The Case for Relativism

"Relativism" has a bad name in many U.S. Christian circles.  In a recent posting entitled, "Evangelicals: We Must Stand Firm on Biblical Authority, Exclusivity of Christ," Dr. R. C. Sproul referred to "relativism" as being the idea "that says it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're sincere."  In other words, relativism amounts to a lack of standards, commitment, and serious faith.  It is nonchalant, blithely saying that when it comes to beliefs "it doesn't matter."  In that posting, relativism is associated with contemporary social values inimical to the Christian faith, ones that have to be overcome with a determined stand for an exclusive gospel that preaches a salvation limited to Christianity.

Relativism as such has nothing to do with indifference to or a nonchalant attitude about beliefs.  Relativism doesn't say that beliefs don't matter. It says, rather, that beliefs have a context and the believer should be keenly, carefully aware of that context.  How and what we believe depends in part on the context in which we hold our beliefs.  Culture shapes how we believe.  History shapes how we believe.  Our personal experiences powerfully impact how we believe.  Our inherent (perhaps partly biological) tendency to be liberal or conservative in our thinking shapes how we believe.  Interestingly enough, philosophy has a particularly strong impact on our beliefs.  In an American Protestant context, the early church's experience with Greek philosophy continues to powerfully shape our understanding of God.

The choice we have to make about our contexts is the degree to which we ignore or acknowledge their influence over the ways we believe.  Many American Christians choose to ignore that influence and reject the idea that human beliefs are relative.  They seek to absolutize their beliefs.  Fewer, but still a significant number of believers, embrace the fact that faith is dependent on many factors and is not absolute.  Each choice is dangerous.  The "true believers" are seriously in danger of confusing what they believe about God with God.  The "relativists" are seriously in danger of losing sight of the importance of sharing their faith with others.  The relativists are apt to put their candle under a bushel.  The absolutists are liable to put their candle at the feet of something that is not God.

The middle way (via media) is to hold one's faith firmly, share it where appropriate, and understand that others can choose other faithful paths, which are spiritually viable but not our own.  What we believe matters.  Realizing that we are fallible in what we believe and that all human belief systems are relative also matters.  Otherwise, we tend to confuse our beliefs with the One we believe in.

In For the Long Haul

In a report entitled, "Beliefs about God across Time and Countries," Tom W. Smith concludes on the basis of extensive data that, "while there is a drift towards lesser belief in God consistent with secularization theory the changes are modest in magnitude and mixed in scope. Countries have shown and are likely to continue to show huge differences in levels and trends about belief in God and a homogenization of belief (or disbelief) is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future."  Belief in God is decreasing, but it is doing so only slowly at different rates in different countries and with different intensities.  Consistent with data from many other sources, Smith finds that the U.S. ranks among the highest nations in belief  in God and the lowest in unbelief.  Table 1 in the report shows that in 2008 only 3.0% of Americans agreed with the statement, "I do not believe in God," while 60.6% agreed that, "I know God really exists, and I have no doubt about it."  Smith's analysis of the data also found that 35.0% of Americans were "Strong Believers in God" (Table 4) and only 1.2% were "Strong Atheists" (Table 5).  Only two nations ranked higher than the U.S. in their number of strong believers and just four countries showed fewer strong atheists.  For the years 1998-2008, Smith shows a very slight decrease in atheism in the U.S. and a slight increase in the number who are certain God exists (Table 6).

In sum, religious faith is not going away any time soon, but the context in which we speak about faith is changing.  In the U.S., that change seems to be relatively slow when it comes to belief in God as such.  Participation in religious organizations, however, is declining and at a much higher rate than the decline in belief in God.  As I noted in a recent posting (here), even in relatively conservative Lewis County, NY, almost 60% of the population is "unclaimed" by any church.  The context churches face today is that faith in God's existence is no longer a given, such as it once was.  Trust in churches as places of importance is also no longer a given.  The importance of "going to church" on Sunday morning is similarly no longer a given.  The challenge we face in the church today, in any event, is not to get people to believe in God.  It is to get people to believe in churches.

