Posted by Eliza on: 01.25.2007 /
I’d missed two class sessions (ended up having to work late), but made it to this session last week. Here are some thoughts:
1. Sorry, but these classes are getting boring
It’s clear that I am not the intended audience for this class; at this point, it’s directed toward church members and potential church members. It’s become pretty boring, since I don’t share belief in the foundation that’s been laid down. (But I took notes and wrote up my thoughts below anyway. For what it’s worth!)
I confess that I brought a book, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, and read a chapter during class, while keeping half an ear on what the pastor was saying. (This is probably a sin.) It turns out, I found a parallel between the class topic and the book (see #8 below) - & it was only a little bit of a stretch!
2. A “first”!
I got to experience the disapproval of a church lady at the start of this class!! My first time ever!
An older woman (whom I don’t recall ever seeing before) was checking people in for class, at a table in the doorway. I gave my name, she found me on the roster, & then she pointed out that I had missed “a number of classes” and asked (I don’t remember how, exactly, but it sounded disapproving) whether I had a good reason. I gave her a mournful look and told her “I had to work” (which was true; I’d gotten stuck at the hospital until after 8pm the last 2 times, though it also sounded like a good excuse). She seemed to accept this, though maybe a bit grudgingly, and let me in. I walked into the classroom a little stunned by having had to justify my absences to someone I’d never seen before, but also pleased that I’d run the gauntlet and had been allowed in.
Shortly after this, the pastor opened class by mentioning that only 6 people had made it to class last week (there was snow and ice on the roads). In that light, the lady’s comments on my attendance struck me as especially over-thorough. The whole doorway attendance review seemed uncalled-for, too, because I’d told the pastor early in the class series that I might have to miss a few sessions for work-related events & asked whether I should call ahead to let anyone know, and he’d said no, it wasn’t a problem. Also, there had been several church members who joined the class after the 2nd session. (At the end of this class I glanced at the attendance roster on my way out — several people on the first page had missed a few classes, & I was startled to see comments written in for each one: “traveling” or “sick” or “excused”. I guess the problem was that I hadn’t been “excused” via the proper channels.
I’m not used to having my attendance reviewed and commented on, in a course I’m taking out of interest. But maybe there are certain expectations for church members who take this course, or people who are interested in becoming members after the class. I can understand that the church members as a group might value having other members and potential members get through the entire class series, not just hit a few classes here and there.
3. Prayers in class (should I pretend to join in)?
The pastor opens and closes each class with a prayer. I don’t bow my head, and I keep doing whatever I was doing (but make sure I’m being quiet). For example, if some of us are at the back of the room getting tea or coffee when he starts the opening prayer, the other students stop what they are doing, turn to face the pastor, and bow their heads. I keep making my tea, but try to do it quietly. At the end, I quietly keep putting my things together to go. (I wouldn’t walk across the room during the prayer - that would seem too disrupting.) What do you think I should do during class prayer? Should I do as the Romans do, so to speak, even though I don’t pray?
4. The review session was on the Lord’s Supper, which I (and most of the others) had missed.
The text and the pastor said that someone who takes communion without repentance and faith could be physically harmed by it — the pastor said a person could get sick and die. He had previously stressed that the church does not have people take communion unless they have been “properly instructed in the Christian faith.” In the review, it was stressed that Lutherans believe the bread and wine are (a) the body and blood of Christ, and also (b) bread and wine. The pastor and the text said that Catholics believe the bread and wine are actually body and blood (transubstantiation), and the pastor said that Protestant churches tend to see them as just bread and wine.
I would not have had any interest in taking communion, but the statement about physical consequences begs the skeptic to put it to a test. Here’s an experiment: send non-believers to take communion (over several weeks or months), & compare their health from that point forward to that of non-believers who don’t take communion, and/or to that of believers who do take communion. (My hypothesis would be that the groups all fare the same.)
5. Main class topic: The Church.
I’m not Christian, and I’ve never been a member of this or any other Christian church, so my comments are really those of an outsider to the whole process. (Most of the other people in the room seem to be established members of this church at this point, though it was ~9 wks ago that the check-in desk stopped providing preprinted nametags that indicated whether or not the person was a church member.)
The text starts out by saying: “The Bible speaks frequently, and in glowing terms, of the church. Kingdom of God, Bride of Christ, New Jerusalem — these are some of the names given to the church. What is the church?” The pastor and text then cited scripture, about people being the church, and the body of Christ. He said that the church is the people, not the building. I’d learned all of that already, in part from what people have written here in discussions. (Thanks!) The pastor did go on to describe it a little differently than I’ve heard this before, saying “the body of Christ” means “people are mystically, spiritually united with Christ, and become one body.”
There were no citations, in the text or from the pastor, supporting the “frequent” and “glowing” terms given above. I have heard “Bride of Christ” means the church, but hadn’t heard/read before the term “New Jerusalem”. Knowing how often “Kingdom of God” occurs in the gospels, it struck me as quite…optimistic to say that those references were actually about the Church. After class, I looked up these terms.
