Posted by Eliza on: 10.04.2006 /
Well, I did it. Last Thursday night I went to the first (of 15) classes in a series offered at a local Lutheran church. I’ve written up the first class experience below; to cut to the chase (for those who want the Cliffs Notes version) it was educational in exposing me to:
I do plan to go back, though if the pastor stares at me every time he mentions the Devil, it may get uncomfortable. (Truth be told, I have already sinned in his eyes: I have read ahead in the text booklet, which we were warned not to do. But I did it after class.)
The longer version follows:
The setting: Messiah Lutheran Church is on large lot, 1.7 acres in a mixed commercial-residential Seattle neighborhood (nearby houses are on ~0.14 acres). Its school is on a larger adjoining property. I received a friendly welcome from their (young!) vicar on entering the back door of the church, registered & got my nametag and copies of the course material: Oscar Riess’s instructional text booklet “That I May Know Him”, a brochure about this church, a brochure about Lutheranism (Missouri Synod), and a pamphlet called “The Bible and You”.
The pastor greeted each person by name (looking at nametags) as we entered the classroom; he remembered having spoken with me by phone (after I emailed to say I was an atheist, wouldn’t be converting or joining his church, interested in attending class if I weren’t taking a spot someone else could use). He seemed friendly. The chairs were oriented in a large square with forward-facing rows inside, with a Bible at each place. In the back they had coffee & hot water, and cookies. I sat in the 3rd row, in the middle, basically face-on with the pastor as he spoke. Thirty people attended 1st class; 7 are members (he had them raise their hands at the beginning to identify themselves) & the pastor said a few more will join the class next week. All are white (so far); age ranged from early 20’s (or late teens) to 70’s or so. Two women (non-members) had brought study Bibles. I had thought the pastor might go around the room first to have people introduce themselves, but he didn’t; this set the tone for a lecture course rather than a discussion group.
The pastor & his beliefs: The pastor is a pleasant man in his late 50’s, friendly but seems to have a steel core, who used self-deprecating humor to introduce a light tone. He followed an outline to open the course, was very clear that this class is to present conservative Lutheran beliefs, that it will end with an invitation to join but there won’t be any pressure and we won’t be contacted or approached by members, that’s not their style. He was very clear that he will discuss controversial topics (abortion, homosexuality, women as pastors) and take conservative positions. (He didn’t mention whether slavery and divorce will come up.) He stressed that the purpose of this class is not debate, said we can ask those questions after class if we want to; in class, he only wants questions of clarification. He walked us through the pamphlets and the introductory outline, then in more detail through the first chapter (3 pages) of “That I May Know Him.” He advised us early on not to read ahead in the text at any time during the course; this piqued my interest in reading ahead, of course. I appreciated his clarity in laying these things out on the table, and in telling us (and the members present) that there would be no “hard sell” approach. (As will be clear below, I had a hard time figuring out where the line was on questions of clarification when I have questions about the entire premise.)
The topic of the first session: Christ and the Bible. The pastor was very clear that he believes the Bible is inerrant, infallible, inspired, contains no contradictions, & is God’s communication to humans about Jesus, the only route to salvation (through his crucifixion and resurrection). The pastor called the Bible “a love letter from God” (which I thought was lovely, but imo a quite rosy reading of it) and says John 3:16 is the main message (”For God so loved the world…”). He seems to see the Old Testament as important to Christians because of prophecies about Christ (all of which were fulfilled by Jesus). He kept saying “either it’s true or it isn’t” — for example, “either He sent Jesus or He didn’t” — but it’s clear which he believes (which is fine), and I did get the sense that he is concerned about his flock not straying in their beliefs (for their own sakes). Regarding the Kingdom of God, he said, “At some point in the future, we will know whether or not it’s true.” I raised my hand and said, “But if it’s not true, we’ll never know, will we?” He asked me to repeat/clarify, then said that was basically Pascal’s wager, & when I nodded slightly he said, “of course you know Pascal’s wager” and moved right on (which is fine, but he had been the one seeming to offer the possibility that “it” might not be true).
The text is organized as a question, 1-3 citations from the Bible, then a conclusion. This format repeats over and over. I find it simplistic, but then it’s not designed for a skeptic like me. An example from lesson 1 is:
“Knowing” The pastor spent a while on “knowing”, talking about 2 kinds of “knowing” (Bible means heart-knowledge), pointed out several other 1-line citations about “knowing”. I had the good sense not to point out another way “know” is used in the Bible, but did not have the sense to keep my mouth shut about gnosticism. All of the citations he (and the text) gave on “knowing’ were from John and from the Pauline epistles. All that “knowing” got to me so I raised my hand and said it was interesting that all of the citations were from those sources, which some people thought showed a gnostic influence.
Well, that got a reaction! I am no longer his favorite atheist. I might as well brand “PAGAN” on my forehead. The pastor growled “No one thinks that!” then railed for a moment about how the gnostics wrote & followed false teachings, etc. (Actually, if you enter “John gnostic gospel” in Google you get 1.49 million results, not all of which are about the gospel of John but many of which are; so clearly it’s not true that ‘no one’ thinks that. But I digress.) We recovered from Eliza’s faux pas, and moved on.
Apostolic authentication: He stressed that “it all” depends on the Bible, that without the Bible there is no proof. He presented the Bible as if there is no question about its historicity and accuracy, but did spend some time boosting these, saying “the apostles wrote down what Jesus said…they had great memories, and supernatural help.” He said that the New Testament canon had been gathered early on and had been approved by the apostles, including Paul (”all but Revelation and a few later epistles,” the pastor said). That contradicted anything I’d ever read before, and contradicted “The Bible and You” pamphlet handed out with the class materials, which gives the dates of the N.T. writings as 50-105 A.D., & says the canon was finalized in the late 300’s AD. (Paul was executed in the 60’s, leaving him unable to comment on anything written later — a big problem for the pastor’s tidy story.) This bothered me — the pastor presented the apostles’ involvement authoritatively and it sounded impressive, but as far as I could tell he was being overtly misleading. (None of the students asked any questions about this part.)
Historical fact: A little while later, regarding Jesus, the pastor said “it’s a historical fact — they never found his body.” I raised my eyebrows at that, took a breath as if to say something, & he pointed firmly at me and said “it’s a historical fact!” Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of “historical fact”. There’s no mention of anyone looking beyond the empty tomb for Jesus’s body, and forensic science was unknown at that time, and just because something isn’t found isn’t any kind of evidence as to whether or not it exists. For example, there’s no historical mention of anyone finding the bodies of Joseph, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Lazarus (the second time), Judas, Moses…and so on. Anyway, that’s another example of appeal from consequences of a belief, imo, but my objections on this are not important.
Explanations that were new to me: The pastor talked about “Christian joy” not being the same as (secular) “happiness,” which I thought was a useful distinction (since I hadn’t heard it before). He interpreted Romans 8:32 (”freely give us all things”) as meaning “Right now, Christians own the world” which seemed overblown to me, but I do see how literal belief could lead to that conclusion.
Warning #1, the most ironic moment (imo): After reading and expanding on 3 pages of the textbook, giving one-line citations from scripture and making conclusions from these, the pastor warned the class to be wary of … anyone who tries to use scripture to convince them of anything. He said it can be taken out of context. (Which is true. I just saw incredible irony in that warning, given what the prior 90 minutes of lecture, and the entire text book, were based upon.)
Warning #2: After the warning above, he looked right at me (I swear) and said, “The Devil can quote scripture.” I nodded solemnly. I am hoping, however, that he is not intending to use me as an example of the Devil in flesh, that would be awkard (and imo unfair).
Limits of reason: He wrote 3 lines on the white board, of 3 ways to know truth: (1) Reason and logic, (2) Tradition and experience, (3) Revelation and scripture. He pretty quickly dispatched with reason and logic (and science), saying these often mislead people (his tone indicated they were ridiculous). He said tradition was often good but sometimes needs re-evaluation (he gave the example of the “Lutheran Reformation” in the 16th century as a useful updating of prior tradition). He said that experience can seem real but is not reliable. He said revelation and scripture were the only real, reliable routes to truth (see one student’s question, #4 below, regarding whether or not God communicates with people in modern times). After the other student’s question, I raised my hand and asked (”to clarify”) how, stemming from what he said, we could know that the Apostles weren’t writing about their experiences that felt like revelation but weren’t really revelation, since (as he had said) experiences can seem so revealing but can actually mislead us. He did not like this question. I don’t think I can re-create his answer here, but it was ready, concise, and fit his beliefs; basically, he indicated that the apostles all agreed that they all were having revelatory experiences; that context mattered (one person alone is more likely to be misled into thinking his experience is more meaningful than it is); and, basically, that the Bible said it was inspired so it was.
