Monday, May 8, 2017

Reflections on Prayer, a sermon delivered at Community Christian Church by David Ketchum on May 7, 2017


One of the most common barbs thrown against religious folk is aimed at prayer. Prayer is a waste of time, prayer doesn’t do anything, prayer is superstitious, and prayer keeps us from doing things that actually make a difference. And it can be hard to argue with this, especially when we hear glib recommendations in the face of natural disaster or human tragedy. And it’s even worse when prayer is recommended as a way to make us more submissive to systems of oppression, when we’re asked to be patient, pray a little, and hope things will turn out okay. As an example, I have no patience or interest in notions, like those espoused by one minister, to pray that a god will grant Donald Trump wisdom out of the air, because “As Christians, we should pray ... that our elected officials will seek God and His will. … God alone can change the heart of the king if the people of God would seek His will and not their own.” Leaving off my objections to that statement, I especially object to this kind of thinking when it is part of a resignation to the way things are, such as when the pastor went on to write, that our current president “has been chosen, by the people and by the divine will of God. Now let us honor God by honoring [our current president] as we ‘render to God’ what He (God) sees fit to do in America.” (https://www.adn.com/opinions/2017/04/17/christians-should-honor-president-trump-2/ ) I do believe people, even a person like Donald Trump, can have a change of heart. I don’t believe it comes through wishful thinking, but through the hard work of social change, through communities organizing, resisting, and embodying a better, more whole and peaceful and just way of living with one another. When it comes to injustice, we need to say ‘No!’, not just say our prayers. 

So I’m sympathetic with the criticisms. However, I am sometimes frustrated with them, too, because I think we miss an opportunity to understand why humans pray and what happens when we pray. Most of these attacks are really directed against supernaturalism in general, and not prayer itself. From a sociological perspective, even the frustrating requests become much more interesting, though also equally disturbing. Prayer says a lot about the people praying. It’s a very human thing, reflecting our deepest desires, insecurities, frustrations, fears, and aspirations. I suspect this is why many people are so slow to have a willingness to pray in public. We understand, at some level, that we are revealing more than we might be ready to share. I myself have had some strange lessons in the course of my religious journey, some laughable, some embarrassing, and some painful.

In my experience growing up in the Southern Baptist church, prayer was mainly sentimental. Prayer requests for healing and help were very common, but mainly used to elicit sympathy and support from one another. We were expected to say that we believed our prayers would be answered with divine actions like healing, but I don't remember anyone really having a sense that this would be the case, unless it involved collecting money. God's ways were inscrutable, beyond our understanding and even expectation. Prayer requests also provided a convenient and pious cover for one of our favorite pastimes, which was gossip. 

All this changed when, as a teenager, I became increasingly involved in summer bible camps and local youth meetings that my elders somehow thought were good ideas. In particular, I became immersed in a local charismatic church that turned out to be spiritually abusive and dangerous, although this wasn't apparent at the beginning. We were taught, for example, that taking any medicines or seeing a doctor was blasphemous, and that god would reward our faith if we took risks to be faithful to him. Eventually, the limitations of the teachings became painfully apparent; first, one of the youth minister's children died during childbirth (due to refusal to get medical care). A year later, another child was barely rescued by the mother, who sought medical care for a life threatening condition. The mother was considered to be in sin and they were divorced. Eventually, the minister moved away to start again. Did I stress enough that teachings on prayer can be abusive and dangerous? 

Gratefully, I came a little closer to a more stable and helpful understanding of prayer during my freshman year of college, especially regarding prayers for healing, that carried me through until I could form a more mature and rational approach. The crucible for that process of understanding was the final illness and death of my maternal grandmother. A couple of evenings a week and each weekend, I would return to my parents' house and spend hours sitting with and praying for my grandmother, who had moved into my old room when she required hospice care. Over several months, my prayers were markedly different, not focusing on changing some god's mind or giving instructions for what should be done and to whom, and not confronting illness as a demonic attack or death as an enemy. In my readings, I had picked up the teaching that “No prayer goes unanswered, if the one who prays is changed.” Praying for my grandmother opened my heart to the terrible pain and suffering in the world, even as it was filled with compassion, empathy, and love. 

