredibly important. The constant reading and re-reading of scripture shoudl serve to keep the scripture alive, and relevant to society and the times, to people's lives. Now, that is what should be. Most preachers, however, are not so good at this point. They take very limited (I've seen as little as five words) segments of scripture and begin to digress into a 30 minute sermon on something completely irrelevant and/or wrong. Regardless, preaching and listening to preaching is for me a necessary part of my spiritual life. It is where I hear my scripture being read, own it, interpret it, listen to someone interpret it, and really make it my own. The sermon is not the time wherein I listen to someone tell me what the scripture is saying, it is wherein I listen to scripture, think on it, listen to what someone thinks about it and use that to better form what I think about it.
But Why? Why any religion. That is a very good question and has led to vey lengthy discussion of religion vs science; Christianity vs. Humanism; etc. My answer is, again, several fold:
(1) Religion is the opiate of the masses. It makes people happy, it answers the unanswerable, and people like that.
(2) Science is very important. I firmly believe in evolution. Religion should never be at odds with science. They can be reconciled. Yet science can answer the what, the when, the where, the how, but not really the WHY. Why are we here? Why do we exist? The whole "what is the meaning of life?" question.
(3) There are two distinctive ways of looking at the world that push people's buttons. Religion and Science. They are both ways of interpreting the world and yet they are two distinct views. I do not think they need to be at odds with one another, though many people do. They are both relevant to today's society and should both be respected.

Okay. I need a good conclusion but at 8.01 pm after a very long weekend in Athens, Greece, I need ome rest before I develop it. So: check back soon! There will be a conclusion soon!

Pax,
JCM

What a Smart Man...

So, I received word today that The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, president of the LWF and presiding bishop of the ELCA, received a letter from 138 Muslim leaders calling for peace between Muslims and Christians. They reasoned that since these two religions make up such a huge majority of the population, peace between them is necessary for the larger peace.

I sort of agree. However, their letter severely lacked all mention of peace with Jews which seems--at least in the present age--as a much higher priority than peace with Christians with whom Muslims have not had a violent interaction since the Cursades. DO NOT DO IT! Do not comment on the Wars in Iraq or on Terror because those are NOT religious wars. Those are wars fought solely for economic and imperial gain.

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson replied with one of the wordiest letters I have ever read from him and mentioned (everytime he mentioned peace between Muslims and Christians) the Jews. Also, when citing Scriputral references for peace he mentions "The Quran [sic], The Torah, and the New Testament."

What a smart man.

Blessings,
PAX,
JCM

What I Think About in Church...

I think I may have killed my faith in church this morning. I let my mind wander as usual during the sermon this morning (sorry PC). And I realized something: our Christian faith teaches one of the most perplexing and hard to believe concepts ever in the whole creation of the world.

It teaches:
God the (sic) Father sent Jesus Christ [God the (sic) Son] to die for the sins of humanity. That is, by becoming human and dying, Jesus was the sacrifice for our sins. However, in the Bible (Psalm 51, perhaps...or something like that) says that God does not delight in burnt offerings, but in a repentant heart. However, God needed Jesus to die to atone for our sins? And besides, it's not like God didn't want to forgive us. We are told that forgiving our sins is what delights God the most. So, why would God the Father need to kill God the Son (for he surely could have stopped it, and therefore purposefully willed it into action) to forgive us? Why could he not just simply forgive our sins. I thought it was because he needed to know we accepted the forgiveness, or wanted the forgiveness, or believed in the forgiveness, but the more I think about it, the more I'm not sure. God loves all of his creation--we are told so. All we have to do is accept God's love in order to be (and I hate this word in this context) "saved." But, if God truly loves God's creation, surely God forgives us anyway--even if we don't believe. That is the true love that we are taught God has for creation: a limitless, unconditional love.

And on top of this, I'm starting to wonder why, if God truly forgave our sins through the death of Christ do we have to (at least in the Lutheran Church) ask for forgiveness on a weekly basis?

And it's thoughts like this one that remind me that I'm not as sure as I once was that I could be a pastor.

Many blessings!
JCM

A Riddle for You...

Q: What is a church but not a church?

A: Any Christian church that isn't Roman Catholic!