Sin: The 3rd class will be about “Angels and Sin” - sin was only mentioned once in this class, when the pastor (talking, I think, about experience above) gave the example of “a child who has been told not to touch the stove, but who sins and touches it.” I think I can see, through a haze, where he’s coming from - given the beliefs he laid out at the beginning. The child is transgressing against the parent’s rule. But, still, I can’t see myself ever believing that a child (or anyone) who is exploring his environment and learning from the experience, without hurting anyone else, is sinning. (An aside: I give an overview talk on medical training to groups of residents and students I work with, one small part of which is on errors, and how we don’t want them to occur, and we try to avoid and prevent them, but how they can be a very strong learning experience - so if one happens, acknowledge it and take corrective steps, but also grab the opportunity to learn from the experience!)
Questions: None of the church members who attended the class asked questions. From the other (non-member) students came these questions:
1. “I’ve been Christian all my life, but for some reason when I read the Bible I don’t get out of it what other people do.” Pastor’s response: “Then this class is just right for you.”
2. “I was at an interfaith gathering and was asked to lead a prayer. I was very uncomfortable not mentioning Jesus. What should I do in a situation like that?” Pastor’s response: “You were right to be uncomfortable. You have to be very careful not to think or say anything that might suggest there is more than one way to God.”
3. While I was at the ladies’ room at one point, someone must have asked about contradictions in the Bible, because when I came back in the room the pastor was saying, “We’ll talk about apparent contradictions - later”.
4. In the white board discussion on experience vs. revelation, one student asked, “Am I hearing you right, do you believe that God does not communicate with people?” The pastor answered that God does not communicate with people these days, and several students behind me gasped. He said that “God speaks to me in scripture. It’s all in here [the Bible]. Jesus is the last word, there is no more revelation. It’s all up to us now. If you think God is talking to you, you’re wrong.” (He then qualified that, saying that God might be talking to some people, how could he really know, but if what they thought was from God disagreed in any way with the Bible, then they were wrong — it wasn’t God. And he said that he does believe in prayer, and miracle, like when he prays for someone to be cured of a disease and miraculously they are cured.) There were 3 people who did not take their texts home with them — I’m guessing that those were the people who gasped, & they won’t be back.
After class: A few people went up to ask the pastor questions; I didn’t. However, I was the only non-member student to stay & help clean up, with one of the member-students. (Keep ‘em guessing, I always say! Though I would have done that at most any gathering.) At home later, I looked ahead to chapters 2 and 3 of the text. (Next week: “God and Creation”, which was billed as “Creation or Evolution?” in the mailing they sent out.)
Comment by: NCxian
1Well!
First, let me say that God does apparently equip his children each in different ways because I could no more go back to the next meeting than the man in the moon! But I’m glad you did! What interesting insights! Do you think you will sit “face-on” next time?
The thing that struck me on my first reading is the reference to “non-evangelical conservative Christians”. I haven’t really given that category much thought. But now that you mention it, certainly they exist. The evangelicals are just so vocal, you forget about the just plain conservative. It makes me think more positively about evangelicals I guess. The conservative non-evangelical point of view is, perhaps, “You’re going to hell and I don’t care”. Hmmm . . .
Comment by: Helen
2Eliza, thanks for a wonderfully descriptive and detailed write-up of Class #1.
It was kind of you to stay and help clean-up. Who knows - someone may have noticed your thoughtfulness in doing that (even if no-one commented on it).
When the pastor looked at you as he said “The Devil can quote Scripture” I think it’s very unlikely he was thinking of you as ‘the devil’. It seems more likely to me that he wanted you to take that warning to heart.
Anyway, in my experience, the eye contact speakers and teachers make is not always tied into what they say even though it may be unnerving how their look and words go together. So it might not have been as intentional as it felt it to you, who were very aware of how the two went together and wondered about it.
My experience with church leaders of this pastor’s age/generation is that they can be rather inflexible and patronizing. I hasten to add they are not ALL like that. Jim, for example (ok, he’s an ex-church leader now) is a notable exception!
Telling you not to read ahead is silly and unnecessarily controlling. If someone said that to me it would guarantee I would read on ahead!
If the class gets too frustrating, don’t go just on our account.
And remember that this is just one Lutheran minister’s viewpoint and attitude. Rev. Lueking is also a Lutheran minister. In fact I’m going to e-mail him a link to this in case he’s interested to read it
Comment by: Julie Marie
3oh my, Eliza. It does not appear as though your magnificent questioning style and your method of approaching a problem will be encouraged in this class.
is this your first experience with ROAA?
Comment by: Eliza
4The next class “reports” won’t be as long - there shouldn’t be all that background, and one would hope I will learn to be as quiet and observant as I said I would be! ;-)
I also suspect I’ll have an easier time accepting what he says if/when the presentation is on a topic that can be supported solely internally. Creation will be difficult for me because there’s so much of this stuff in the world that (imo) has to be explained - fossils, etc - whereas a discussion on Angels can be held (I think??) without reference to any evidence (or lack thereof) outside the Bible. In the latter case, I think/hope I can just sit back and listen.
Silly me, I hadn’t thought of ROAA (the Range of Acceptable Answers) when I was there! This is most definitely the first time I’ve encountered a setting with a ROAA like this, or (as far as I can tell), so “narrow”. (Of course, I might not recognize a narrow ROAA if I’m an ‘insider’ and totally agree with it!!) I think I usually keep my antennae up & avoid saying things that would be unnecessarily provoking, for example surgeons expect different “talk” and detail than internists, but I’ve also never been one to bite my tongue if I really disagree (at least, not if I think the basis is something other than “just” opinion). I guess that shows…!
I’m not sure, will decide when I get there - maybe “face on” but a row or two farther back. (I do like good “visual input”, don’t pay attention well if my clues are mostly auditory.)
Helen, thanks for your comments on eye contact and the pastor’s comments that seemed directed at me.
I wouldn’t, thanks - I’m intrigued at a few things about this, especially the questions the other students are asking. Also, this may sound silly, but I was actually almost hoping I’d have a chance to practice deflecting evangelicals who want to save me; but it turned out to be a relief not to have to actually have to have any of those conversations! I’m wondering if that will change now that the other students know how far off of their ‘bench’ I am..!
Comment by: Eliza
5NCxian, Lutheranism is pretty German, & with my mother being German (born in Berlin) and my in-laws being German-American, the low-key approach seems pretty natural to me now that I’ve seen it. I just didn’t really think about it before, since they are so quiet.
I definitely felt that this pastor was very supportive and protective of his flock members having (my term) “right beliefs”, and that he/they would welcome anyone who accepted those beliefs & came to salvation. It’s just that it was an offering, available to be taken or not, rather than a non-refundable special delivery!
Comment by: Marty
6Thanx for your sharing Eliza.
I think what you are doing is quite remarkable and I look forward to your ongoing reports.
For me, I would have been out of there. I am not able to tune into someone who does not start by valuing/encouraging most that I think for myself and encourage questions and dialogue. My sense is that anyone truly secure in their beliefs would want to that.
I hope that you are aware that there a lots of pastors, churches, etc that take a very different and far more respectful approach than the pastor that is teaching this class. I am glad that Helen has encounterred them in Jim and Rev. Lueking. There are many others.
Comment by: Theresa Frasch
7Eliza this was a great commentary. I am looking forward to hearing more about your experiences.
Comment by: Doreen
8Eliza,
WOW. Thanks so much for your post. You crack me up. I barely got by
without snorting my diet coke out my nose.
You are so observant and the contradictions you experienced are such an important lesson to those who would try to “church” others. I don’t know how you kept a straight face when told there are no contradictions in the Bible. The gospels don’t even agree whether Joseph & Mary were married before Jesus was born.
I may have shared on COTE before how I asked my “teaching the Bible” prof why, if the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, there are contradictions, and her answer was a huffy yelled “It IS THE WORD OF GOD.” I never did find out why there are contradictions….
I am looking forward to the writeups of your next classes.
Comment by: Gunfighter
9Do you mind if I ask what synod did this Lutheran Church belong to>
I’m a Lutheran, and out church belongs to the largest of Lutheran synods… the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. We ordain women, and don’t have the no-budge policies regarding homosexuality.