Lectionary Rant

Yesterday's posting quoted Jesus as asking scribes who were critical of his forgiving the sin of a paralyzed man, "Why let all of this wickedness fester in your hearts?"  I took it from N.T. Wright's recent translation of the New Testament,  The Kingdom New Testament (HarperOne, 2011).  The quotation comes from the story of Jesus' healing a man virtually in defiance of the religious authorities, and it concludes with the people feeling fear of Jesus while thanking God for him (Matthew 9:1-8).  It is a beautiful story and an important one, but here's the thing: it is not in the Revised Common Lectionary, which (for the uninitiated) is the list of weekly scripture readings used by most denominations and a large percentage of mainline Protestant preachers.  The Catholic Church has its own lectionary.  The common lectionary runs through a three-year cycle, and if a passage, such as Matthew 9:1-8, isn't in the lectionary it won't be preached on in that cycle.  For preachers who stick to the lectionary, this means that they will never reflect on this passage with their congregations—this one and many other important passages that failed to "make the cut" of the lectionary.

Evidently, mainline seminaries are pushing the use of the lectionary, and many liturgical resources websites tailor their contents to the lectionary.  It has become almost ubiquitous in the mainline denominations.  That means that in a pastoral career of 30 years, a preacher will "work through" the lectionary 10 times, basically going over plowed ground again and again.  There are two things that I personally really, really don't like about the lectionary: first, as I've already suggested, it leaves out much of the Bible including many important passages; secondly, it focuses the preacher's attention on the text in the context of the lectionary rather than the context of the congregation.  Preaching should always be in, to, and for the congregation hearing the sermon.  There are times when a church needs to hear a particular message, and sometimes the lectionary passages for that particular week might prove useful to that end.  Other weeks, the preacher has to ignore the needs of the church, or mangle scripture to make it fit those needs, or ignore the passage.  All of these are bad choices.  They are lazy choices.  The lectionary, if used slavishly as evidently many do, can create a barrier between the preacher and parish.

It can also relieve the pastor of the necessity of wrestling with the meaning of the Bible for the church.  The Monday morning question is not what parts of scripture are relevant but rather what are the lectionary readings for this week?  Now, it is true that one rationale for the lectionary is that it keeps preachers from just going back to their favorite passages and narrow parts of the Bible week after week.  It "forces" preachers to  preach from many parts of the Bible.  That is a problem,  but this particular solution is no better than the disease itself.  In fact, it is a palliative approach.  It also limits the preacher to what parts of the Bible are used for preaching, and because it always includes passages from the gospels, the rest of the New Testament, and the Old Testament, preachers can focus on what type of material they like to preach from—the popular choices are the gospels or the letters of Paul.

At the end of the day, however, the key point is not whether or not to use the lectionary.  The point is, rather, that preachers preach a message relevant to the current life and needs of the congregation based on relevant passages.  It is not "wrong" to use the lectionary frequently or even regularly so long as the option to ignore it for a week or a year is always on the table—and so long as the preacher is ready to use non-lectionary passages that are equally as valuable and pertinent as those contained in the lectionary.  Used circumspectly, the lectionary can be an aide to worship rather than a crutch or like blinders.  That's the point.

Festering Hearts

"Why let all of this wickedness fester in your hearts?"

Jesus of Nazareth

From: Matthew 9:4 (N. T. Wright, The Kingdom New Testament, p. 15)

Birth of the Remote Control

1st wireless remote (from the Detroit Free Press)

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts recently published a column entitled, "The remote control that revolutionized our ‘fat assets’," which was published under other titles by other papers, such as, "Leonard Pitts Jr.: TVs and sofas, never the same again," in the Detroit Free Press and, "A Tribute – By Remote Control" in the Yankton Press & Dakotan.  The man who invented the TV remote, Eugene  Polley, died at the age of 96 on May 20th, and Pitts column partly pays tribute to Polley and his invention and partly laments the fact that the TV remote was ever invented.  Pitts recalls the old days of the 1950s when TV watchers had to get up and go to the set to change channels—or send one of their kids to do it (children being the original TV remote).