“Kingdom of God” appears many times in the gospels (most often mentioned by Jesus; most numerous mentions in Luke). It appears in Acts, and in the Pauline epistles, and in Rev 12:10. Looking back over the use of this term, I can see how its use in Acts could be read as describing the Church - but in the other places it’s used, it seems clear that it doesn’t. The Kingdom of God is something that will come (in the near future), will be entered (by some), will be inherited (by some), and is worth suffering for.
“New Jerusalem” seems to occur only in Revelation, twice. It seems to me to refer to a city: Rev. 3:12 (NIV) reads “the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven…” and Rev. 21:1-2 (NIV) reads “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.” (I don’t see how this is referring to the Christian Church on earth. Am I missing something?)
“Bride of Christ” doesn’t appear as such (in NIV anyway), but bridegrooms, brides, and weddings are mentioned various places in the NT; that’s fine, I understand the connection. There are parables about a bridegroom in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There is the “wedding of the Lamb” mentioned in Rev. 19:7 and 19:9, but then the “wife of the Lamb” in Rev. 21:9 doesn’t sound like the Church: Rev. 21:9-12 “One of the seven angels…said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. … It had a great, high wall with twelve gates…” I’m still reading this as a city, not an earthly Church; it just doesn’t seem to me to be a metaphor for the Church, but I’m open to assistance in seeing any metaphor here that I’m clearly blind to.
I did a search and found some discussion online about the Bride of Christ and the Bridegroom, and Jewish marriage ceremonies (to put it in context from the time it was written). Actually, all that did was confuse me, because I started trying to figure out how the Church could be both the “body of Christ” and the “Bride of Christ”. It made for a weird mental image.
6. Judging Christians
In an aside from the text, the pastor spent a while warning about “the Lone Ranger Christian”, a person who says he believes in Jesus, but doesn’t belong to a church, says/thinks “I don’t need church, I just need Jesus.” He said this kind of person is “the biggest hypocrite”, and called this type of thinking HERESY. He said that a relationship with Jesus means a relationship with everyone who believes in Jesus. Then he said, regarding a ‘Lone Ranger Christian’, “that’s not right, it’s not healthy. That’s completely against what Jesus says.” (I thought about asking which particular comment by Jesus speaks against believing in Jesus/God without belonging to a Church, but I chickened out. Maybe I’ll ask at the review session at the next class…?) This is clearly an area of discussion that pushed buttons for this pastor.
He talked about “people who PRETEND to be Christian.” He said that you can’t be 100% sure someone is Christian just because he says he is, gave pedophile priests as an example (he says that they say they are Christian, but they are not). He said that God knows who is really Christian, gave some citations from scripture, and said that “we” (well, not me) will find out on the Judgment Day. “There will be some surprises,” he said (for example, you might see a relative you hadn’t expected would go to heaven, & you’d realize that relative must have accepted Jesus on his deathbed).
7. Pastors
The pastor (and text) spend quite a while talking about pastors (their responsibilities, their roles, etc). It went on for a while; I’m only reporting on a small portion of it here. He (and the text) talked about how a pastor could DESTROY a church through false teaching (gave the example, if the pastor doesn’t believe in original sin then he won’t baptize infants, which this Church sees as crucial).
Women as pastors came up; the pastor said the first one was in ~1970, and “usually if something’s new it’s (blew out air indicating “ridiculous”).” I didn’t ask him about the women that Paul mentions as his colleagues, whose names I’ve now had a chance to look up: Junia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Euodia, and Syntyche. Since this class I’ve also looked into ordination of women before the 1970’s - not that it was common earlier, but Antoinette Blackwell was actually the first woman formally ordained as a minister in the United States, in 1852, in a Congregational Church.
There were several brochures given out at this class. The brochure called “What About the Ordination of Women to the Pastoral Office?” says:
… God has given His church many gifts. Among them is the gift of the office of the public, pastoral ministry. We receive what God gives, in the way He has given it, and in the form He has given it. We do not tell God that His gift is not good enough for us, or that we don’t like the form in which He has given the gift….The church which wishes to remain faithful to the Word of God cannot permit the ordination of women to the pastoral office.
… Why didn’t Jesus call a woman to serve as an apostle? Why, through the Apostle Paul, does He prohibit women from serving as pastors in the church? We must leave the answers to those questions to God.
It is sprinkled with examples of how to express disapproval using love (or, pseudo-love), like: “We have an opportunity to speak the truth in love.”
8. Different denominations within Christianity
The handouts included 8 pages from the LCMS (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) website (from 2001), each summarizing the differences between LCMS and another denomination. The closest match (fewest differences) seems to be with the Southern Baptists. The greatest difference (of the denominations listed) is with United Church of Christ (UCC is, as you might guess, Not Doing It Right in the eyes of whoever wrote up the comparison sheet). The shortest writeup was the comparison with Pentecostal churches (the writeup seemed to shudder at the idea of a church being spirit-filled). The longest comparisons were the ones with the other Lutherans - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (from the LCMS website), and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or ELCA (a brochure), who have clearly gone over to the dark side (joke). The brochure by LCMS on ECLA is another masterpiece example of expressing disapproval using loving terms, & expressing one’s own position as God’s Certain Truth. (Don’t they ever feel uncertain about what God expects? They don’t sound like it ever crosses their minds.)