The church you went to sounds like it was either a Missouri or Wisconsin synod Lutheran congregations.
Cheers,
GF
Comment by: Eliza
10Gunfighter, it was indeed Missouri synod. (I’d gone to a Lenten service at a nearby Evangelical Lutheran church this spring, where there was a woman pastor.)
Doreen, sorry for making you waste perfectly good diet coke ;-). One thing that struck me at the first class is that nothing came up about Jesus’s life or the synoptic gospels - the focus was on reasons for belief & inerrancy, & how a Christian is to know God, & all was from John & the epistles. (There are 2 sessions in a few weeks on “Christ & The Bible”, there may be more about the synoptic gospels then.)
My guess is that questions about apparent contradictions may come up tomorrow night, on topic of creation (for example, Genesis 2, which seems to be read by believers as expanding on Genesis 1 and by nonbelievers as a second, separate, creation story).
Comment by: Helen
11Hi Gunfighter,
Thanks for mentioning that there is some variation in belief and practice among Lutherans. So the church where Eliza is taking the course seems to be more conservative than yours, right?
I hadn’t heard of the Wisconsin Synod but I was aware that the Missouri Synod is quite conservative.
I looked up what the church was where Rev Lueking (the retired Lutheran pastor I’ve been having coffee with) used to be the Minister but it doesn’t seem to belong to a synod - their website says it’s an ‘independent Lutheran church’.
Comment by: Mike O
12Eliza, that was very interesting. As an Evangelical Christian (formerly Lutheran), it’s interesting how I could read what you wrote about the pastor and “understand what he meant” from my perspective, but hearing him through your ears was very enlightening.
I think you said a while ago that this was not so much a “What is Christianity” class for seekers, but rather a “What is Lutheranism.” I will be leading a seekers group in the near future, and your reactions to things I accept blindly as “accepted” will be very helpful.
BTW, I look forward to meeting you at the conference. SOmehow I think you’re just like me, only the other way around. I would SO go to an Atheist class and be the Christian there. That would be very interesting to me.
Comment by: Siamang
13Wow, Eliza….. You’ve got more guts than I do!
I could never do that… ESPECIALLY if I had your education! Next week would be my meltdown point… evolution?!?!?
Comment by: Helen
14Mike wrote:
I think I’m like that too. About four years ago I went to a very liberal course about Jesus offered at one of the local Unitarian Universalist congregations. The person who taught the course didn’t believe the 12 disciples were actual people - he thought they were made up.
It was a fascinating experience going into a group where I was ‘the outsider’. I think everyone else who went to the course was part of the UU congregation. The course material was certainly different from the way I was taught about Jesus at my own church.
When I wrote my article for the newspaper this year about not going to church anymore that was the second time the viewpoints editor had invited me to write for them. The first time was in 2002 when I told the editor I was taking that course. He invited me to write about it and I did.
Comment by: Karen
15ROTFL! :-) Think maybe he’s a tad defensive, knowing that there’s an atheist in the class? It sounds like he’s anticipating that you are there to challenge or disrupt him or question his authority (a No-No).
What’s surprising to me is that they get this large a turnout (although admittedly some are already church members) for a 15-week (whew!) class at what I assume is a small, suburban Lutheran church. In Seattle, no less! Let no one say that interest in conservative Christianity is waning … Too bad you didn’t get to hear the backgrounds of some of the other students. It’ll be interesting to see how many stick around.
BTW: The thing about ongoing revelations from god is a huge deal for Christianity. After all, if god speaks to everyone alive today, anything goes and any Christian could claim to have gotten a revelation from god (”women should engage in polyamory” for instance) and then there’d be no orthodoxy left. (FWIW, one of the many reasons FE Christians view Mormons as heretical is due to Smith’s claim that god bestows revelations to individuals today (he later rescinded that and Mormon doctrine now states that god only speaks directly to their president/prophet).
I’m curious what you’ll get tomorrow night! No more reading ahead now … ;-)
Comment by: Eliza
16Mike O, I hope it does help - it seems to me it must be very hard to try to lead a “class” when people come from such different belief standpoints. Maybe easier to lead a “discussion” - the goals may be different? Do you usually (or plan to, this time) go around the group and have people describe their beliefs and major questions, what they are hoping to get out of the group, etc?
I look forward to meeting you, too - but to tell the truth, I would not have gone to a Christian class if I hadn’t gotten my feet wet discussing things with Christians here (and on the Discussion Board). And I’m trying to picture a class in Atheism…interesting idea, I’m not sure any group would feel enough impetus to actually put one together, really what’s the point? We’re not trying to convert people… ;-) But I can picture you in the 3rd row, raising your hand & bugging the instructor about inconsistencies!
Siamang - ahhh, if I only had one-quarter of your knowledge about evolution (& your ability to clearly explain it)! Well, if you hear a loud POP from the Pacific Northwest tomorrow evening, it might be me popping a gut at the “Creation” lecture. I will try to listen, but on creation v. evolution I just know I will be asking some questions.
Speaking of education, it’s true that most of my (too many) years of formal education after high school were spent in discussion groups, seminars, and lab courses - very few lectures. I picked a small college (there were 10 people in my major, my year), and later a medical school which did “problem-based learning”, to get this approach to learning: tossing problems and questions and ideas around, trying to figure out where and how to find answers, trying to figure out just what it is we need to know, and also whether or not to trust the answers we’ve found. A skeptic’s dream!! But the product of this type of education is not good at sitting & listening quietly in a lecture… :-(
Comment by: jim
17Eliza
I am so honored to have the opportunity to read your detailed and equitable report.
I am frankly speechless. I only hope you will continue as long as possible.
I am not sure how Atheists can utilize your insights but I know a whole bunch of Christians who will.
I could apologize for the presentation, condescencion, assumptions, dismissals and controlling moves the pastor (whom I’m certain was intimidated by you) offered during this class but it is apparent to me that you are more than able to hold your own in this kind of situation.
It is very kind and generous of you to place yourself in this unfortunately biased environment as an act of solidarity with your learning colleagues here at CatE.
Thank you for modeling what humble learning looks like and helping us become better human beingsÂ
Comment by: Eliza
18Jim,
You flatter me - I actually feel like I’m being kind of unfair to the pastor, and maybe the rest of the class, diverting attention and energy from his purpose and, quite likely, from the other students’ purposes. I am there at their invitation. And it doesn’t feel like following up on issues I have with what he says is being humble. I will try to be more sensitive to those things tomorrow, yet still come away with observations.
…On the other hand, the brochure that was mailed out (to a wide geographical area in north Seattle and beyond) advertising this class did claim that important questions would be addressed, and said everyone was welcome. I wouldn’t horn in on a Bible study class within a church, even if it might be interesting - that would be rude. This seems different…I think. I don’t know, am still trying to sort that part of it out.
Comment by: Helen
19Eliza, I think it’s absolutely fine for you to be at a class whose advertising said everyone is welcome.
You have a choice as you go to these classes. You can let what the pastor says frustrate you or you can shake it off and enjoy this fascinating learning experience.
I think you’ll have more fun if you can shake it off and be a sort of ‘emotionally detached observer’.
I speak from experience - I had to figure out how to be in church every week and not let it push my buttons, once I was having problems with the beliefs expressed. I wasn’t ready to stop going, so instead I went and sort of ‘emotionally detached internally’. This meant that the things I didn’t like/agree with didn’t wind me up like they used to.
Comment by: Eliza
20Thanks, Helen - that’s good advice. And thank you, too, for linking above to your prior article on the UU class you took - your humor, insight, and grace really shine through in that article!
Comment by: Friendly Atheist » Lutheran Church Class
21 10/4/06 8:44 PM | Comment Link |[...] An atheist, Eliza, over at Conversation at the Edge shares an interesting encounter attending a religious class offered by a local Lutheran church. Her writeup suggests that either she’ll be getting hilarious responses from the pastor, or they will just cancel the class altogether. I mean, really, who are these skeptics who dare to ask questions…! [...]
Comment by: DoableEvangelism » Blog Archive » Another Atheist Goes To Church
22 10/4/06 9:09 PM | Comment Link |[...] Eliza has been a part of our blog community for sometime and frequently posts on Conversation at the Edge. She recently began a 15 week class at a local Lutheran church to for enquirers in order to find out what Christians really believe. If you are a pastor you need to read her report and if you care about understanding what non Chrisitans think you need to read this [...]