In sharp contrast to either sentiment or miracle, I began experiencing prayer as the embodiment of love. I found that the answers to my prayers were demonstrated in the expressions of care that we shared together - in planting flowers and installing a bird bath outside the window, in quietly sitting while finger-picking familiar hymns on the guitar, in hearing confessions and fears and questions of death in prayerful acceptance and love, in cooking whatever meal sounded best in the moment, whether it would be eaten or not, and in sharing stories and memories of life. My grandmother died, and our prayers couldn’t change that painful journey. But I began to learn how to pray, quite accidentally, through that sharing of love, life, and death together. 

In hindsight, it was probably then that I began approaching my spiritual practice more like a Quaker, though I did not have the community or language at the time. But I can recognize, growing from that part of my life, the wisdom expressed by David Johnson: A Quaker prayer life arises from a life of continuing daily attentiveness … . The difficulties we experience in inward prayer are preparation for our outward lives. Each time we return to the centre in prayer we are modelling how to live our lives.” 

These days, I still set aside time to pray, usually a fair bit of time each morning and a briefer time before bed. It mainly looks like meditation. I sit on a cushion and bring my attention to my breath, situation or relationship, with kindness and curiosity. I come into a deeper awareness of how each moment is an unfolding of all the causes and conditions that came before it. I come into a deeper understanding of how all conditions arise and cease. I get a glimpse into how my reactivity arises out of years of social and psychological conditioning, buried and usually unnoticed. And, over time, insight, patience, goodwill, generosity, and even, at times, wisdom, begins to grow. Following the Quaker tradition, I make frequent use of advices and queries. Following the Franciscan tradition, I alsouse liturgical prayers from time to time. I sometimes light candles and incense, and you may even catch me chanting Christian, Buddhist, or humanist texts. But the heart of my prayer life is keeping silence. 

It was in this silence that I discovered that prayer could be a way to honestly confront my attitudes, assumptions, and habits. Prayer could make a space to feel frustration, rage, grief, or confusion without having to be dragged around by those emotions. Through prayer and meditation, I could become familiar with how those emotions, and their often torturous thoughts, would come and go, what triggered them, what soothed them, what risks they raised and what wisdom they offered. Similarly, I could recognize and feel more at home with joy, kindness, wisdom, and gratitude. I could begin to influence my automatic reactions through a kind, persistent practice of attention, meditation, and prayer. And during the rest of the day, I began to notice that I had more empathy for myself and others, more patience, more flexibility and creativity. When I did have strong reactions to my experiences, I also had more space around those reactions, more ability to choose how to respond. To remember Johnson’s words, “The difficulties we experience in inward prayer are preparation for our outward lives. Each time we return to the centre in prayer we are modelling how to live our lives.” 

The wisdom of this approach is also why I am not too upset when someone mocks and laughs at the idea of prayer. In fact, I think it has its place. It helps keep me honest, because I truly don’t want to substitute sentiments for actions; I don’t want to cover up suffering with piety or delusion. I want my prayer life to be a model for how I go through the day, with curiosity, openness, kindness, gratitude, and a passionate commitment to social justice and equality in community. And this is why I think it can be helpful if we look at what is actually happening when people pray, both psychologically and sociologically, both within us and between us. Instead of focusing on whether prayer brings about supernatural results, which is a pretty irrelevant question to me, we can ask: Can we uncover any of the functions prayer might play? Can we uncover any wisdom from the practice of prayer that can help to us work together for social change in the direction of social justice, either as a caution or as a model? 

As it turns out, it is a pretty easy exercise to get a sense of the very human functions that prayer can play, for good or ill. Some of the common ones include: 

  • To say thank you 
  • To express deep emotions like outrage, grief, or joy 
  • To cope with powerlessness, fear, frustration, and uncertainty 
  • To identify ouaspirations and needs 
  • To practice and rehearse relationship skills 
  • To demonstrate group belonging
  • To influence our attitudes and perceptions
  • To calm ourselves and even experience feelings of transcendence and bliss

One of the more interesting lines of inquiry in the last few years has taken a similar approach, with the conclusion that prayer does indeed change things. But what it changes might come as a surprise to those who tend to think about prayer mainly in supernatural terms. For example, in 2010, Florida State University psychologist Nathaniel Lambert and his colleagues tested the relationship between prayer and forgiveness. By having two groups, one with participants that prayed “one single prayer for their romantic partner's well being” and the other with participants that “simply described their partner,” they discovered that “those who had prayed for their partner harbored fewer vengeful thoughts and emotions: They were more ready to forgive and move on.”[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134607.htm ]