The pastor also talked about different denominations. He said there is one Christian family, and he sees the existence of multiple denominations as “offensive to God.” (He said that several times.) He said the reason for the different denominations is differences in teaching, and that when there’s a difference then either both are wrong, or one is right and one is wrong.
Now, an aside for my comments: His assessment could be true if there is an objective single truth, which he undoubtedly believes that there is - but it’s also possible that (a) each has a different, complementary piece of the truth & they’re both right - or it’s possible that (b) the issue they’re so worked up about is phrased wrong or is moot, in which case whether they’re wrong or right is a meaningless question. This is where the book I brought, The Elegant Universe, struck me as pertinent. It’s written for non-physicists, explains how general relativity and quantum mechanics have both been confirmed repeatedly by experiments…yet they contradict each other (in some realms) & cannot both be right. It’s not that there wasn’t any disagreement about “who’s right” (Einstein had a hard time accepting quantum mechanics - his quote “God does not play dice with the universe” was about q.m.) - but now, only a few decades after each theory was described and tested, reconciling the two theories - or figuring out a broader, more general theory that can encompass features of both - is the question of modern physics. The difference between this and trying to reconcile the disagreements between denominations, imo, comes down to (1) whether new information can be gathered and included in the discussion - and old information re-interpreted (yes for physics, no for the LCMS & many other churches), and (2) whether it feels threatening to challenge the current paradigm (yes for LCMS & many other churches, no for physics - it’s actually exciting to do so).
Back to the pastor’s discussion of different denominations: he (and his church) believe that there are some true Christians in other churches besides LCMS, and that we’ll find out at the Judgment Day who those people were. (Well, I won’t. But all the true Christians, most of whom are apparently Lutheran, will.)
He compared the different denominations of Christianity to a big family in which the siblings all have different political beliefs they don’t agree on, but they’re still family.
He talked about an annual meeting at which theologians from the major denominations get together and compare notes; he talked about it as if the whole point was to try to convince the others of the correctness of Lutheran beliefs, and to see who is moving closer to God’s truth. He said “that doesn’t mean that this church is holier than thou, because we have our own problems in this church.”
He spoke with concern about how the Episcopalian church is moving farther from Scripture, and what a dilemma their members are in, trying to decide whether to break away, join other churches, or stay and try to correct the problem. (I believe him; for people who share beliefs like his, I’m sure it would be wrenching to feel your church was straying - even sinning - by ordaining gays and women.)
He spoke of the Seventh Day Adventists starting to move away from their legalistic, Old Testament approach. He said that Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t Christians (and don’t want to be) nor are Mormons or Christian Scientists. (It seemed to me that these groups might object to this characterization, to being kicked out of Christianity by this church, this pastor.)
9. The skeptics’ view
There’s something about this situation that raises the reading on my skept-o-meter: Sitting in a church, at a class sponsored by the church and taught by a pastor of the church, being told/taught how important it is to belong to the church and how wrong it would be to listen to the teachings of a different church, and how wrong it would be to think someone can believe in Jesus without being involved in the church, and how important it is to give time and money to the church when you’re a member. …..Hmm, I can’t quite put my finger on what it is ;-) but this class session wins the award for “Best Topic to Set off a Skeptic” for the class series (so far). (Of course, the church does need support, and does want & need to teach its beliefs. But this is a little overboard, imo.)
There are only 2-3 more class sessions to go…I’ll report on Class #13, Prayer, next week.
Comment by: Helen
1 01/25/07 4:36 AM | Comment Link |Thanks, Eliza. I’m not surprised the classes are getting boring - I thought they would, eventually. How much fun can it be, hearing and reading so much you disagree with but having very limited opportunities to express your disagreement? It’s hard to stay engaged, I think, in that situation.
You could quit - it’s not like you have to complete this course. On the other hand I’m selfishly hoping you can make it through at least one more class because I’d love to read your thoughts on the ‘prayer’ class!
Wow, so someone checked attendance this time. The way she did it does seem a bit much. I mean, it’s one thing to respectfully ask if you’ve been having trouble getting to class? But to demand a reason - where did the church get the idea they had any right to do that???
Prayer in class - I generally stop what I’m doing when other people are praying, because even quietly rearranging paper might be audible and distracting when everyone else is being almost silent. I don’t think you need to bow your head - why? They aren’t looking anyway. And even if they were, you’re an atheist so why would you pray? The last thing you want to do is mislead them into thinking “Wow, she’s praying - maybe she’s changing her mind about being an atheist!” ;-)
LOL - yeah, it does rather cry out to be tested, doesn’t it? ;-)
Yes, it would :-). I think those metaphors are supposed to be contemplated one at a time, not both together!