Comment by: jim
23Go for it Eliza
As long as we (christians) continue sending out invitations that say “everyone welcome” we ought to welcome the critique.
Comment by: Siamang
24Re-reading what I wrote, I thought I’d clarify in case anyone didn’t get what I meant. I meant if I had Eliza’s education in medicine and background in biology and life-science I would be especially hard-put to remain silent during discussion of evolution.
Not by any way to say that people with her education would have problems with the theology discussions. Anyway, most of you know me by now, but I just wanted to make that clear anyway.
Comment by: Eliza
25Thanks, Siamang. Ken Miller, biologist at Brown University (and expert witness against ID at the Dover trial) is Christian (Catholic) and speaks eloquently about science, evolution, and God. An excerpt from the last chapter of his book, Finding Darwin’s God, is here at the Brown University site. In part, he says
This view, I can relate to. Strict creationism, I can’t. Well, on to tonight’s class…!
Comment by: Karen
26I’ve been thinking about this, Eliza, and I would guess this is why the pastor may be intimidated by you.
He knows you’re likely (as a skeptic) to question statements like the one he made above, while others attendees will likely accept anything he says without question. This is due to the “appeal to authority” mindset. The mindset goes back centuries to a time when clergy were the most-educated members of society (and often the only literate members), and what they said was accepted wholeheartedly by the “uneducated masses.”
Unfortunately, for most raised in the faith, that appeal to authority is deep-seated: The pastor says it, he’s studied these things, he’s looking out for our best, therefore - we believe it. No questions asked. I bet this is why your fellow students didn’t question statements that are contradicted even in the church’s own literature!
While the appeal to authority makes for obedient little sheep, it’s dangerous in the long run to teach people not to think for themselves. It’s why those of us who’ve left conservative churches really feel that we were duped when we bought into “misstatements of fact” (I’ll be charitable) from those “in authority over us” in the church.
Comment by: Julie Marie
27well, here’s hoping I don’t hear the sound of a gut popping! I would think this would be the most difficult class for you to sit through without steaming if they take the strict creationist viewpoint.
I like Ken Miller’s quote, by the way.
Comment by: Helen
28Thanks for your comments, Siamang. I think only a very patient atheist will be able to get through this series of classes!
I’m sure you’re right that Eliza’s background will not make make tonight’s class on creationism vs evolution any easier.
Comment by: Mike O
29Eliza, you asked this in post #16
It’s specifically not going to be a class, but a conversation. The hard part will be getting my pastor, if he co-leads with me (which he wants to do), to not hard-sell Christianity. Of course we would be most pleased if people would come to faith through this class. But the feel we’re at is to raise questions, not necessarily answer them. The author of the material calls it “gap theory,” in that it leaves some questions unanswered. What we don’t want is for us to come across as “the answer man.”
One piece of feedback I’ve gotten so far (we didn’t get it off the ground when we tried to start it this month) is why would a non-believer come to this to “just talk?” They can “just talk” with their friends. Somehow there has to be a desire to learn, not just talk, that is common among all people involved. And that has to include me.
Yes, the conversation will be directed from a Christian perspective, but I think if there is a desire to learn that is common among all, it should work better than the one you’re going to.
Comment by: Mike O
30Eliza, can I ask for your opinion on something …
Would it be better to have a series (10 weeks) or just one night? I wonder why a non-believer would commit to a 10 week commitment at a church, but it does seem to work.
How do you wish the material was being presented in your class? What would make it interesting to you, and not so … churchy?
What’s the best way to market my idea to the unchurched? I want to appeal to people outside of our church. Do I need to know them personally, or would it work as a general invite, like yours was?
What pitfalls or Christian tendencies should I be aware of? I now how Christians like to do things. But how about regular people?
Comment by: Mike O
31One more question … would it make sense to “seed” the group with non-Christians? By that I mean, personally invite people that will keep the discussion balanced? I’m not sure I’m willing to go there … I’m thinking and typing at the same time … but if I could find someone who was not a Christian, but not antagonistic … someone who would be willing to ask the questions I don’t know enough to ask, how would that play?
Comment by: Helen
32Mike O wrote:
Mike, I love how you phrased that. You’re well on your way to having great relationships with people who aren’t Christians!
Comment by: jim
33Now you know why we say Off The Maps mission is
Helping Christians be Normal
Comment by: Helen
34Mike, I reposted your comments and questions to Eliza on the eBay atheist blog here:
Would you attend a ‘conversation’ at a church?
Comment by: lisa w
35Eliza, You are just one of the coolest people I know. To take the time to show up, ask meaningful questions, sit through that spin-cycle, and STILL HELP TIDY UP AFTER the group! Awesome.
Really remarkable.
Comment by: JG
36Eliza,
Many thanks for this report. One mistake I feel is often made in events of this sort is that some points are made very briefly without providing any proper reasoning or explanation.
Sometimes this will just be a time thing but if so perhaps it is better not to raise the point rather than do it in an inadequate way.
Other times it will because the speaker has heard others making the point and attempts to repeat what he/she has heard but does so badly either because they are not so articulate or because they have not really properly understood the point themselves.
You comment:
I think I understand the point he was trying to make but he has done so in a very poor way. I can probably do no better so please forgive me for trying!
The difference with Jesus is of course that people claimed he had been raised from the dead. So far as I am aware no one has ever claimed that Joseph, Mary etc were raised to life. As you say, the Bible claims Lazurus was raised to life but he would have subsequently died at some later date. Whereas it is claimed Jesus did not subsequently die but was taken up into heaven.
If the claims about Christ were false, then (the argument goes) it would have been possible to refute them by simply producing the body. I see the following possible counter arguments:
1 The disciples stole the body.
2 The authorities did not know where the body had been buried. Perhaps he was just one of many who were crucified and no one bothered about what happened to the body after his death.
3 The body was produced to refute the arguments but no record of this having happened has survived.
4 No one claimed he had been raised to life until many years after the event by which time it was too late to “produce the body”.
5 Jesus wasn’t actually crucified and the whole story is just a myth along the lines of Arthur or Robin Hood with perhaps some grain of truth around which fanciful stories have been built up.
There may well be others but these are the ones that come immediately to mind. I have to say that I find none of these counter arguments particularly convincing but this is long enough already so will stop here.
Comment by: David H
37Got quite a chuckle from your account of the class. You may not need to worry unless, after you pose a question, the pastor says: “Get thee behind me, Satan.”
Looking forward to hearing about creation/evolution. I have always found that a strange hang-up for “Christians.” A few years ago I saw a PBS show about that debate which included footage from a seminar by a pre-eminent creationist. Can’t remember his name, but one of his props was a drawming of two castles. One castle was humanism and the other was Christianity.
There were various levels to each castle, each with labels pertaining to the allegorical meaning. Way down at the bottom was the foundation of each. For humanism, the sandy foundation was evolution. For Christianity the rocky foundation was creationism.
I was stunned. I always thought Christ was the foundation for Christianity.
Comment by: Paul
38Well I am stunned… honestly I am lost for words (v rare!).
I know/experience God through all 3 of those ways - who invites me to love him with all my emotions and mind and body (located in its context and communities)… just like everyone in the bible did too…
I recently featured a quote from Brian McLaren, from his excellent book finding faith (which is the exact opposite way of engaging to what you are finding in your class Eliza that thinking people can rationally experience God) about the bible… in which Brian concludes with:
“Might its (the bible’s) cantankerous form tell us that there are things more important in life than good, logical, linear outline? That we are more than brains… that we have imagination, passion, fury, hope… and that God is interested in converting and informing these as our conceptual selves? Might it tell us that all contact with God (at least for us humans and for now) must be situational… that there is no way for us to know God except in the ways that people in the Bible story did: in the middle of feast and famine, good and bad governments, changing economices, disappointing marriages and dsyfunctional families, poignant moments and exhilerating victories, deep friendships and bitter betrayals?
And might it have a built-in security system so that the insincere or half hearted find nothing, so that the prejudiced find exactly what they were expecting and so those who are hungry and thirtsy for God find a spiritual feast?”
Still staggered - but regaining powers of speech…
Thank you so much Eliza for going (and going back!)
Comment by: Stephan
39Eliza, I’m reading a book right now that might be a good companion to the class you are attending - Letters from a Skeptic by Greg Boyd. It addresses some of the same material from a less dogmatic position. Boyd’s responses to questions are less defensive and more open, as you would guess if you have read Boyd at all.