In other words, prayer changed the person who prayed (the study did not try to measure change in the one prayed for). Prayer changed their thinking, their feelings, and their actions, in turn creating conditions for changing theirrelationship with the other person. The researchers offered this hypothesis on why prayer worked this way -

Most of the time, couples profess and believe in shared goals, but when they hit a rough patch, they often switch to adversarial goals like retribution and resentment. These adversarial goals shift cognitive focus to the self, and it can be tough to shake that self-focus. Prayer appears to shift attention from the self back to others, which allows the resentments to fade.” (ibid.)

 Research has also been done on the impacts of Buddhist lovingkindness, or metta, meditation on the brain. Fredrickson's report in "Open Hearts Build Lives" (http://www.unc.edu/peplab/publications/Fredrickson%20et%20al%202008.pdf ) concludedthat the participants’ positive emotions tripled during the brief study. 

Rather than becoming bored with or jaded to the effects of meditation, our participants seemed to be building a dependable skill for self-generating positive emotions again and again. These findings are especially noteworthy given that most of our participants were novice meditators and our meditation workshop lasted only 7 weeks. … individuals began a mind-training practice that increased their positive emotions and, in turn, their personal resources and well-being. … when people open their hearts to positive emotions, they seed their own growth in ways that transform them for the better.”

 Similarly, Hutcherson, Seppala, and Gross documented how "Loving-Kindness Meditation Increases Social Connectedness" (https://contextualscience.org/system/files/Hutcherson,2008.pdf ). They discovered “Even a brief (7-min) exercise in cultivating positive regard was sufficient to induce … small to moderate” changes - an especially important resource in a time of “rising societal isolation and distrust”. 
 This kind of meditation may be especially helpful for naturalists, agnostics, humanists, nontheists, post-theists, transtheists, atheists, and others who might not want to use language or rituals associated with theistic and supernatural forms of prayer, since metta is a quality to be cultivated and doesn’t require addressing any supernatural being. But metta is also appropriate for people in religious traditions. It is a very simple practice that many will recognize as compatible with their own prayer life, or that skeptics can practice without any religious convictions at all. 

And, for me, it is a wonderful practice that helps bring prayer and meditation into my daily life, how I relate to myself, to others, to those who suffer injustice and those who inflict injustice, to the very earth itself. My prayers are deeply connected with how I live, how I embody those prayers. Being centered in love, after returning and resting in this attention, I can go back into the world with the equanimity and strength to pay attention to the deep suffering and deep needs around us. I can go back into the world with a heart overflowing with kindness, compassion, and joy. As Laurence Freeman, a Benedictine monk and director of the World Community for Christian Meditation, has taught: Meditation, we soon come to realise, is a way of love because it is a way of attention.” 

 But there is a further consideration for me. How do we build a bridge from prayer and meditation as personal practices that bear the fruit of love, kindness, and wisdom, to communities of faith that bear the fruit of justice and peace? One of today’s lectionary readings contains an iconic verse about prayer. In this memory of the early church, Acts 2:42 notes that the community of faith “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Whatever we think about the prayers of those followers of Jesus described in the book of Acts, we cannot say that their prayers made them passive, apolitical, or ineffective. In fact, this was a community that “had all things in common.” This was a community that was so committed to social justice and equality that “they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” They had “glad and generous hearts.” And, it should be emphasized, they weren’t exceptions. These weren’t the unusual idealists who stood apart from the crowd. The Book of Acts goes out of its way to say that this was everybody, “All who believed.” This was the community that would insist, as the book of James has it, that “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” (1:27) Practices, such as prayer, connected that community to what was best in their cultural memory, to have regard for the most vulnerable, to show respect and care for one another, and to do so on the basis of radical equality. 