It's interesting. Even during the Reformation, the Lutheran church was acknowledged as a church. Vatican II reaffirmed the need for ecumenism. Roman Catholics are right now engaged in on-going discussions with Lutherans about reconciliation on several fronts. Lutherans (the original protestant denomination) and Catholics have drafted, approved, accepted, signed, and celebrated the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ). You'd think that after they have written and approved joint declarations on doctrine, the Roman Catholic church would be a little more accepting of other religions.

Here's my opinion: I think that Benedict XIV sees how many people are leaving the RC church (I went to a Catholic school, many of my friends are Catholic, most of them do not go to church...ever), got scared, and as has been done in the past, threatened damnation to anyone who does not belong to the club. It didn't work during the Reformation, and I don't think it will work now. People left the Church even after they were told they would be excommunicated. But to those of us who truly believe that our Church teaches it doesn't really matter what others say, we know we are redeemed through the love of Christ. A love that knew no bounds even though, seemingly, the love of his Church knows many bounds.

My prediction: I think this will have the exact opposite effect that Bennie wants. I think that there are young people who, like me, believe in their religion but also see the validity in others' religious beliefs, and the necessity for them. It is my opinion that it is more important to truly believe something than it is to truly believe Christianity. There is something beyond...I do not understand Atheists in this regard...I cannot believe that there is nothing out there. I think (having spoken to many, many people about religion...I am a religion major) that this is the general opinion of most people my age who are believers...of something.

Just in case you have no idea what I'm talking about...

ELCA Presiding Bishop Responds to Vatican Statement on Nature of the Church07-125-JB
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- In response to a document released by the Vatican July 10, the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), said the statement does not appear to change the Vatican' ,resizable="1,scrollbars=1,top='+screen.height" 2+?,height="+screen.height / 2+" encImage.asp?link="3636','_blank','width='+screen.width" ELCA_News CO Scriptlib>

CHICAGO (ELCA) -- In response to a document released by the Vatican July 10, the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), said the statement does not appear to change the Vatican' ,resizable="1,scrollbars=1,top='+screen.height" 2+?,height="+screen.height / 2+" encImage.asp?link="3636','_blank','width='+screen.width" ELCA_News CO Scriptlib>

I'm a Member of the World's Fastest Dying Religion

The other day, I got an e-mail news update from the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: the nation's largest Lutheran body and the one to which I belong):