The book is a collection of letters between Boyd and his father, a devout skeptic. He was more of an agnostic that an atheist, so his arguments against Christianity are not as vehement as some I have heard from atheists here and at the discussion board, but I think it would be good for you to get a different perspective. I don’t want you to think (as some other atheists seem to) that fundamentalism is the only way to be a Christian.
If your goal is truly to get an understanding of what we believe and why we believe it, this book would be a good resource.
Comment by: Helen
40Stephan, thanks for stopping by.
I think that is truly one of Eliza’s goals. As I recall, another one is that she wanted to experience being face to face with Christians in this sort of environment and see how it went, now she’s had some experience talking with Christians online on our blogs and discussion board.
If you didn’t see this already you might like to read Eliza’s original post she wrote when she was still deciding whether to take this class or not:
An atheist in religious education class?
Comment by: Helen
41Paul, it seems this pastor takes a rather extreme position. I don’t recall hearing a Christian discount experience as much as he did or flat out deny that God communicates with Christians today in any way other than ‘through Scripture’. I expect he’s taking a rather defensive position, trying to guard against what he believes is ‘error’ embraced by Christians in other traditions. But it seems to me that in doing so he’s backed himself into a rather small and legalistic corner.
Comment by: Eliza
42I’ve been busy at work the last few days (and attending R.E. class on Thursday night!) so am just catching up on everyone’s comments, questions, and suggestions - thanks for those!
Helen, it seems that way to me, too - but he seems comfortable there, and acts like it’s a big, wonderful corner to be in.
Especially during the second class last night, more of his position with regards to other Christians came across - he says it’s fine to reject it all (obviously he thinks that’s a big mistake, but he accepts that as someone’s considered decision) - what he has problems with is people who try to go by anything other than a very literal reading of the Bible. (Last night he said several times, “Christians don’t believe…” - but then he’d say something that some Christians do believe, so what he really meant was ” ‘People that I accept as being true Christians’ don’t believe…”.) Seems to me it could be more uncomfortable to be a Christian in this class, than to be an atheist!
Comment by: Helen
43Eliza, yes, he definitely did mean “true Christians don’t believe…”
What he said goes along with my experience that conservative Christians tend to be a lot more unhappy with people who call themselves Christians and object to what conservatives believe, than with people who make no claim to be Christians.
Comment by: Eliza
44Mike O, I think it depends alot on what the goals of the group, and of the people attending, are. If it’s discussion, then a group that meets once a month (ongoing) with potential for newcomers to drop in and “old-timers” to drop out seems reasonable. A set number of weeks seems to match better with a course, with a curriculum (goal being, in part, to cover a set amount of material, in a certain order).
Well, I always appreciate the chance for discussion - questions, comments, some debate perhaps but that needn’t be the focus. That opportunity seems limited in the class I’m going to, ostensibly because there’s so much material to cover (because the class is set up to cover that material). That’s what I’d prefer, if I got to choose.
On the other hand, seeing that it seems important for the pastor to present his information and have it accepted, I’m starting to see that for the purposes of this class, maybe discussion time is not desired - that’s something this course is teaching me! (In other words, that design points out to me how very different this approach is, compared with any course I’ve ever taken before.)
Again, I think it depends on the goals of the group, what you want to get out of it and what you think attendees will want to get out of it, whether you want it to be vigorous discussion between people of different beliefs or more of a presentation of your church’s beliefs.
My guess is that this church gets a fairly low return on its invitation to this course - it was mailed out to a wide geographic area (I think - I’m pretty sure it was addressed to “Resident” - and I live 80 blocks away from the church. I’d guess you could start with an announcement on your church’s reader board, if it has one & is on a well-traveled street, trying to catch the attention of people who look at it but wouldn’t otherwise think to come inside. Or, a small advertisement in a local newspaper. Or, even, write an op-ed piece for that newspaper about…something pertinent, and (if the editorial policies of the paper allow it) including at the end an open invitation for people to come to an “Everyone Welcome” (or, whatever topic you want to focus on) discussion at a particular day and time….just some ideas.
Funny! :-)
First problem, I can’t claim to represent “regular people”! All I can say is, be aware of the assumptions you make which are based on your faith (& the Bible) - since those won’t be shared by people who don’t share your faith (or, won’t necessarily be shared, and if shared won’t be explicitly based on the same reasoning/beliefs). How much this matters will depend on what you hope the group will accomplish, what the attendees hope the group will accomplish (& what each individual wants from it), & what the stated purpose is. (Basically, that all defines the ROAA - the range of acceptable answers - for the group.) I hope that makes sense!
If you are interested in having atheists participate, and wonder what their pre-conceived notions of fairly conservative Christianity are, I’d recommend Sam Harris’s new book, Letter to a Christian Nation. A Christian reading it should realizing these are his observations, probably shared by a number of quieter atheists, agnostics, and maybe to some extent even people of different religious beliefs, and that the book offend, at least in parts…! (Again, whether or not that’s useful really depends on whose point of view you would like to bring to the table/group, & for what purpose.)
Comment by: Eliza
45Sorry, I should have been more concise on that last response!
Thinking more about how to market your idea to the unchurched, I’d advise not using a “bait-and-switch” approach. The mass-mailed brochure for the class I’m taking opened with this:
Yet from my point of view it is not directed at helping “regular people” find answers (or probe these questions further) - instead it presents what this church believes is The Only Answer. It may be that someone in this church has a hard time seeing the difference, seeing why I call this marketing approach “bait and switch”.
Comment by: Pastor David
46Eliza -
I have only just now read this post. I hope you will allow me to make a couple of observations as a Lutheran pastor (of the “other” Lutheran church — ELCA).
I am a little troubled if this was a class on the Christian basics. Any good class on such a topic should make very clear the particular biases of the pastor and the church he/she ministers to … and those biases should not be taught to be the core of the universal Christian faith. As a Lutheran, I have some very distinct and particular (some would say peculiar) ideas about theology. But I try (with varying degrees of success) to be clear about defining (1) what is part of the universal tradition of Christianity, (2) where some modern churches knowingly depart from that (and I usually find it to be the evangelical churches that I would describe in this way), (3) the layers that our particular denomination adds to that universal tradition (which I believe to be true, but I would not describe them as THE Christian teaching), (4) and my own opinions.
If this were an introduction to Lutheranism, that would be less of an issue for me. But to claim that the things that make us distinctly Lutheran are the core of Christian faith is misleading.
Of course there is a dilemma with “new member” classes. I teach them with the assumption that people have a background in Christianity (which most people joining the church do). If I had someone without the background in Christian faith, I would probably want to meet privately with them, so that what we were doing in the class was not an “inside” conversation that they were being excluded from.
Comment by: Eliza
47At the risk of talking to myself here…thanks to everyone for all the great comments and feedback!
Stephan, thanks for suggesting Boyd’s book, Letters from a Skeptic. You (or someone) had recommended this one a while back, & I forgot to pursue it then. Thanks, I’ll look for that book.
Paul, I’m glad to hear that you (and Brian McLaren, and others) find you can use all of your senses, and reason, and experiences, as you know and grow with God. Ken Miller’s comment seems to me to be on the same page on this, too. See! Think! Rejoice! Feel! Experience! If God exists, it’s all part of his design and creation, & it seems such a shame to shy away from the reality of it.
David H, what a keen observation - I wonder how many other people realized Christ was missing from that castle! Just guessing here, but it seems that it might not be uncommon for people to connect a belief so tightly with their Christian faith, that that belief becomes the foundation of their faith instead of Christ. (Like, “morality” - defined one particular way - or creationism as in your example.) Do you think that occurs?
Comment by: Pastor David
48Mike O -
I would suggest checking out Frank Honeycutt’s Preaching to Skeptics & Seekers. Frank is a Lutheran pastor who did what you are talking about, and wrote a book for preachers on it. His questions were much the same as yours.
Comment by: Eliza
49Pastor David, welcome!
From the outline used for the course introduction, this is said to be a class for:
(a) people with little or no Christian background,
(b) people who already confess Christ as Lord and Savior, but are still looking for a church home,
(c) members of Messiah who want to review their faith, and
(d) people who want to learn about Lutheran Christianity.
The class outline says the class is about:
(1) What Lutheran Christians believe,
(2) Why we believe what we do,
(3) Where we differ at points with other Christians,
(4) Non-Christian religions touched on,
(5) Controversial topics (evolution, abortion, etc), and
(6) Answering your questions
The pastor teaching the course has stressed that he will present what conservative Lutherans believe. Indeed, that is what he seems to be doing; so far, I have not heard anything about differences with other denominations. So far, the message, loud and clear, has been that any beliefs that aren’t literal & scriptural are wrong.