 In this description, I am reminded again of James Cone's wisdom. In situations where we face systems of oppression, which is a fair description of most of the world for most of the last 10,000 years, we “have only two alternatives: (1) to accept the oppressor's value system and thus be contented with the place set for them by others, or (2) to find a completely new way of looking at reality that enables them to fight against oppression.” (God of the Oppressed, New York: Seabury Press, 1975; page 33) For me, prayer can be one of those paths toward “looking at reality” in a way that empowers us “to fight against oppression,” to continue in faithfulness even when we might otherwise succumb to discouragement and despair. By cultivating a relationship with our daily experiences that is oriented around grace, and oriented around honesty that is also wise and kind, we have an alternative to acquiescing to the way things are. In the place of prayer, there is a refuge for justice and mercy, a refuge where we can find healing, courage, and grace to sustain us. Prayer, meditation, sharing hospitality, sharing teachings, and other spiritual practices can be not only community experiences, but community expressions and a community’s embodiment of that fight against oppression. By participating in the community, we engage in practices that shape our perceptions, influence our emotional and interpretive reactions, and give us opportunities to act on our convictions. From a psychosocial point of view, this is what that description in Acts 2 was all about. 

But there are challenges. As we can see both from the long history of humanity and the recent history of the religious right, prayer can be used to bring out the worst in us, to justify hatred and discrimination and oppression. For those who have been involved in coercive and abusive religious groups, shedding all of these religious and spiritual practices can be cathartic and healthy. For those who have never been involved, these practices often look, at best, unnecessary. For those who are oriented around a supernatural understanding of faith, these practices can easily degenerate into sentiment, demands for miracles, or similar pitfalls. And, as progressive faith communities emerge in this mix, we face the challenge of how to knit ourselves together, how to cultivate community that centers around praxis, around the changes we agree are necessary for humans to live together in a just, peaceful, whole way. If we are going to make use of spiritual practices in spiritual community, we need a sociology of prayer. 

I’ve had a very modest goal this morning. I haven’t tried to define prayer, or whether one needs to pray to something or someone. I haven’t tried to categorize all the different ways we can pray, from liturgical to silent, from giving thanks to making requests. And I’ve only dipped into the research, without trying to argue that you should or shouldn’t pray. My modest goal is simply to encourage us to explore all the resources that are available to us.

This world is both beautiful and terrible. Humanity is both beautiful and terrible. The line between the two is very fine, between the sublime and the brutal, and the burden is sometimes overwhelming. Joy that cannot be contained, sorrow that cannot be contained. There is only room in my small heart if I make the room. So I make it my practice to make the room, to take the bounds of this small life of mine and make them boundless, my heart and mind wide open both to the suffering and to the exuberant joy of living. I read and sing and walk and plant wildflowers. Paying attention, I learn how to love. 

I began this talk by noting that prayer says a lot about the people praying, and, despite all the baggage, a sociology of prayer invites us to reflect on what type of community we are, what kind of community we’d like to be, and how we’ll get there. Because, for me, prayer is an act of faith, in the best possible meaning of the word: that we do not have to resign ourselves to the injustice of oppression, or humanity to the vacuous pursuit of accumulating money, power, and pleasure; that we do not have to lose ourselves in the resistance to this injustice, but that we can preserve our own humanity in the face of it, by finding ways to care for the earth, for each other, and for our shared future. And that is the best prayer I can think of, or know.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

 “Choosing the Right Rather than Choosing the Winner”'
April 30, 2017   Community Christian Church of Springfield, MO
Roger Ray, pastor    

 H. L. Menchen, Treatise on the Gods        
Their prayers always go up for kings, not for rebels and reformers. During the American Revolution, the priests of the established church were almost unanimously loyal to King George, and during the Civil War the clergy of the South remained faithful to the Southern economic system, and to slavery as a part of it. The great religious reformers have never preached the liberation of the masses. Luther, Calvin and John Wesley were all on the side of authority. The Catholic church is for it everywhere today, and more intransigent it is the better the church likes it. Thus the patriotism of a priest is hard to distinguish from the patriotism of a stockbroker. When he is found questioning the established order it usually develops, upon inquiry, that he is also questioning the tenets of his church, and is on his way to heresy.

After enduring nearly nine years of intense public scrutiny and totally unprecedented levels of vitriolic, racist, partisan and sometimes conspiracy theory driven criticism, as the Obama’s prepared to become the first black family in American history to leave public housing so that a white billionaire could move in, Michele Obama endeared herself to the nation by telling reporters that all during their growing up in the White House, she had told her daughters to hold their heads high and to not reply to the criticisms they were witnessing. She said, “When they go low, we go high.”