The author of 2 Corinthians alludes to the bride of Christ metaphor here: I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. (2 Cor 11:2) The metaphor here is that anything short of full devotion to God is adultery. This is used A LOT in the Old Testament of Israel’s relationship with God. So perhaps the metaphor begins there, where worshipping other gods (or caring more about other things than God) is called adultery. That only makes sense if the metaphor is husband and wife - or at least, betrothed partners (since what I’ve heard is that in Jewish culture, unfaithfulness during a betrothal period is considered adultery).
I hadn’t noticed that the New Jerusalem is called the Bride in Revelation - good point: how is that ‘the church’?
Lone rangers - there are various verses in the Bible about how people are helpful to each other. Even back in Genesis God says “it’s not good for man to be alone” and that’s his reason for making Eve. In Hebrews it says don’t forsake assembling together. Now - none of these verses specify that sitting in a Lutheran church service is the solution. (That requires careful interpretation ;-))
Maybe some astute blog reader can help you out with this one ;-)
They probably just turn it around and say this church is the group which is NOT Christian.
The pastor is using straightforward ‘rules’ to say who is in and out. The JWs are out because they say Jesus is not God. Jesus being God has been a core doctrine of the church at least since the council of Nicea where they came up with a creed saying “Jesus is God” multiple times (God of God, very God of very God etc etc) to make absolutely sure no-one was in any doubt about Jesus being God.
The other groups he named likewise fail to pass his rules for ‘what essential beliefs are necessary to be considered Christian’.
One could possibly deconstruct what Christians teach about history and the church and question a) were things as unified and clear-cut as conservative Christians claim when they talk about the history of Christianity b) how do we know that the group who managed to take control of the church was right and everyone else was wrong? Realizing such things was part of own my move away from conservative Christianity.
I get the impression that on those personality tests the teacher of this class would come out ‘extremely analytical’. In my experience, conservative Christianity tends to attract people with this personality who then try to make it more analytical than ever. I’m glad I’m not one of those people…life would be soooo boring.
So does this teacher get excited about anything? (In a positive way, rather than - “when people sin this way it really gets under my skin”) What really floats his boat? Has anything in the class given you any indication of that?
When I’m in any situation like this where I’m listening to someone for an extended period of time/number of seessions, I inevitably get fascinated with the speaker/teacher and start wondering what I can figure out about them from what they say. The funny thing is that I got this idea from one of them, who was dismissing other authors on the basis that “Their book tells you more about them than the topic they’re writing about”. Wow, I thought - what if I apply that to the person who is speaking? I don’t expect that was what he intended at all ;-)
Comment by: ncxian
2 01/25/07 6:23 AM | Comment Link |Isn’t it interesting how sometimes two so diverse bits of information and ideas can seem to inform each other? Maybe it was “providential” that you were cheating by reading in class, Eliza!
I think your observation about being able to change one’s spiritual point of view by taking in new information is very interesting. I wonder if that is one way we can define “fundamentalist”–someone who is unwilling to take in new information or ideas but is stuck on (with? to?) a worldview that does not admit change–and consequently cannot be enriched or mature ? Is that a useful distinquishing characteristic of fundamentalism, do you think?
The old Southern Gospel song says “Give me that old-time religion . . . it’s good enough for me!” I guess I can understand the sentiment, and certainly agree that the traditions in a faith community are a huge jumpstart on a personal understanding of faith. But when you get right down to it, I can’t see why anyone would want to settle for just that?
By the way, Eliza, I don’t think I could have stuck with this class for as long as you have, but I appreciate the conversation fodder you have provided by your sacrifice. You are a martyr for the CaTE cause!
Comment by: Baptist Church Web Site Guru
3 01/25/07 6:58 AM | Comment Link |I think we can programmize things in our church so much to the point we forget the meaning. I’ve seen this happen over and over again. People and church staff can get caught up in making sure a program runs, that they forget the goal is to change people. At least to give God a chance to work through the program, whether a class, or VBS.
Where God is at work, it is never truly boring. God is exciting!
Comment by: Helen
4 01/25/07 7:32 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment, Baptist Church Web Site Guru. By the way, I just posted about your website on our Church Rater blog here:
Powerfulchurchwebsites.com
Comment by: Eliza
5 01/25/07 10:10 AM | Comment Link |That’s some of it - but also, the topics don’t have any meaning for me. Yet I have enough background to realize that the information presented here is not a balanced overview. So I can’t really get into position A being obviously superior to position B, when I’d learn more & be more interested in an overview of all the positions (& some history on how they developed).
In this class, I was struck with how everyone seemed to accept the comparisons between (& judgments of) denominations - but then, it’s pretty clear that the group has been winnowed down to those who accept the LCMS view. (And me.) I wondered what the reaction would be to widespread distribution of the handouts on other denominations, but maybe other churches, other Christians accept this sort of “we’re right” literature as part of modern Christianity (?).