 It is easy to see how the wireless remote, which is now used for all sorts of things, can be a metaphor for the benefits and evils of technological society.  It singlehandedly created generations of couch potatoes, thus contributing to the obesity epidemic sweeping the globe.  On the other hand, the TV remote is a key element in the TV revolution that to a degree has put the world at our fingertips.

The deeper lesson is equally easy to see.  We have an uncanny ability to turn the good things we invent and discover to unhappy purposes.  TV remotes are two-edged swords, and so is just about everything else that we consider good.

And the theological point is just about as obvious.  The central fact of our lives is that God's creation of us remains unfinished.  We are a "work in progress" and as such have a long way to go before we see the Kingdom.  The story line of the Bible is the way in which God (wearing the mask of the Spirit) wrestles with us, works on us, and seeks to herd us toward the future, a task that is far, far worse than trying to herd cats.

Actually, the TV remote is a good sermon illustration, one well worth using for that purpose.  Amen.

Small Victories

"Ike's Creek, Bloomington, Minnesota

Although the world continues to stand on the edge of ecological catastrophe with the oceans dying and rain forest dwindling rapidly, there are success stories and victories, some larger and some smaller.  The Minneapolis Star Tribune website carries a posting entitled, "Trout return near MOA," MOA referring to the Mall of America.  The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has recently removed a 1920s dam from the creek, restored its original course, stocked it with brook trout, and created a series of steps that the trout can pass over as they move up and down the stream.  The posting notes, "The clear water flows through a verdant ravine bordered by watercress and wildflowers to the Minnesota River. The creek is less than a mile long, but pure enough and cold enough to offer a rare opportunity: restoring native brook trout that flicked through the water decades ago."  The stream doesn't have an official name evidently, but those involved have started calling it "Ike's Creek" in honor of the Izaak Walton League, which formerly owned the property along the creek.  DNR officials are not sure whether or not the stream will ever be open for fishing or just how the restoration of the creek is going to turn out.  Still, it the stream in future years will be more like nature intended and probably house brook trout again as it once did.

The restoration of little Ike's Creek is a small victory, but not unimportant for that.  It reclaims one tiny corner of the planet for nature, offers a bit of nature to city dwellers, and it reflects the fact that in many places in North America restoration of natural habitats, especially forests, has been going on for decades.  So, it is a small victory but a victory nonetheless.

Nikumaroro & Amelia Earhart

The famous flier, Amelia Earhart, and Fred Noonan, her navigator, disappeared over the Pacific Ocean on July 2, 1937 while attempting to fly around the world at the equator.  Ever since, her fate has remained a mystery.  Now, however, it seems that researchers of The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) have compiled enough data and onsite research findings to strongly suggest that Earhart and Noonan landed their aircraft on remote Nikumaroro, an atoll now part of the Republic of Kiribati.  Two recent news postings, one on CNN (here) and the other on Discovery News (here) describe the case for Nikumaroro, but perhaps the most interesting description of the island and the reasons for interest in it are contained on the two video clips below.  The first one is especially fascinating as it provides a 25 minute aerial tour of the atoll, a close up look at one of the most remote bits of land in the world.  The second clip is an interview with one of the participants of one of TIGHAR's expeditions to Nikumaroro.  Enjoy!

If you are interested in still more information on the search for Amelia Earhart, you might want to look at a posting entitled, "Amelia Earhart's Fate: The Archaeological Investigations" (here). 

Lewis County Churches, 2000-2010

According to the Association of Religion Data Archive's (ARDA) data base for the churches of Lewis County, NY, (here) evangelical Protestants number 2,693 adherents (9.9% of the population), mainline Protestants number 2,155 (8.0%), Catholics number 6,443 (23.8%), and "unclaimed" number 15,681 (57.9%). There are also 115 individuals listed as "other".  This data is for 2010.  The United Methodist Church was the largest Protestant body with 1,242 members in 11 churches.  The Conservative Mennonite Conference had 1,005 adherents in 6 churches, and the Mennonite Church USA had 715 members in 3 churches.  The Presbyterian Church (USA) had 266 members in 2 churches.