I trust that I am not alone here when I say that I miss the Obamas terribly. I miss their class, their confident and calm demeanor, and their ability to suffer indignity without reprisal. Good on them. And as a pastor, I can only applaud any examples of civility and respectful language in the midst of heated political discourse.

But I heard one feminist commentator say recently, “With all due respect to Michele Obama, I think that when they go low we need to grab a shovel and bury them.”   
The heated rhetoric of recent years, fueled by social media and right-wing talk radio, and given some credible substance in the 24-hour news channels that give more partisan red meat to their viewers than actual facts is a huge social problem. It makes voters demand virtual insanity out of their legislators which has given us a congress and a senate that is about as useful as giving a bicycle to a fish.

So, sure, civility is called for. We all need to reign in our rhetoric and try hard to speak the truth in love but what our wisdom lesson from H. L. Menchen’s, Treatise on the Gods, is pointing out is that the church, and I can probably very safely add, the synagogue and the mosque, have often chosen symbolic patriotism, civility, and loyalty over the truth. Organized religion may throw roses at the concept of speaking the truth in love but they are much more likely to get the love part right at the expense of the truth.

I certainly don’t agree with all of the conclusions Reza Aslan reached in his very popular book, Zealot, in which he describes the historical Jesus as being a radical, anti-empire, reformer, but I think we can safely agree with the basic premise that Jesus was not killed because he healed the sick, fed the hungry, and taught children to obey their parents, and neighbors to love one another.

If we can deduce anything from the historical clues left as echoes in the first century written accounts, Jesus was executed by the state because he challenged their moral authority, their violent control of the people, and their economic exploitation of the poor.

Please don’t get tired of hearing me say this because as I have been mapping out my sermons for the next three months, I realize that this is a fact that will be standing over a lot of what I plan to say…. In all of modern history, there has really been only one war and that a continuous one…. The war of haves against the have-nots.

And this may be painfully obvious but please give me a moment to spell this out clearly. You can tell the truth about the monetary motivations for modern warfare while still respecting the young men and women who serve in the military. Most recruits for the past 45 years were going into the military out of economic necessity. Low paying jobs and high college tuition drives the children of the poor into military service.

Once inducted, no one is more subjected to daily infusions of propaganda than are these soldiers. The high unemployment in their hometown and the lack of opportunity for higher education that drove them into uniform is driven from their heads as they are repeatedly told that they are answering a high calling of the defense of freedom. Vietnam didn’t threaten our freedom, Korea didn’t threaten our freedom, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Haiti, Panama, didn’t threaten our freedom. In each case we deployed the children of the poor to go kill the children of the poor in another nation to defend economic interests.

And please don’t try to change the subject to terrorism, if we were concerned about American safety we would outlaw handguns. Terrorists present much less danger to American’s lives than not getting the flu shot.

Again, let me be very clear:  I didn’t say that everyone who enters the military does so for economic reasons. I am sure that there are those who feel drawn to a career in the military for reasons of family heritage, to bolster a future political career, or out of genuine patriotism, but we have a saying in psychology – when you hear hoof beats you think horses and not zebras.

Most of the people we recruit into the military come from rural, poor, families and while their heroism and personal sacrifices are to be applauded, respected, honored, and compensated from health benefits and counseling to a decent retirement – we don’t have to pretend that they are in Afghanistan defending our freedom.

I’m going to come back to the topic of the government’s manipulation of the poor in military adventures over the next few weeks but for today I want to return to this observation that H. L. Menken made nearly a century ago…. That in matters of state, the established church is almost always on the side of power. During the Revolutionary War, most established churches supported the British king. During the Civil War, almost every southern church supported not only the military cause of the South but the institution of slavery as well.

Luther, Calvin, Wesley, all knew which side their bread was buttered on. Right up the later half of the last century, when some Catholic priests in Central and South America were finally siding with the poor in the Liberation Theology movement, most met their deaths with the approving nod of the Vatican itself.
And, frankly, for all the reasons we have to like current pope, if you want to continue to like him, you probably should probe too deeply into what he was doing during the round up of liberation priests in Argentina. There are wonderful exceptions but, in general, the Catholic Church has behaved just as Menken said, in service to whoever was in power.

None other than our nation’s own founding father, Thomas Jefferson, wrote: “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own.”