I amused myself during this class wondering what the session would be like if there were 10-12 people from various other denominations in the back row. (Especially if they were pastors themselves!) Bet it would have spiced up the discussion quite a bit…
I wondered why the handouts from the LCMS website were dated 2001 - maybe he just hadn’t printed out a newer set, no reason to? But it turns out that those comparisons with other Christian denominations seem to have been removed from the LCMS website - the information at the website now seems to be more pro-Lutheranism with the anti-other-beliefs aspect toned way down. Today, the closest thing I find is this index of ‘religious movements’, with links to LCMS writeups. Topics look mostly like “easy targets” like Satanism, Scientology, Wicca, and Yoga. There are writeups on LDS, UU, JW, but not most mainstream Christian denominations. Vineyard Ministries and Pentecostal churches do have writeups (with “oneness Pentecostalism” being called a modern form of ancient Christological heresy). The absence, compared with 2001, of writeups on other Christian denominations suggests that maybe LCMS received some strongly- worded feedback from other churches - and decided to remove them. (A guess…)
Comment by: Eliza
6 01/25/07 10:43 AM | Comment Link |Wow, in looking over the LCMS writeups of “Religious Organizations and Movements” it’s striking that the content and tone are quite different from the 2001 writeups handed out in class. Most of the content of each writeup is a history of that movement, & the commentary is called “A Lutheran Response” (not The L.R.), which seems to allow that there might be other legitimate Lutheran responses. Each ends with a resource list “For Further Reading”, some of which are from Lutheran publishing houses, but some of which look like they might even present a balanced view. Each has links to websites, sometimes (for the more “legitimate” movements) to the website of the organization being discussed. All in all, the LCMS website now seems to take a more respectful & informational approach to airing disagreements w/ other groups. The writeups are dated; the earliest is February 2005. (I might ask at class tonight, about the change in writeups & why comparisons w/ other Christian denominations are no longer found at the LCMS website…anyone have thoughts about that as a question for this class/pastor?)
The LCMS writeup on UUA (Unitarian-Universalist Association) brings up a longstanding issue on tolerance:
Well, that skews the UUA approach & imo misleads the reader into thinking UUs tolerate everything except Christianity. But it is a thorny question - how do (and: should) people who value tolerance, tolerate people who express intolerance? It’s a pretzel of a problem, all twists and turns!
Comment by: Helen
7 01/25/07 11:39 AM | Comment Link |Eliza wrote:
Maybe you could start with “I was looking on the LCMS website and I noticed they’ve changed the section where these came from. Had you seen that?” You can see how he responds and go from there.
Comment by: Karen
8 01/25/07 2:49 PM | Comment Link |Eliza, thanks for your report! I continue to be quite amazed at how dogmatic and narrow the beliefs of this class are. It’s just not at all what I expected from Lutherans! I also hope you stick around for the prayer class, but I certainly understand that you can easily find more enjoyable ways to pass a weeknight evening.
In terms of what to do when believers are praying. I don’t bow my head or close my eyes anymore obviously, but I do remain still and silent, just out of respect and a desire not to distract those who are praying.
I was surprised, back when I was a church choir member, that the “up front people” at churches - like the choir, pastors, people who are giving prayers or bible readings - usually use the prayer time to get into place for the next segment of the service. So as soon as every head was bowed and every eye closed, we choir members would scurry noiselessly into a new formation, change our music, leave the loft, etc. A bit of behind-the-scenes info. ;-)
Comment by: Helen
9 01/25/07 3:01 PM | Comment Link |Karen - yes, that surprised me too, that ‘prayer time’ is often the time when people involved in the service get in place for the next part of it, rather than participating in the praying.
On the other hand, the people involved in music ministry always prayed together before the service. So overall maybe they prayed as much as everyone else…
Comment by: Siamang
10 01/25/07 5:58 PM | Comment Link |I’ve taken communion and I’m totally finn…ack ahhhhhh!!!! choke!!!! cough!!!!!! Hack!!!!
Okay, that’s where I’m afraid I’d stand up in class and say: Dare me!
I’ve taken communion. I take when I visit my mother’s church if it’s Communion Sunday, out of respect for her. It’s a welcoming church and they don’t have those rules about who can and can’t take communion. In that setting it is respectful to take communion and I do so.
Where in the BIBLE does it say that people who aren’t christians will die or get sick from taking communion? I’m guessing nowhere.
This is sheer fantasy on his part.
God does not poison people with Communion wafers.
I’m sorry, but that’s just a sick belief. That’s a “we’re so right and you’re so wrong that you’ll die from being so unworthy to even eat of our bread.”
Wow, that’s better than the Blasphemy Challenge!
I hereby pledge that I’ll take communion IF, (and only if) people will quit this bizarre and restrictive sect if I survive.
Hey, I’m willing to bet my life AND soul that I’m right. The least they could do is wager their attendence at a provably wrong, narrow-minded sect.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
11 01/25/07 8:06 PM | Comment Link |Eliza- keep your skep to meter well oiled. You are reading this guy correctly. Thanks for the direct feedback. It is priceless but I am going to try and find someone who will pay you for it
Comment by: Helen
12 01/25/07 8:32 PM | Comment Link |Siamang, I can tell you the passage where that belief comes from:
Look at the part in bold - ‘fallen asleep’ is a euphemism for ‘died’ and ‘without recognizing the body and blood of the Lord’ is considered by some to be a reference to people who aren’t Christians.