Comment by: Pastor David
50This seems to me to be remarkably backward. First you introduce the foundations of Christianity. Then you talk about what it means to be a Lutheran. Unfortunately, for too many Lutheran pastors (including this one it seems) the two are one and the same.
You do not try and teach advanced trignometry in a class that is aimed at people who are just starting to learn Algebra. One builds on the other, and there is a natural and logical order to the two.
Comment by: Eliza
51Pastor David,
What do you introduce first, as the basics? (I know that’s a big topic, but perhaps a rough outline?) The text booklet this pastor is using starts with “Christ and the Bible” & he started with the cross and salvation, why it is important to know Christ, what it means to “know” Christ, then moved to the Bible as the book given by God for this purpose. It seemed like a reasonable progression for the first session, but this is my first-ever religious education class, what do I know?
If it wasn’t clear from discussion earlier, please know that I consider myself an atheist, and I’m a strong skeptic (in an upbeat kind of way, I hope), so I may be one of the harder nuts to crack when it comes to finding an approach that doesn’t result in some push-back! But I do/would appreciate it when people describe their beliefs without implying there’s no possible other way, unless there truly is pretty solid proof (that I and other skeptics can agree is solid proof). And it’s becoming clear through this course that hearing internal consistency helps - otherwise, it’s like an alarm bell going off for me.
Comment by: Eliza
52Catching up on posts from a few days ago: JG, thanks for expanding on what was meant in the interaction in class about “historical fact”. The apologist literature I’ve read (in the past year) gave some of the same background and analysis (including 1 or 2 of Lee Strobel’s books, as I recall).
“Historical fact” seems much more basic to me. I’d agree with this historical fact: “The 4 gospels, ranging in date of authorship from ~70AD to ~100AD, all report that Jesus’s tomb was found empty a few days after he was buried.” (One can add details about how many days, who found the tomb empty, how they learned that he was risen, etc, but those details start to vary somewhat between accounts.)
This drab one-line summary doesn’t claim that the empty tomb was factual or metaphorical or mythic; without independent data, it seems to me that historical determination is impossible to make. IMO that’s OK - it just leaves more to faith.
I do object to being told that “reason and logic” (and science and fact) are useless in matters of faith, but then being told that conjectures are “historical facts” (subtext being, they are so convincing that I should instantly believe). I hope that makes some sense! (See prior post regarding valuing consistency).
I’m leaving for Philadelphia in the morning - may have infrequent (if any) internet access for the next few days - will check here for further comments whenever I can. And I’ll describe the second class session in a post this coming week (probably on Thursday).
Comment by: NCxian
53One thing I have noticed in reading spiritual autobiographies and also talking with atheists and agnostics and skeptics and others–the initial hurdle has to be allowing that there might be something outside of the natural world. That there is a God. Anne Lamott, in Traveling Mercies, first believes in God (and so has a sort of Bat Mitzvah, to become sort of Jewish). C.S. Lewis in Suprised by Joy, first finds himself believing in God, then later works out the Jesus part.
I don’t know how you would talk about that, exactly, in a class. Maybe these kinds of classes assume that people come with a belief in the supernatural, or God, already, and it’s just a matter of getting them omfortable with a particular view of that supernatural realm.
Comment by: JG
54Eliza, many thanks for your response. Please rest assured, I am very supportive of your position and agree with you it is WRONG to talk of it as historical fact and very wrong to tell people to abandon reason and logic.
What I was attempting to do was explain that whilst what the speaker was saying was wrong, he appears to have been attempting to repeat a traditional argument. What the speaker was saying was wrong but the traditional argument does I believe have merit.
For me, my faith is based on logic and reason, not the abandoning of it. See comment 21 on Alpha courses where I saud:
Courts of law frequently have the task of making decisions about facts. It seems to me there are four options:
1 Something may be definitely true or
2 definitely untrue.
3 The court may be satisfied that something is true beyond all reasonable doubt (the standard required for criminal cases) or
4 on the balance of probabilities (the standard required for civil cases).
With options 3 and 4, you can’t say “it is a fact” but rather that the court has decided after considering all the evidence that it is true.
For me, I can’t claim option 1 for the empty tomb. For me, it is option 3. But I accept that different people come to different conclusions. In court cases, you sometimes get divided juries. In appeal cases, you sometimes get one judge deciding one way, the others deciding the other way.
I think NCxian is absolutely right when he says:
“the initial hurdle has to be allowing that there might be something outside of the natural world.”
In terms of logic, I see this as meaning we DON’T have a ROAA. We don’t say we will reject anything that doesn’t fit our existing understanding. Rather, it is starting with a blank page and not ruling anything out but applying logic to our considerations. So we allow the argument that in our experience people do not and cannot be raised from the dead to be included in our considerations but not to totally control and determine our considerations. To do so is like someone ruling out the possibility of the earth being a sphere on the basis that everything they have experienced and been taught tells them the earth is flat.
I believe logic tells us we must be open to things that don’t fit our existing understanding but does not tell us to believe every crackpot idea that comes along.
Yes your comments certainly make sense and I support them. Having looked at the evidence as best I can, I have decided it is convincing but it is not easy, it certainly is not instant and I can fully understand and accept that others will look at exactly the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.
Comment by: JG
55Having reread what I put, I need to add that when saying for me it is option 3, I am saying I have no reasonable doubt in my own mind - I am NOT saying it is unreasonable for others to doubt it.
I fully accept that others have VERY reasonable grounds for believing it is NOT true.
Comment by: Helen
56JG wrote:
I see what you’re saying. For anyone who didn’t read the original post about ROAAs here it is:
The Range of Acceptable Answers
At the point where a person considers “Hmmm…maybe Jesus really did rise from the dead” I agree with you that they are free from an individual ROAA - more free from someone who says “No way could someone rise from the dead”.
If a group of people who think that way get together and invalidate the opinion of another person who says “But I can’t accept that anyone can rise from the dead”, then they have implemented an ROAA with respect to that other person.
In other words “I can’t accept that you can’t be as open as me” is an ROAA. (Not one you set up, though, because you acknowledged that not everyone shares your viewpoint)
That’s just an observation I wanted to make - I’m not disagreeing with what you said, JG.
See the thing is, some people think “A man rose from the dead” to be a crackpot idea.
Comment by: JG
57Helen, thanks for your comments - I agree with you.
It may be helpful if I share some thoughts on Joseph Smith and the Church of Latter Day Saints. I spent quite some time corresponding with someone who is a member of that church discussing what we believed.
The idea about the tablets that Joseph Smith found or was led to, comes across to me as nonsense - but in one sense, no more so than the idea of the resurrection. If I can believe in the resurrection then I have to be open to the idea of Jospeh Smith’s story being true. I can’t believe one but dismiss the other out of hand.
What I discovered was that if and once you could overcome the hurdle of the unlikely story, then in fact what that church believes is very logical and believeable, and very convincing. I could understand how highly intelligent people could accept it as true.
I don’t believe it is true but it has been an interesting experience to consider why I believe what I do and why I believe what they teach to be untrue.
It also helps provide some insight into what it is like to be on the receiving end. I’ve considered the arguments for what the LDS believe and rejected them.
So returning to the original point, I think what I mean is that we shouldn’t reject something out of hand simply because it appears to be crackpot but at the same time we don’t take on baord every apparently crackpot idea and believe all sorts of things.
We are all different and when considering evidence, we all attach different weight to different things. So I agree with you, we shouldn’t insist on others adopting our approach and fully agree with you that “I can’t accept that you can’t be as open as me” is an ROAA - and would also be rather arrogant!
Comment by: Helen
58JG wrote:
This actually gets into one of my concerns about Christianity/Christians, which is: Christians are encouraged to be accepting, at least of what other Christians say. I think this can result in them not being skeptical enough when they need to be. It can mean they don’t ask enough questions about leaders and later find out that the leader they thought was a wonderful person has been secretly inappropriate with church members. It can mean they accept bizarre theories because they came from a Christian. And so on.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
59Eliza,
Thankyou. I got two laughs from your description–firstly your experience of having a hard time determining where the line was on questions of clarification when you question the whole premise (This is so exactly like my experience *so* often–people want to talk at level A, and I want to talk about the meanings of the terms they are using to describe what they want to talk about, and the underlying implications of those meanings, and so forth.) The second was your “Lazarus (the second time)” I’ve often thought if I were Lazarus, I’d have been seriosquiolio pissed off at J.C. (”At last I was dead, couldn’t you have just finally left well enough alone?!!?”)