We may tend to err on the other side, being always a tad eager to jump on the ethical failings of governments and corporations and it may be that we should accept a certain degree of criticism about how lovingly we articulate the truth…. There are, paradoxically, ways in which we can be so right that we become wrong.

But the one thing that the church, the synagogue, and the mosque must do in this present moment is to clearly and unapologetically tell the truth. Our good friend from the progressive movement in Great Britain, John Churcher stays in touch and just this week forwarded an article to me from a British newspaper that was saying basically what our Senator Elizabeth Warren was saying yesterday about the 100 day mark of the Trump administration.

Both listed the lies, the broken campaign promises, and the thus far failed legislative attempts to ban Muslims from entering our country, to end Obamacare with a huge tax give away to the super-wealthy, and this silly, one page tax reform proposal that would, at best, give hundreds of billions of dollars to the super wealthy and do nothing at all for 98% of wage earners in America. Mix that in with scandal after scandal in the West wing from dealings with Russian spies and conflicts of interest in the business world, and we cannot avoid saying that this is the most inept, corrupt, and dangerously flawed president in modern American history… but both Senator Warren and the Jonathan Freeland article from the Guardian that John sent to me said that the one good thing we can take from these first 100 days is the apparent fact that protest works.

The missteps of the Trump administration have mobilized opposition in ways that we have not lately witnessed in American history and that mobilization has shown itself to be effective in ways that we might not have dared to hope. Freeland concludes: Donald Trump is as bad as we feared: delusional, dangerous, dishonest. But there is another lesson from these 100 days. Even when faced with the greatest menace, resistance is not futile.

When we started this church in 2008 we hired a local fabric artist to make two banners for us that would at least be suggestive of stained glass windows that we would hang in the windowless conference room where we were meeting at the time. This one to my left, the winged lion, is taken from the familiar art depicting the gospel of Mark but rather than a quote from the Bible, we took as our motto a quote from Elie Wiesel’s Nobel Prize speech in which he said that the ethics of the whole of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures could be summed up in a single phrase:  Thou shalt not stand idly by.
Wiesel said then that the holocaust only happened because people who knew better, who had a more sensitive and refined conscience, held their tongues and though hurt and horrified by what happened, said little and did nothing.

That is a mistake that we are resolved never to make again and though we started our church just months before Obama was elected, now, more than ever, our motto must be reaffirmed, we are resolved that we will never stand idly by and watch in silence and inaction in the presence of great social evil.


Sunday, April 23, 2017

“Would You Kindly Turn Your Head While I Swallow My Spit?”

“Would You Kindly Turn Your Head While I Swallow My Spit?”
Easter 2    April 23, 2017   Community Christian Church          Roger Ray, pastor


I Peter 1:17-23       17If you invoke as Father the one who judges all people impartially according to their deeds, live in reverent fear during the time of your exile. 18You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish. 20He was destined before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of the ages for your sake. 21Through him you have come to trust in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are set on God. 22Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart. 23You have been born anew, not of perishable but of imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God.  

I was in the fifth grade when I was given my first Bible. That was nearly 50 years ago, back in the days when public schools still allowed Gideon Society evangelists to come into classrooms to hand out Bibles and give little sermons. Because it was 50 years ago, what they gave us was a King James Version of the New Testament and the Psalms.

It was delivered with the story that Gideons have told in many versions for nearly a hundred years: A soldier carried his bible next to his heart inside of his jacket and one day when his troop was under enemy fire and soldiers why dying all around him, he was struck in the chest by a bullet but, thankfully, the bullet struck his little Gideon Bible and the bullet pierced the layers of paper to end like a molten lead finger pointing to Psalm 91:7, “A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.”     

These grown men told groups of children stories like this to both frighten and indoctrinate them.
We were left to assume that the soldiers who failed to carry their New Testaments were killed…. And they probably wouldn’t have been killed if they had been more faithful. The Bible carried a certain magic with it that undergirded the claim that God had written it and that everything it said was true.

I am also quite fond of the story that Woody Allen told about the rough neighborhood where he grew up. To give him courage, his mother put a large rifle shell on a chain that he could wear as a necklace under his shirt. And, Allen said, one day it saved his life when a crazed Gideon threw a Bible right at him. It would have gone right through his heart if it had not been stopped by the bullet he was wearing under his shirt.