Comment by: Eliza
13 01/26/07 1:01 AM | Comment Link |Siamang - I’ve remembered that I took communion a few times when I was a kid (going to church with a friend, or attending a wedding, etc). I don’t remember hearing, before adulthood, any admonition not to do so. (May just depend on the denomination, whether they’re concerned about actual risk?) I was going to say I was fine, but actually I have had medical issues for years, better since 2003, so while I don’t attribute those problems to having mistakenly taken communion, my particular case is not a good counter-example to the pastor’s warning. (Glad to hear you’re well. Or were, until that bolt of lightning…)
Helen - Thank you for providing that quote. I must have missed that by missing the Lord’s Supper class (& not studying my text on the topic, either - tsk!). I guess, then, it doesn’t count as a side effect of taking communion if Siamang literally falls asleep?!
Jim - thanks for your comments. I actually think this pastor does firmly believe what he is teaching, & that includes the role of pastors & the church in making sure that none of the flock strays. I don’t feel so skeptical about what he’s promoting, per se - it seems like my beef is with his denomination’s leadership, & the approach they encourage. This pastor is using materials from LCMS in this course, & clearly agrees with most of it - there are a few places where he has commented on how he’d present something differently than the text does, but they’re small issues really. (Like which translation he’d use for some citations from scripture.) But he’s not making it up as he goes along - he’s following the party line.
As for being paid - well, thanks, but I’m doing this out of interest. (The mind kind, not the bank kind!) It would be nice to hire an assistant, though, to catch up on my work for me so I can spend more time online at the OTM sites… ;-)
Comment by: ncxian
14 01/26/07 5:26 AM | Comment Link |This is the call to communion that is used in my church, and I believe in many other churches. This comes from Wikipedia, the Book of Common Prayer page, which is the Episcopal book of prayers and services.
These are sort of the main criteria for being a Christian, but I don’t suppose you would necessarily have to be one to be invited by this phrase.
I have never heard that it would make you sick to take communion if you weren’t a Christian. I think if someone were to take communion who openly objects to Christianity, or God or Jesus, or something, they would be considered by the community to be something of a “party crasher”, since communion is a celebration within a community.
Comment by: Doreen
15 01/26/07 5:53 AM | Comment Link |There’s so much here with which to take issue, it’s difficult to know where to start.
The attendance questioning, just ridiculous. That’s some way to treat a guest!
Truth be told, I don’t always pray when a communal prayer is going on. I just sit quietly. Sometimes I meditate, sometimes I just try to be present in the moment. Prayer on command (demand?) is difficult for me.
I think the pastor is wrong on this. What would be the point of communion if it was “just” bread and wine? Why would it be a sacrament if it “just” bread and wine?
The LCMS is so wrong about UUism. (They don’t even have the date of the merger correct.) It’s funny how so many equate a lack of creeds to “belive and accept anything and everything.”
Some forms of Lutherism started ordaining women in the 1970s. As you noted, ordinated of women in other denominations started long before then. Some women were ordained as early as the 1810s in the US, but denominations that no longer exist but would now be considered UCC.
The notion of “sickness by communion” really threw me for a loop!
re: you can’t be Christian if you don’t belong to a church; as far as I can tell, one should not “belong” to a church. One should “belong” to God. I see church as a verb more than a noun.
Thinking that Lutheranism is the “one, true” religion makes me think one would have to view Luther himself as a sort of God or son thereof, considering RC was there first….
BTW, I will be happy to “represent” anyone who wishes to be “represented” at the anti-war march tomorrow - I’ll be there.
poetcomic.blogspot.com
Comment by: Eliza
16 01/26/07 9:50 AM | Comment Link |Doreen wrote:
I figured his sweeping comment on this couldn’t be accurate, at least not in all cases. Though one could “do this in remembrance” without having to see the bread and wine literally. (Reminds me, there is at least one denomination that won’t allow substitutions for people allergic to wheat, whereas others do allow substitution of wheat-free wafers.)
I asked him about this after class last night (sort of - I asked why he & the text said the Bible emphasized the importance of church, when it was hard for me to see that in my reading). He pointed me toward Matthew 7:17 (a rare mention of ‘church’ in the gospels) & Matthew 7:20 (’for where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them’) as support for the interpretation that the group-church is important. (I’m not defending - I’m just saying! I like your view of ‘church’ as a verb.)
This was touched on early in the class series - Luther recognized that the church had gone astray, and was responsible for a ‘correction back’ to the true interpretation of Scripture. So, this pastor sees conservative Lutheranism as having been the true path all along, it’s just that it wasn’t reiterated until Luther, and it was named after Luther to distinguish it from the other branches that don’t have it right.
