Posted by Helen on: 10.10.2006 /
This article by Eliza was previously posted on this blog as Class #1. Eliza plans to post more about this class on CatE in subsequent weeks.
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: Pete
1I’m really interested to hear more about this class.
I found quite a few things interesting:
1. The pastor (so far from what I’ve read) seems to suffer from many of the same problems other Christians do when faced with tough questions; i.e. they either have a pat little answer (that as often as not makes little to no sense outside of a staunch judeo-christian mindset–the whole “the bible says it’s inspired so it is” thing comes to mind). Or they avoid the question in any number of ways (e.g. when the Pascale’s wager thing came up and he basically made a snide comment to you and moved on–which was highly innapropriate IMO). It’s too bad more Christians haven’t learned to simply say “I don’t really know. There’s lots of varying opinions but nobody can say for sure.” It would make us look a bit more humble and our faith alot more alive.
2. There’s seems to be some things that the pastor is just making up or isn’t doing the research on. That bothers me because the Bible says teachers (pastors included) will face a harsher judgment than others for a reason. If we can’t even be honest about the truth…who can?
3. You and one other stayed to help clean up…and you were probably the only non-christian there. And people wonder why Christians are seen as hypocritical…
Looking forward to the next blog!
Comment by: Don Rousu
2I had varying reactions. The first one was amazement. I recognize that Lutheran church and I know that school behind it, down the hill! I took the bus to that school more than 50 years ago when it first began. The next reaction I experienced was embarrassment, maybe for that pastor, maybe for the Missouri Synod Lutherans, maybe for Christians generally. When we believers advertise such a course, we shouldn’t imply that we’re into dialogue and a mutual quest for the truth. Because we’re not. We’re really not. When we’re persuaded we already know the truth, we seek to tell others the truth, if they have a mind to listen. It’s like the Poseidon — when the ship in going down, you don’t want to have a debate about the effects of breathing water, you just want to escape drowning and help as many others as you can. The third reaction I had was a bit of irritation, having been in that pastor’s position myself. It’s pretty easy to make just about anyone look like an ass, and you did a good job! And finally, I just felt enormously curious as to why you would attend that class. Were you seriously open to changing your mind about your many highly-educated views? Having said that, I myself would have had a very hard time as a student in that class, and would have wanted to debate many of those narrow and simplistic assertions myself. Did I mention I myself once pastored in the Lutheran Church? Still a pastor, now in another stream, I have since slipped into a more generous orthodoxy and haven’t been able to extricate myself.
Comment by: ken
3Thanks for this reflection. I’m a pastor in another tradition but grew up with the same kind of insecure approach to ‘faith’ and resonated with a lot of what you said. I can’t count how many times my questions in Bible college were received as heresy or lack of faith when I was sure they were intended as faith explorations. Oh well, for all of the fearful apologetes out there all I can say, in the mis-quoted Shakespeare words is, “Me thinks thou doth protest too loudly. Grace is truly about not having it all together and understanding that that’s okay because its not about me having it all together, but about God who continues to prove to be faithful.
Comment by: Lanie Evans
4Greetings!
Thanks for attending the class and allowing us to attend from afar. Your post is well-presented–pretty objective summary. By the way, those of us who often listen to Christian apologetics and teaching are thankful to have someone writing to us that has some higher order reasoning skills. You caught some nuances and explicit contradictions that many would simply hear and accept without question. Good luck getting through the other 14 sessions without blowing a gasket. You could really unnerve this guy by making some flyers and advertising an after-meeting ‘discussion group’ at a nearby coffee shop next week–lol.