But the world in which many of us grew up was a world that assumed that the Bible was God’s word and we went to Sunday School for years trying to understand it. And several of us here went on to college to study it, paying intense attention to matters of translation, we even studied Greek and Hebrew, and Ancient Near Eastern history.

The more conservative among us tried every kind of logical gymnastics to make it all fit together, to explain how the more difficult and absurd parts of the Bible fit into some acceptable and divine whole. The more progressive were willing to focus on what we call a “cannon within the cannon.” That is, we focused on the more plausible, agreeable, and useful parts of the Bible and we interpreted everything else from the perspective of those favorite passages.
For decades, many of us put on what amounted to a Kellyanne Conway attitude and tried to insist that the Bible didn’t really say, that Paul didn’t really mean it, that these hard passages were taken out of context, or misunderstood. Look folks, the Bible praised Jephthah for sacrificing his daughter to fulfill a pledge. The Bible ordered the slaughter of the Midianites, and the stoning of folks for doing stuff that most of us have done more than once.

When we encountered a text like the one we read today from I Peter, a text that sums up the core of evangelical Christian witness saying that we have been saved from eternal damnation by the blood sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, many of us with more progressive leanings would try to say that substitutionary death is only one way to understand the life and death of Jesus and that the Bible offers us several alternative interpretations.

We would say that the scriptures speak in many different voices, from many perspectives, and so we try to push such ugly images to the side, and focus on what is more helpful, more relevant, more acceptable to our modern views. But what I was not willing to say for the first two decades that I was preaching and what I’m still waiting to hear from many of my peers, is that in very many cases the theology we encounter in the Bible is just wrong.

For many of us who grew up with a giant Bible sitting on a Olive wood stand on the coffee table in the living room and a Gideon New Testament in the hip pocket of our Levi’s, who went to Sunday School, and college Bible Studies, and especially for those of us who went to seminary and beyond, that was too much.
You could study it, dissect it, interpret it, argue with it, but to publicly say, “look, the Bible says a whole lot of stuff that is not just wrong and if taken seriously is really psychologically and morally damaging,” that was just a bridge too far.

Not all scholars agree on this point, but I am persuaded that all of the New Testament was written in conversation with the letters of Paul. Everyone agrees that Paul certainly wrote his core letters before any other New Testament author had set quill to paper. And his letters to Corinth, Rome, Galatia, and Philippi formed the earliest definition of the Christian faith. The gospels, which give us our best source of Jesus material, were all written under an umbrella, a theological assumption, of Paul’s view of the meaning of Jesus’ death. The other Catholic epistles offered some departure from Paul’s views but, in the overall scope of things, they didn’t give themselves much permission to question his core teachings.

Paul lived in the last days of the Jewish temple. He was executed in Rome less than a decade before the temple was to be destroyed, never to be rebuilt. The whole aspect of Judaism as an animal sacrifice cult was passing out of vogue even during the time of Jesus as Synagogues were being built that owed no allegiance to the temple or its priesthood.

In Paul’s mind, the Jesus he never met, because the Jewish faith that was about to be ended by Roman occupation and Greek influence, was a sign of a new way to be Jewish. What Jesus said, what Jesus believed in, what motivated Jesus to place himself in harm’s way and finally to be executed was of no interest to Paul.
For Paul, Jesus was an eschatological figure, a symbol, a sacrifice that ushered in a new age. Realistically, the religion of Paul had virtually nothing to do with Jesus.

There is a great deal to praise about the Christian religion, both historically and in our present day. There is a great deal to praise about the genius of Paul who literally shaped the culture of the western world, may I say, more even than did Jesus because most of what we know about or think we know about Jesus is really an invention of a religion based on Paul’s thinking.

Jesus may have been a radically anti-empire reformer whose beliefs the empire sought to snuff out quickly. But Paul offered a religion that not only did not threaten the empire, it was, in fact, very useful to the empire. The Christian faith as Paul and the Catholic epistles taught personal piety, a confident faith in an after-life, and obedience to the state.

And, as it is interpreted in this passage we read from 1st Peter, it taught that you need to be afraid of God, “live in reverential fear,” and that your redemption from a very bad outcome on judgment day was based on the sacrifice of the innocent life of Jesus. Literally, “You are so bad that God had to kill himself.” We were taught to believe in a God who was concerned with the minutia of, not only what you ate and wore but even what you thought about. The God of our Sunday School classes was worse than Santa Claus because he not only knew when we had been bad or good in the weeks leading up to Christmas, he was watching us all of the time.