Comment by: Stephan
17 01/26/07 10:10 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, I now believe I officially regret encouraging you to attend these classes. The view of the church, scripture and Christianity as a whole is pretty skewed. I know you can see that, but it’s still unfortunate.
I have never been a member of a church that had “closed” communion - only available to members or visitors who had prior permission from the priest or pastor. The pastor of one church I attended went so far as to preface communion with this phrase - “This is not my table, this is God’s table, and He invites everyone who wants to to partake.” I thought it was a great way of letting visitors know they were welcome.
I prefer to view different denominations as a way to accommodate difference tastes rather than “who’s right and who’s wrong”. I believe we’re probably all partially right and all partially wrong. That’s part of being human.
Of course, I think I’m entirely right in saying that.
Comment by: benjamin ady
18 01/26/07 2:19 PM | Comment Link |Eliza,
couple things. I also don’t close my eyes etc. when people are praying. I find it a fascinating time to study other people without their knowledge. But sometimes I’ll briefly try some sort of mindfulness/meditation/centering technique while they are praying. I find I don’t get enough of that, and even 60 seconds of “I am here, and I am okay, and I am breathing, and I am relaxing” type stuff is really really helpful for me.
If you aren’t completely … done in by this (IMO rather unfortunate) class you’ve been doing, maybe (next year, perhaps =)), you might want to try out a more mainstream basic christianity class which is more geared toward openness, discussion, broadness, etc. I found the Alpha Course quite bearable, and I guess some 8 million people have done it. In fact, looks like there might be courses running at UW, and if not, I think Megan is tentatively planning to lead one of the tables at an alpha course on first hill starting … next month? You can search for courses near you here I found several within 5 miles.
The kewl thing about alpha, apart from it being discussion based, and it being a very open place for atheists and non-Christians in general, is that you get a generally quite yummy free meal every week. I got to know the people who sat at my table when I did it 2 years ago, and so the discussions could get increasingly interesting, if you know what I mean. That was wierd though, because I was in the beginnings of the process of unbecoming a christian, and it was a course that was sort of trying to show what a christian was with the hope that people *would* become christians. Still it worked fairly well for me, even though I sometimes got annoyed at the strange things the speaker was saying. I can’t believe I’m sitting here giving a plug for the alpha course. My lovely Megan would be surprised at me.
Comment by: Helen
19 01/26/07 2:38 PM | Comment Link |It’s interesting to hear that you had an ok experience with Alpha, Benjamin.
Someone invited me to a local Alpha course last year after they read what I wrote in the newspaper about quitting church. I didn’t want to go - for one thing it was at a time when I wanted to be with my family (Sunday evenings).
We had a discussion about Alpha on here before Eliza started this course (probably before you were reading CatE). In googling and Wikipedia-ing the topic at that time I found that there have been some quite negative things written about some of the courses in England being too emotionally manipulative. (Or maybe someone else posted the links - I can’t remember).
Those were written a while ago so maybe things have changed.
Anyway I know that the President of Alpha USA, Todd Hunter, is a board member of Off The Map so he must be an ok guy :)
Comment by: Elisabeth
20 01/26/07 4:09 PM | Comment Link |Hmmm, I was born and raised Missouri Synod Lutheran and the pastor’s comment about the Lone Ranger Christian totally triggered my skept-o-meter! My dad was a pastor in the church and I have been skeptical about “Lutheran beliefs” since I was a little girl old enough to reason. He has always listened to my complaints even when I said that I was just going to start up my own church (he didn’t see a problem with that)… He never once told me that I was going to “go to hell” if I didn’t believe what the Lutherans believed. But now that I think about it, maybe he is differant that the usual Lutheran…because I remember my main complaint was that they were going to be REALLY surprised when they got up to heaven and more than just Lutherans were there.
Eliza, I haven’t commented before but I have been reading all your class summarys. It brings back lots of memories for me. I no longer consider myself Lutheran and can’t ever see myself going back but all in all I still think that most of what they say is right…I just like to pick and choose, and most Lutherans would be shocked at that concept I think. They really are a difficult group. The lady at the table that checked you in sums a lot of them up…truthfully though, they have a good heart and don’t mean anything by it. They just tend to be uptight.
Comment by: Julie Marie
21 01/26/07 11:15 PM | Comment Link |Wow, Eliza, it seems as though you have been attending these classes forever! I am surprised you are still hanging in there, and a bit awed by your self control. I suspect I would have gotten a bit prickly during my grilling by the truant officer.
I haven’t heard that you’ll get sick from taking communion inappropriately, either…although I do remember my mothers reluctance to partake after her return to church because she was taught you had to go through a very thourough confession prior to that…and having been out of the church for over 30 years she just wasn’t up to that ;). She was quite relieved to hear about the practice of generalized group absolution.
Comment by: Eliza
22 01/27/07 12:53 PM | Comment Link |Elisabeth, thanks for your comments, & your insights as someone who grew up LCMS Lutheran. Do you think your father would have agreed with the points this pastor has stressed through these classes? If you don’t mind my asking, which parts have you kept and which have you chosen not to follow?