Direct comments to your post:
1) I do hope he sees the rest of the Old Testament as useful in addition to the prophecies concerning Christ, because there are some great narratives there that have been useful in instructing myself and my children along the way;
2) The comment regarding the Kingdom of God ‘becoming reality’ someday or at some point in the future is telling; Jesus said, ‘Behold, the Kingdom of God is at hand’–meaning it is here (right now); I would suggest reading Brian McLaren’s work, ‘The Secret Message of Jesus’ for more on this topic; however, one question I always have for folks with this view: ‘If the Kingdom is not for the here and now, then why is it that people such as Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Mother Theresa are so well known without a press agent?’ Aparently, they did something right…;
3) Your canon statements are correct; the Apostles had no ‘natural’ way of knowing, much less approving the canon; as a matter of fact, I find it hard to believe they thought their words would be read in the context of a canon 2000 years later; they were writing letters to the people they loved most in hopes they would be used to encourage, correct, and bolster the faith in their day; I would note, however, the fact that we use them today is just one more proof of the timeless message of God through people that are obedient to encourage others…
4) He is correct regarding the warning about taking Scripture out of context (thanks for reminding many other pastors in this post about that habit); the Word of God should be used in context and not removed from it; as stated previously, the majority of the New Testament is composed of letters written to fellow Christians struggling in a New Life; these words of love and hope should be left to their full meaning;
5) Since ‘God does not speak to us today’, I wonder what the purpose is for the Holy Spirit? It seems as though the pastor in question has given God a demotion–I wonder if he sent him a memo…; one of the primary roles of the Spirit of the Living God is to speak to us today, as well as through His word, other believers, and yes, even experience in this life;
In closing, the 2 errors you point out (canon question and God’s limited speaking capacity) are alarming to me as a pastor. Perhaps you were not listening carefully, misunderstood what he said, are relying on faulty notes, or maybe too much time passed between when you witnessed this event and when you wrote it down–I don’t know. However, the nature of the rest of your narrative tells me that you are giving us an honest, reliable, and objective testimony. That said, I am willing to place faith in your words (by the way, you are asking us to do the same for you that you are unwilling to do for people martyred in the first, second, and third centuries who wrote and canonized the Bible–talk about irony).
Anyway, these 2 areas of oversight/error are alarming. Consider that this a class which new members attend–this means that error is creeping into the Body in a predictable fashion and will mold the teaching ministry of this group of believers. Will you be able to believe anything this pastor says now that you have found these errors? Additionally, if these types of error are here, then what is heard from the pulpit on Sunday morning?
One last thought–apparently, the choice of this class was random (mention of the ‘mail piece’). If this is a random choice, then I wonder how many other ‘new member’ classes are being presented each week across Christendom containing similar errors in teaching?
Thanks for reading my rambling thoughts and we appreciate the grace you are extending to one of His/ours, as well as being a tool of God (maybe even His voice) to us through your writings.
Comment by: Markus Watson
5Very cool article, Eliza! Thanks for you candor!
Comment by: Ted
6Thanks for taking the class! I enjoy your thoughts and ideas. I would love to be in the clas with you (or at a coffeshop sometime) discussing these things. I am a youth pastor and love to hear what young people have to say that have never been in church before. Their perspective is fresh and revealing. Keep up the fantastic job! I would love to swap e-mails if they letcha.
Comment by: jim
7Eliza, I like this idea
Comment by: Eliza
8I was away for a few days on business & didn’t have internet access (imagine that, in 2006!). I appreciate everyone’s comments and interest! Responses follow.
Don Rousu, how neat that you know the church and school from 50 years ago! And, that you’ve been a Lutheran pastor. Your points are well-taken, & I’ll try to respond to some of them.
You’re right, I am not someone who would normally attend a course like this. If you are interested in reading how I heard about it, & the thinking that went (or, seemed to go) into deciding whether or not to attend, check out this discussion from last month: An atheist in religious education class?”
The link above describes the brochure that this church mass-mailed out (I live ~100 blocks away & have gotten the brochure twice in a year). The brochure seems to stress that this course is for anyone with questions, and that questions will/would be welcomed. I will probably suggest to the pastor that the brochure could use rewording to describe the intent and content of the course more accurately, but it may be that they find enrollment is low enough that any “draw” helps. But stressing the “sinking ship” aspect, and the purpose of the course to introduce/reinforce Lutheran beliefs around salvation from it, would be a more accurate reflection of their goals. (The problem then being that people like me who don’t believe there’s a ship in the first place are not going to “bite”.)
That’s not my intent, and I don’t feel good about conveying that picture. I think I conveyed the class pretty accurately…from my point of view. I have no doubt that anyone else in that room would have written it up differently (most of them commenting here and there about the annoying woman in the 3rd row who kept asking questions!) Looking back, I did use “growled” and “railed” to describe the pastor’s response to my “gnostic influence” faux pas, but…he really did react vigorously and emotionally. He knew coming into the class that I’m an atheist (we’d spoken by phone when I signed up); I don’t know if that might have influenced his tone or responses.
The second class went more smoothly, at least from my point of view - I asked fewer questions during class, annoyed him less during class (that’s my interpretation and guess, of course), and had a nice talk with him after class, during which we settled nothing but he kindly discussed a number of my questions and comments. (The write-up of that second class will be posted on 10/12 AM).