ELCA Committee on Appeals Rules in Atlanta Discipline Case 07-123-JB
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- The Committee on Appeals of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) ruled July 2 in favor of an appeal by the Rev. Ronald B. Warren, bishop of the ELCA Southeastern Synod, Atlanta, who sought removal of Bradley E. Schmeling, Atlanta, from the official clergy roster of the ELCA. The appeals committee ruled that Schmeling was to be removed immediately from the roster, upholding the determination by a disciplinary hearing committee that Schmeling was in violation of the ELCA policy regarding the sexual conduct of its pastors. Decisions of the Committee on Appeals are not made public by the ELCA churchwide organization. According to the ELCA Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions, summaries of decisions are to be reported to the next ELCA Churchwide Assembly, the church's highest legislative authority, which will be here at Navy Pier Aug. 6-11. In this case, the decision of the Committee on Appeals was released July 5 by Warren and posted on the synod's Web site, and it was released at a July 5 news conference at St. John Lutheran Church, Atlanta, the congregation Schmeling has served since 2000. In the ELCA policy document "Vision and Expectations: Ordained Ministers in the ELCA," it states: "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful. Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships." Warren filed formal charges in 2006 against Schmeling after Schmeling reported to Warren that he was in a committed relationship with another man, a violation of the ELCA's clergy standards. Seven members of the 12-member discipline hearing committee, which met Jan. 18-24 in Atlanta, voted to remove Schmeling from the ELCA clergy roster and stayed the effective date of his removal until Aug. 15. That committee issued its opinion Feb. 7. In separate filings in March, Warren and Schmeling both appealed the decision of the discipline hearing committee. The 12-member Committee on Appeals met here June 9-10 to consider the appeals. That committee voted 10-1, with one abstention, to remove Schmeling from the clergy roster. It voted 10-2 to reverse the discipline hearing committee's decision to stay the effective date of Schmeling's removal from the roster until Aug. 15, and it voted 10-2 to remove Schmeling from the clergy roster on July 2. The Committee on Appeals noted that the ELCA Constitution states that "the decision of the discipline hearing committee shall be final on the day it is issued by the committee," and that "nowhere in ELCA Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions is a discipline hearing committee authorized to stay its own decision." "In this regard, the Committee on Appeals determines that the effective date of Pastor Schmeling's removal from the clergy roster of the ELCA ... should have been Feb. 7, 2007," the Committee on Appeals said. The discipline hearing committee's written opinion said most of its members were concerned about certain language in ELCA clergy policy documents, and it made some specific suggestions for change. That opinion suggested synod assemblies ask the ELCA Churchwide Assembly to consider proposals for change. The Committee on Appeals said its role, as well as that of a discipline hearing committee, is to serve as a judicial body, and that legislative authority to change policies is the responsibility of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly and the ELCA Church Council, which serves as the church's board of directors. "Nothing in the ELCA Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions allows a discipline hearing committee to make any particular recommendations to the legislative bodies of this church, urging them to take a specific policy action. By doing so in this case, the discipline hearing committee exceeded the authority granted to it by the ELCA Constitution," the Committee on Appeals said.
Responses to the Appeals Committee decision In response to the decision, Warren posted a pastoral letter July 5 on the ELCA Southeastern Synod Web site. "My decision to seek Pastor Schmeling's removal from the ministry of this church was difficult because of my deep respect for the pastor and the congregation at St. John's, but the policy of this church is clear," he wrote. "It was my responsibility as bishop of this synod to enforce the established standards of this church, particularly after the 2005 Churchwide Assembly decided that the church would not create a process for possible exceptions to existing behavior expectations for pastors. As this church continues prayerfully to consider the issue of clergy who are gay or lesbian and in committed relationships, both the synod and I will continue to work on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements." Schmeling and the St. John Lutheran Church congregation shared the news of the Committee on Appeals on July 3, Warren wrote. Warren said he and Schmeling talked by phone July 5. They agreed that Warren and synod staff will meet with the congregation council's executive committee and the St. John congregation in the coming weeks. "Please remember all of us who are involved in this difficult and challenging process in your intercessory prayers," Warren's statement concluded. "I'm deeply disappointed by the decision, although I'm not surprised," Schmeling said in a July 5 news release in response to the appeals committee decision. "Change has always proven difficult for the church. I continue to hope that the church will be centered in God's message of love, compassion, and justice, rather than in the enforcement of discriminatory policies. The church can only resist the Holy Spirit for so long. In the meantime, I plan to continue to follow my call in ministry at St. John's and to pray for the day when all God's children are equally welcomed into the Lutheran church," he said. John Ballew, president of St. John Lutheran Church, said in the congregation's news release: "We are going to go to (the) Churchwide Assembly in August, to witness to our ELCA the costs of this decision, based on an absurd policy. This is not just about us and our wonderful pastor; this is about all those called to minister to God's people, who lead exemplary lives, who provide a model for faithful, loving companionship with each other and with Christ."

Here's what I have to say:
Isn't it "perfectly marvelous" to see that even those in the highest positions of power in the Church can completely ignore the call of the Spirit? It's things like this that force our young people out of our churches: that the Church is a backward facing, love ignoring, POLITICALLY MOTIVATED institution that does not listen to God's call or care about speaking to future generations; an institution that cares more about discriminating against a significant population of the Church because "THEY" are such sinners, instead of recognizing that we all fall short; an institution that prefers to point fingers at others so that they don't have to point fingers at themselves; an institution that prefers to hate, marginalize, oppress, and/or ignore rather than reach out--die thinking they are without sin, that is, rather than live with "sinners" in their midst.

What is Faith Really About?

I decided last night that I just can't hold most of these thoughts in any longer, and my opportunties for outlet are far less often than I would like, and certainly more limited than I need. So, this is my outlet. Quite frankly I'm not sure it matters if anyone is really reading or commenting on these posts, I just need to get it out.

That said, I would REALLY appreciate your thoughts...regardless of whether or not you agree. I see the need for all of the perspectives of the world. I am not saying that I am going to be impartial...quite the contrary, I will probably be quite opinionated. You must know now that I can, and often do, see both sides of the issues, but in this setting I get to just say what I think and not worry about what is really on the table.

Oh, and re-reading what I've written here reminds me of one more thing: you can expect that many of these posts will be a bit more "stream-of-consciousness" than I would like, at least until I get a handle on this sort of outlet for my thoughts (much more personal than my other blog). Forgive me for that, and have a little patience.

Until Next Time...

Many Blessings,

JCM