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
60Eliza, others,
Do you think it would be unwise/would you prefer that I not invite Mr. Lassman to follow this thread? I am also Seattle local, and actually Messiah Lutheran is very near my house, and I’ve never been there or met him, but I thought maybe it couldn’t hurt to send him an email invite. Please let me know what you think.
Comment by: JG
61Helen, I agree with what you say though I’m not sure how it follows on from what I have shared.
I’m saying we should use reason and logic and we should question what we believe and what others say to us.
A healthy church, to my mind, is one where people do think for themselves, and where they have freedom to challenge things which don’t appear to them to be correct. No matter how mature and wise a leader is, not everything they say will be correct and when they do come out with something that is wrong or which could be misconstrued, it should be picked up and dealt with and not allowed to pass without comment.
I see this as entirely consistent with believing something that doesn’t fit in with conventional wisdom. People thought the world was flat. When people started to challenge this, they were burnt at the stake. But they were willing to think “outside the box” please excuse the cliche.
Today conventional wisdom tells us that people don’t rise from the dead and that miracles can’t happen so we are forced to seek rational explanations for these things.
Again, I think NCxian is absolutely right when he says:
“the initial hurdle has to be allowing that there might be something outside of the natural world.”
But, if we take this on board, then there is a whole range of things we could believe, all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas. For me, it is not about abandoning logic but rather, not limiting ourselves to what we do understand. I only believe in the resurrection because for me, I am satisfied that on the basis of the evidence, it is reasonable to do so For me it is a logical decision.
With the LDS, one reason why I don’t accept their teaching is true is because it is so well worked out. It appears to be they have ironed out all the problems and inconsistencies and produced something that is very coherent. That strikes me as “man made” - and therefore not true.
Like in a court case, if witnesses say the same thing word for word, it comes across as rehearsed and I would be wary of accepting their evidence. Whereas if they are saying basically the same thing but with subtle differences and with emphasis on different things, that comes across as more true to life and hence believable.
If the early church had been seeking to manufacture something that people would believe, it strikes me they would have removed inconsistencies, not leave them in.
Comment by: Helen
62JG I guess the relevance for me is that as a Christian I was taught to value being open to things which I didn’t understand. So I completely understand where you’re coming from on that. However, over the last few years I’ve come to the conclusion that this may have subtly encouraged me not to be as discerning and skeptical as I ought to have been, about life in general. Maybe what happened to me doesn’t happen to all Christians - but the regular announcement of fallen leaders implies to me that there IS a problem in churches in general with members being too trusting and not asking enough questions.
Comment by: Helen
63Benjamin, in general (there I go again, even though I don’t like to generalize :-)) I think it’s a great idea to invite church leaders here to read what we wrote, when we’ve written something about their specific church.
However, I would like Eliza to make the decision if/when to tell the pastor teaching this class that she’s writing about it here because telling him it may affect her class experience. If he takes offense he might even ask her to leave - basically we don’t know how he will react.
So I would like to wait and see what Eliza says, since the class is ongoing. If nothing else I’d love to tell him after it’s over. But I want her to decide whether to tell him before then. Eliza is out of town with limited/no internet access for a few days so it will probably be a little while before she responds. I’ll make sure she sees the question.
Comment by: JG
64Helen, I know what you mean.
“Being open” for me means willingness to take on board ideas that “don’t fit in the box” so include the resurrection AND the idea that what you have been taught, what your leaders are telling you is wrong. It is about testing what you hear and making your own mind up.
Whereas “Being closed” for me means ruling out anything that doesn’t fit within your own existing understanding and accepting what leaders tell you without question.
So if someone believes in the resurrection simply because their leaders tell them its true and they accept it without question, that to my m ind is not being open but closed.
On your point about fallen leaders, I’m sure there is an element of people not doing enough questioning etc. But I see it more as a question of people being human. No matter how senior a leader you are, you are still human. Human nature can and does fail. And the more successful you are as a leader, I think the greater the temptation. It is so easy for pride to come in and get in the way. If you are too busy and many church leaders are, then you get tired and run down and that can create the climate in which these things can happen. That is not to make excuses, rather to seek to explain how these things can happen. If it happens, it does not invalidate their ministry though obviously it does need to be re-evaluated.
Comment by: NCxian
65Not just in church politics, but in all politics! What you are saying about trusted leaders in church is certainly true in say, the US Congress? Republican party?
What do you suppose is it that causes people to rely on and trust their leadership to their detriment? Or is it that once people become leaders, maintaining their leadership becomes priority one, instead of whatever the vision was that moved them into leadership in the first place? I don’t know, I am wondering . . .
Comment by: Helen
66JG, if you feel you have the right balance then I respect that. All I can say is that I think I was moved too far in the direction of ‘accept and trust’ by the Christian communities I was in. And yes I let it happen.
My sense with classes like this one is that the teacher encourages this ‘trust and accept what I say’. When he says something is a fact he doesn’t want to hear anyone say it isn’t. He’s not saying “Hey go read some atheist books, get the ‘other side of the story’ and then see who presents the best case”. Which I think is more the sort of approach Eliza would be used to and it’s definitely the one I prefer these days.
NCxian, you’re right, of course that trusting leaders too much is not just a problem in churches.
I just heard that the Republican Party knew about Foley’s e-mails 5 years ago. So now we’re getting into cover-up issues…which branches of the church have also not been free from, of course.
Comment by: David H
67Felt I had to say something about this having lived with a “fallen leader” from childhood into early adulthood and being raised in a church unable to recognize what he was.
My experience with my father is that if you are very good in looking like what people want then it is easy to avoid suspicion (almost completely) until something really blatant triggers the fall. However, this is not just a “Christian” phenomena. John Gacy and many other serial killers operated for years in normal human society because of a) their ability to look like what people want and b) the desire of most people to accept such appearance.
The issue for Christian leaders is that they often don’t start out wishing to exploit their flock (as opposed to politicians, as an example, who often begin their “ministry” because they want more power and influence). But power and influence can be intoxicating for anyone.
What may make the issue more difficult for both the flock and shepherd is that much of American Christianity — contrary to what The Bible teaches — is based on appearance. Faith becomes words and actions, but doesn’t always touch the heart. It isn’t just leaders who learn how to put up this false front. Entire strains of Christianity seem to value the look and feel of salvation over something deeper. For spiritual leaders, though, there may be more pressure to maintain that value system.
In Sunday school this weekend we discussed how many Christians see salvation as being the “death” of their old self. So they bury many things — some good, many bad — and then attempt to put on “Christ” as their new face and personality. The problem comes because if you haven’t faced (and possibly accepted in some ways) those “old life” issues, they have a nasty habit of coming back from the “dead.” If, like in a George Romero film, they rise up, what is a “good” Christian to do? You can’t acknolwedge, possibly even to yourself, that issue rearing it’s rotting head in your life once again because then you might have to admit that salvation isn’t all you have been telling everyone else. So you keep your back to the zombie while trying to kick him back into the grave. Pressue builds until the man-eating corpse bursts into public view and rips away that Christ mask.
Christianity claims we can be new people and many of us want to believe in a miraculous aspect of that, which completely and irrevocably irradicates all the bad parts of the old person. I have heard that it occurs for some. But the human reality is that most of us are the sum of our blessings and curses. Both are as much a part of our lives as our thinking brain and beating heart. No amount of prayer or psychotherapy will fix our faults, but quite possibly if we acknowledge the struggle with them we can be a) more open to growth b) more accepting of other struggling people and c) more of real Jesus, less of the plastic Halloween costume kind.
But to get back to Helen’s original statement, I’m not sure that it is simply trust that contributes to the phenomena of fallen Christian leaders. It may have more to do with the prevalent Christian pretense that falling, at least for them, is no longer a human condition.
Comment by: David H
68Eliza, I think such super-imposing of one thing over the other is a far-too-common “Christian” practice. Were you to read a denominational doctrine statement you might be able to complile a point-by-point list of other examples. Even biblioatry — worship of the Bible — has become a huge American Christian phenomena.
Obviously it occurs, the bigger question is why? I have a few thoughts on that.