The ARDA data base shows that between 2000 and 2010, the largest church in the county, the Catholic Church, lost 45.4% of its total adherents, and the second largest church, the United Methodist Church, lost 31.1% of its members.  Only the Mennonite Church USA recorded substantial growth, growing by 110.3% with the addition of two churches.  For the record, the two Presbyterian churches in Lewis County lost 37.6% of their members, more than a third.  The general decline in church membership was not, however, limited to the mainline churches.  Among the evangelical denominations, the Wesleyan Church lost 77.7% of its members in the ten years from 2000 to 2010 while the Assemblies of God church lost 61.2%.

Of all of these figures, the one that is most striking is the fact that nearly 60% of Lewis County is not "churched".  The county has a reputation for being one of New York's more conservative counties with many of its people worshipping on a Sunday morning.  The county may lean to the conservative, but involved in organized religion most of the county is not.  It is figures like these that should cause mainline folks to begin to think more seriously about evangelism.  IF the faith we profess is what we claim it to be—a better way to live one's life—then it is worthy of being shared, which is all evangelism is at its best.  Faith-sharing.  We can "do evangelism" in ways that are not obnoxious and really are a sharing of good news rather than an attempt to impose a religious ideology.  Given the data, it would seem that there is plenty of opportunity for that kind of faith-sharing in Lewis County.

Criticism

I take criticism so seriously as to believe that, even in the midst of a battle in which one is unmistakably on one side against another, there should be criticism, because there must be critical consciousness if there are to be issues, problems, values, even lives to be fought for... Criticism must think of itself as life-enhancing and constitutively opposed to every form of tyranny, domination, and abuse; its social goals are noncoercive knowledge produced in the interests of human freedom.

Edward W. Said
The Word, The Text and the Critic

Salt, Light, & Irony

"Sermon on the Mount" by Laura James (laurajamesart.com)

It is almost as if the gospel writers stashed these two sayings away for the 21st century mainline (aka oldline) churches.  According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said to his disciples that, "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored?" (Matthew 5:13)  He also taught them they were "the light of the world" and observed that, "No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all the house." (Matthew 5:15)

Looking at the two sayings themselves, it seems clear that they are ironical and even humorous, maybe not quite as humorous as modern day biblicists trying to prove that salt can lose its taste or the philosophical debate about whether salt can lose its taste and remain salt—but still humorous.  Jesus' point was that tasteless salt is useless, and so is a covered lamp.  The two images of tasteless salt and a covered lamp are memorable for the ironic way they so aptly make their point, which is why they were remembered.

The point is, of course, that the disciples were called by Jesus for a purpose, and if they failed that purpose they were of no more use than tasteless salt or a lamp placed under a basket.  And when they fail to live up to their calling, they like the tasteless salt will be thrown away.  Instead, they were to "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:16).

There are many reasons why churches decline, some of them having little to do with the quality of the life of the church itself.  Populations migrate, and churches are closed in one locality while new ones are founded in others.  But, where you find a declining church in the midst of a large population, there is something else going on.  That church in that locality has usually lost is savor and stashed its light under a basket.  This is the case even when the church does good things and maintains an active institutional life.  As long as such churches fail to ask what they can do to restore their savor and light, they will decline.  That is a hard lesson the last fifty years have taught the mainline churches.  The good news is that in many places new expressions of the mainline church are emerging—not as large, structured, and financed as the old mainline, but with a vibrancy also unlike those churches.  In some instances and in some places, we are learning how to put the taste back into salt and discovering that the lamp is a lot more useful if we take it out from under the basket.  To pick up on Jesus' third image, we're beginning to learn how to be the city on the hill again—the one that can't be hid.  Decline thus is both threat and opportunity.