 

One of my favorite passages of scripture is found in the book of Job, chapter 7, verse 19, where Job’s friends have been trying to convince him that all of the bad things in his life have happened because God knows of some private sin that deserved to be punished. Job rejects this hyper judgmental God and screams at the sky, “Would you kindly turn your head while I swallow my spit.” It is colorful but even from the ancient world we have this poet saying that a God who is that watchful, that judgmental, does not deserve our respect.


If religion has a lasting value in a scientific age, surely its value rests in a passionate search for truth. A lot of what you read in the Hebrew scriptures, in the New Testament, and in the Quran could be said to be correctives of our narcissistic and greedy tendencies.

Clearly, while I object to the kind of neurotic guilt that is present in so much of traditional religions, we all know some folks who could use a bit more of a conscience. Clearly, our governor could stand to feel some guilt about our state not expanding health care to more of our poor citizens. Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, and Bill O’Reilly could stand to feel some personal guilt, some shame, some remorse. And our president, who very quickly came to Bill O’Reilly’s defense saying, “I don’t think he did anything wrong.” And I would even rearrange that sentence a bit because it seems to me that what Trump really means is that he does not believe that what O’Reilly did was wrong.

Guilt is not always neurotic. We have a conscience for a reason and we should try to train it to be honest…. Somewhere between the narcissism of these public figures who seem to assume that no moral rules apply to them, and the cowering supplicant who is crippled with neurotic guilt, there is an honest and true path. 

Lewis Black claims that Jews basically invented guilt, Catholics codified it, and Protestants turned it into a perpetual feeling of tension. All of our world religions could stand to be updated with a dose of psychological sophistication.

God does not keep a list of sins nor is there any reasonable sense in which any of us owe a blood debt to God. There is no “final judgment” but there is, in a very real sense, a daily judgment… a moment by moment call for good judgment.

Sin is a social construct. There is no sin if you live on an island all alone. Sin is when you do preventable harm to others. Even what is and what is not social good can never be nailed down. The needs of society change and our ability to empathize changes… hopefully towards greater empathy though that is not always certain.

Religion has often burdened society with horribly ill-informed sexual guilt. Repression often leads to sexual perversion rather than the intended goal of sexual abstinence. A healthy spirituality should promote a healthy sexuality but understanding what is and what is not healthy is a topic that requires constant revision. Most of us in the 21st century have come to the conclusion that sex between consenting adult partners is not a sin but clearly, people like Trump, Ailes, O’Reilly, and especially Bill Cosby, totally miss the “consent” part of this.
And as much as I want churches, mosques, and synagogues to come into the 21st century, if Trump makes another sexual comment about his daughter then I may go all medieval on him and call for a renewal of public stoning of perverts.

And even when there is adult consent, there are social and health concerns that should be a part of an informed conscience…. We should respect the exclusive promises that couples generally make to one another. We should be concerned about taking precautions against spreading diseases or causing unplanned pregnancies. But we absolutely should not teach young men and women to loath their bodies or feel guilt for their very normal and natural desires.

The Catholic Church must come out of the 16th century and reconsider this whole celibate priesthood thing… can they still be collecting evidence for what a bad idea this has been for them? 

And Islam absolutely must stop pretending that they are not a misogynistic faith…. They don’t have to continue to be misogynistic but there is a growing pressure on Muslim women to cloak their bodies in a way that implies sexual guilt. And Protestants that still promote these abstinence only programs and especially their cruel “exodus” programs must take a scientific course on human reproduction and just stop with your silly and uninformed fear and guilt.

I want to respect the faiths of all other people but I also want faith communities to be respectable and in our scientifically, medically, and psychologically aware age, any religion that still condemns homosexuality, that wants to treat women as being somehow either inferior to or personally responsible for the sexual urges of men, or any religion that leads you to believe that you are inherently evil so that you must live in fear of divine judgment…. That’s just not worthy of respect.

An illumined spiritual life joyfully embraces the fruit of scientific discovery and both in what we know and in what we do not yet understand; we commit to live out the claim that love is our religion.