1. Organized religion vs. heart-felt faith: Religion requires doctrine, theology, and practices (litany, order of service, etc.) Faith can grow within such a framework, but doesn’t necessarily require it. However religious practice doesn’t require real faith. And faith can be hard. So some people take the practice, the religion, and call it faith.
2. Simple math is easier than Advanced Physics: For some people in school simple math was all they could handle. Use your equations properly and you will always get the right answer and, perhaps best, it will always be the same answer. Advanced physics brings in all sorts of uncertainties and variables. Change just one small factor in a complicated formula and your answer will always be different. Life is like advanced physics, but some forms of Christianity want adherents to believe that it can be like simple math if they just follow Jesus. To do this you just have to remember a few simple equations, like moral rules.
However, as anyone who has read the Bible knows, the 10 commandments wasn’t the end of the story about the law. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are filled with exegesis on how to practice the law on a daily basis. The rest of the Old Testament is full of stories about the inventive ways people found to violate those principles. Jewish writing is also replete with thousands of books providing commentary and recommendation on how to folow those laws. And the Pharisees, made famous by Jesus, were a Jewish sect that based their entire belief system on how exactly to practice those laws.
We live in an advanced physics world, but that doesn’t stop some supposedly Christian leaders from teaching simple math and for many supposed believers from adopting that as their entire faith. They ignore that that isn’t Christ-like. Jesus didn’t need numerous books to explain the law and its practice, he needed two sentences.
3. Black & white, wrong & right, reject & accept: This is sort of an extension of number 2. If we can boil “faith” down to these things then it is simple and doable. The problem is colors. Life is complicated and comes in a mixture of hues. Some believers want to eliminate that external information overload, so they build a belief system in which it is irrelevant. They focus all of their brain power on specific matters and make those, whatever they are, the entire faith.
As someone who grew up in a fundamental church background, I can remember being taught that all of the answers could be found in the life of Jesus. So all I needed to do was study his life (from the four gospels) and then apply the choices he made to the choices I faced in life. But somehow that got translated to a list of do’s and don’ts, not to a way of approaching every individual as a unique person with unique circumstances. Heaven forbid you should ever talk to, much less have dinner, with a prostitute, unless you were evangelizing them (i.e. telling them to change or face the fires of hell). And while you could evangelize such people, they were unacceptable in your church. Forget about prostitutes, even divorced people were forbidden.
I’m sure there are loads of other why’s. These are just a few examples from my experience and background. In recent years, it has seemed to me that Christianity and life are both fairly simple (at least in terms of stated purpose and practice). The danger for both of those lies in over-complicating, as far as I’m concerned. But that may just lead people on all sides to conclude that it is actually me that is fairly simple.
Comment by: Siamang
69I just wanted to comment that I’m really enjoying what David H is writing in this thread.
Comment by: jim
70Siamang - I was just thinking the same thing about David
Comment by: Helen
71I reposted David’s comments in #68 as a new blog entry, here:
Following Jesus vs. doing simple math
Comment by: Pastor David
72I think where I begin is learning about one another. If we are going to talk about faith, I need to know your story and you need to know mine. That is step one for me.
Then, the next step for me is the creeds. The Creeds (Apostles’ and Nicene) are the bedrock of the church for me, and they unite Christianity around the globe and through time. Through the creeds, we talk about the essentials of the Gospel: the oneness of God, this world’s creation, the fall, the incarnation, Christ’s death and resurrection, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The creeds give an opening to talk about Scripture. I think the Bible is the hardest topic for Christians to talk honestly about. I believe that how I read the Bible is the “correct” way. If I didn’t, I would read it some other way. But to acknowledge that, while also acknowledging that other faithful, intellegent, and responsible Christians read it in other ways is difficult for us.
Throughout, my commentary is tinted by my Lutheranism. I try, and hope I am successful, to be honest about that. I try to point out when other Christians have different understandings. Then, at the end, I can talk about what makes Lutherans distinctive within the broader Christian tradition.
Comment by: David H
73Thanks Siamang, Jim and Helen. I have spent some time thinking about screwed up beliefs and discussing how those can affect someone’s life with paid professionals. Now I try to be honest about it in an effort not to stumble down the same path. I appreciate a forum in which there is room for discussion of these things because writing about them is often part of my thought process. I don’t know why I feel a certain way about something until I write it down. So I am grateful or both comment and criticism.
Comment by: Eliza
74Back now from the East Coast - thanks for keeping the conversation going, and even spreading to different posts!
I agree, NCxian (she-who-is-not-a-he!), but what a different starting point than most “religious education” classes (and discussions). Most of the students who come to a class like the one I’m going to are already “on board” & would probably think that discussion pointless. Also - how does a discussion like that go? Does it matter who leads it? It seems to me that Pastor David’s suggestion is really important:
That’s where several of us started, on the Discussion Board (the “How I came to my Beliefs” section) and here, through the interviews some people have done. But finding out someone’s point of view may mostly help you sort out which people are already on one side of the fence or the other, & maybe identify a few who are on the fence and might come to your side through discussion.
Pastor David, you said you move after that to the creeds - those were handouts in the first 2 weeks of this class. They do seem foundational in explaining Christian beliefs & practices, and can be used to teach a non-believer what Christians traditionally believe, but they don’t act as any kind of persuasion for someone like me. (Not that they necessarily should. Again, it seems to get back to what the purpose of any particular religious education gathering is.) We haven’t gotten a chance to read through them in class, & discuss them at all, just given time constraints - and that atheist asking all those questions! ;-)
The UU church I’ve been going to had a get-together last week, an hour before the service began, for anyone who was interested to gather in the library and talk about how they think about God. I had to miss that session, but wanted to go - that group seems like one in which everyone’s view, though different, will be listened to - and someone like me could say “I don’t think there is a God, but I was interested in hearing what everyone else had to say” and that would be fine with them. I appreciate that level of acceptance, though understand also that it smacks of the utmost “religious relativism” and might be horrifying to some/many Cs.
Comment by: Eliza
75Benjamin - hi, fellow Seattlite! I hadn’t intended my posts and comments to be about this pastor personally; he didn’t do anything except offer this course, & have the bad luck (some might say) to have me sign up for it! I guess I’ve been thinking of the class as an opportunity to see up close how everyman-conservative-pastor explains or teaches conservative Christian beliefs, and what my everyman-atheist reactions and thoughts are, and thinking the exact details of who it is don’t matter. I also don’t expect him to rebut in a public forum - again, he never signed up for that. On the other hand, I don’t mean to be talking about someone behind their back. (I hadn’t used his name, & don’t plan to use it in future posts.) I have to say, I do also think that being in that class is uncomfortable enough for me that I don’t want to up the ante, beyond asking questions!
One solution would be for me to mention this site & discussion to him after class, inviting him here if he wants to check it out (or even participate, which I suspect he wouldn’t). Does that sound fair?
Comment by: Helen
76Eliza that sounds like a fine idea if you’re comfortable with it. I think it would be good if it came from you; and in-person invites are the most friendly kind.
On the other hand, if it will stress you out, you don’t have to say anything to him about it. You aren’t obliged to tell him about this blog any more than he’s obliged to let you say whatever you want in the middle of his class ;-)
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
77Eliza,
Can I just ditto Helen. You are *so* not obliged to invite him over here. I was thinking along the lines of getting him into our dojo to make things a bit more fair, since you are venturing into his dojo for the class. I suppose that’s the sort of attitude that tends to get me in so much trouble (and I tend to get in trouble in places that seem to me to be a lot less frightening than this class you are attending–like, for instance, “Sunday-morning-church” “worship” “services”) You seem to be better than me at the CatE thing. I suppose that’s because of the almost complete absence in myself of the character strengths of diplomacy and humility. I look forward to your description of the next class.
Comment by: Eliza
78Benjamin - I spent alot of time at this site and Off The Map’s ebay atheist site, and the Discussion Board, over the past ~7 months. It has been quite a learning experience! I started out terrified that the Christians on the site would know I was there, even though I was just reading. Then I tried gingerly posting a comment or two, heart pounding and sweat pouring down my brow. Now, I feel so much more comfortable that I am doing the previously-unthinkable - going to a religious education class, and even raising my hand and asking pointed questions. (And posting *ahem* much more freely - am trying to move down on the list of “frequent posts”.) As for diplomacy, I think I do ok with that in real life, not so sure online. Humility, well that’s a weak spot ;-) . But, the main thing with posting is to liberally use the backspace key & control-X, and remember not to hit “submit” unless you’re pretty sure you’re not about to start world war 3!