Hmmm, do those excessive years of education show that much? ;-) After about a year of reading everything I could get my hands on (the Bible, tons of apologists’ literature, then finally the dessert - for me - of skeptics’ literature) and reading about (& discussing) the nature of belief and faith here, I’m pretty sure it would take an intense, personal, spiritual experience to change my mind. But, hey, you never know, right? I’m open to hearing convincing evidence, the main problem being that a strong skeptic’s definition of “convincing evidence” is pretty hard to meet (especially outside the natural world).
Comment by: Helen
9Eliza has just posted a write-up of Class #2 here:
Class #2: God and creation
Comment by: Eliza
10Lanie, Ted, and Jim - there’s a Starbucks right across the street from the church - meetcha there? ;-)
While it might be interesting to talk afterwards, I suspect that most of the students in this particular class wouldn’t want to chat with me after class. In fact, the students in this class are pretty quiet, and they tend to leave quietly at the end, without much discussion (as far as I can tell - maybe they meet for coffee afterwards without telling me!).
Can anyone tell me, is this quietness during and after class pretty typical for a weekday evening adult RE class (7-9PM)?
Comment by: Eliza
11Lanie Evans, thanks for your comments! Sorry my response took a few days. (BTW, your church looks neat - I followed your link to its website.)
I read a bunch of apologist literature 8-12 months ago but had to give it up, just couldn’t take it any more. (Luckily, that was before any gaskets blew!)
So far, he hasn’t brought up any narratives, tales, or parables from OT or NT - only single lines of scripture to illustrate (support) his theses. I can’t tell if that means he thinks the narratives aren’t important, or just aren’t as important.
Thanks for suggesting this book - it looks interesting. (Like so many of Brian McLaren’s books! I’ve only read A Generous Orthodoxy so far, but will explore his books more.) It sounds like a difference between future and present Kingdom of God is one huge difference between churches.
But: how much context is the right amount? If the Word should be read in context, couldn’t that lead someone like me to say that the OT writings were intended for Israelites from 400-2500 BC, and the NT writings were intended for early Christians in the first century? Which could lead me to conclude that we now have no “in context” writings/teachings for our time? Or has that line of thinking led me straight off the end of a pier?
I’m not sure how he phrased his comments about the Holy Spirit - it was 2+ weeks ago & what he said probably made more sense to Christians listening than it did to me. He did say the H.S. was around & that people could feel the H.S. (not sure how he said this). His emphasis was that there were no new teachings or instructions or even explicit guidance in daily matters (he gave an example of someone praying to decide whether or not to buy a new car - he said, God doesn’t care about that).
Canon question, I agree - that seems factual. God’s limited speaking capacity - is that something that can be shown to be an error? He didn’t say God wasn’t capable of it, just that He doesn’t do it - that He doesn’t have any reason to, has already said all He wanted to say. I’d imagine that view would strike many people as…cold? Lonely? and incorrect, but imo it’s not incompatible at all with his belief system. Then, question becomes, on what basis do people believe otherwise? (Because many certainly do!)
Thank you…all I can say is, you are getting my impressions of what went on, which does include my naivety about Christianity (& this type of Christianity), and also my lack of belief in a deity, and my science/medicine background. Within those limitations, I am trying to relay the class as faithfully as I can. (I’m taking notes & writing down quotes during class, to keep track.)
I have realized that I am not conveying his use of humor - often self-deprecating, but sometimes about a view of God/Jesus/etc - in part because it doesn’t fit to say “then he made a joke about his thinning hair, & how he’ll have a full head of hair in the Kingdom of God” and in part because I can’t tell, when his jokes are about Jesus/God, how much truth he sees in them - as when he said the 3 members of the trinity kept each other company, so God was never lonely. Not clear to me whether or not, or how much, he meant that as “correct” vs. “funny idea”.
Sorry, I don’t understand…I am just reporting on my experience of this class, not trying (not on purpose at least!) to convey any teachings, or correct any behavior, or spread any religion. I’m not trying to give an account of someone who is breaking every mold and doing incredible things and changing our paradigm. I’m not making any claim to revelation, that’s for sure! So, you can take it or leave it, and I won’t come across the Mediterranean Sea to see whether or not you’re doing as I say!
Good questions. From first week to second week, there were more members in attendance. Only the woman who asked about Psalm 118 and about New vs. Old World seems to be questioning him. So maybe his message is similar from the pulpit, and/or mmaybe the model in this church is that you don’t ask questions.
Thank you, Laurie, and all of you reading here, for your comments and observations on my class experience, and on your own observations and experiences (including, for some, as a pastor).