Julie, I did prickle, but kept the prickle inside, & ended up finding it kind of funny, viewing it as though I’d just lost my church-lady-disapproval-virginity. ;) This week the vicar (the intern from seminary) was doing check-in, & he was very nice, greeted me by name, discreetly checked my attendance off on the list, & knew without looking at the list that I’d been there last week (when a lady standing next to him - the lady who provides childcare down the hall during class, different lady than checked me in last week - asked if I’d gotten the handouts from last week). Far more pleasant welcome to class, imo!
Comment by: Eliza
23 01/27/07 1:51 PM | Comment Link |Stephan, I do recognize that the teachings in this course do not represent the broad range of Christian beliefs & practices. I think that’s part of what I find annoying at times, and boring at other times, but also that I don’t feel comfortable bringing up as a question in class. I’m not quite sure why - maybe it seems more like a challenge to the pastor’s authority within his own church, & like questioning the church members’ judgment? (Seems kind of like asking, why are all you people here & not in another church?) I’m not sure.
At the review of class #12, the pastor gave a few statistics - there are ~2.5 million conservative Lutheran (LCMS & WELS) church members in the US, and ~5 million more liberal Lutheran (ECLA) church members. The US population is ~301 million. This page from Wikipedia reports studies showing that ~78% of US population (235 million) self-identify as Christian, though only 21% or 26% or 41% of people in the US (63 or 78 or 123 million people) attend church. 2.5 million Lutherans with beliefs similar to those presented in this class is 1.06% of the 235 million self-identified Christians in the US. IMO that small percentage should be a clue that maybe the interpretation of instructions from God in Scripture is not so obvious as LCMS seems to think it is.
I come back to this old question: how can so many people/groups read the same Bible & have fairly similar life experiences, and yet come to such different beliefs? Not just theist v. atheist but also such a wide range of beliefs within Christianity? Either only one small group sees/believes the one True interpretation, for some reason, or the actual instruction in the manual is more basic than most groups think & all the rest of what seems to be divine instruction is just icing on the cake (or, who knows, maybe even it’s “distractor” to see how the believers sort out - kind of a test - weird idea). BICBW.
Comment by: Eliza
24 01/27/07 1:55 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I’m glad you found Alpha (& the discussions there) interesting! It would be neat to be at Megan’s table for Alpha course (but First Hill is too far for a weekly evening class.)
A church I pass frequently offered an Alpha course starting last fall, soon after I started the Lutheran course, but I decided I couldn’t manage both at once (time-wise). The site you linked to shows 3 courses within 5 miles of me, but all started in January. Maybe I’ll look at that site again in a few weeks, for courses starting in the spring. (Glutton for punishment, eh?!) Or I might try the once-a-week evening discussion at my local UU church, “Mondays with the minister” - looks like they usually discuss spiritual aspects of selected poetry, books, or essays.
Comment by: Stephan
25 01/29/07 7:02 AM | Comment Link |Yeah, I think that about sums it up for me. It seems to be the general direction of religion to take something simple and try to make it more complex - to add rules or, at the very least, try to clarify and impose modern moral standards to the simple ideas given. I think this is natural, but often harmful.
For instance, my grandparents and their generation had all kinds of rules against drinking (some still do), card playing, billiards, dancing, etc., all because that might bring you in contact with people who could lead you astray. There is certainly nothing in any holy book about billiards or cards, but they were trying to clarify and modernize things, and ended up making them too restrictive.
Oddly enough, the pharisees in Jesus’ day did the same thing, and He condemned them for it. Maybe we should get a clue, huh?
Comment by: Elisabeth
26 01/29/07 8:34 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, you asked:
Wow that is a difficult question. I am sure that my dad would agree with what this pastor stresses…but am not sure if it is because he is 100 percent convinced that it is true or if it is because he is a representative of the church and must confess to these things to be in that position. He was not born and raised Lutheran but converted after he married my mom (who happens to be 100% German in heritage–and 110% Lutheran). Through his actions I have come to the conclusion that my dad loves people “right where they are at” but I have never heard him disagree with the Lutheran Church (and the church tends to come off as a little judgmental) so I guess I am not really sure.
As for me, I guess the only part that I follow is the fact that I believe we are sinful and there is nothing we can do to change that…and that Jesus was sinless and came to earth to pay the price for us. (But sometimes even that makes me wonder–I mean, why did anyone even HAVE to pay a price for us?) I don’t believe that there is anything else that we must do to be saved. I don’t believe that we MUST be baptised, or that we MUST take communion or even attend church. I’ll tell you the moment I mentally and physically left the church: One Sunday, about 5 years ago, I attended the church where I was a member and when I got up to communion the pastor stopped and actually asked me if I was a member before he served me. I was absolutely taken aback. If they make their own members feel like outsiders, how can they possibly welcome in someone new?
It seems to me that no matter what, religion tends to lean towards ‘earning your way to heaven’ and that is not what it is suppose to be about. Classes like these are interesting but they take a wrong turn by putting the focus on law and not the real message of the gospel.