Christianity, in general, makes a big deal about sinning (although post-modern approaches are starting to deviate). If this religion were a book, all the words relating to sin would be bold and highlighted. After all, lest a Christian stumble, it will be evident to the other members of his puritan community that he is lacking in faith and is perhaps backsliding, moving farther from God. Thus, the rules, the "thou shalt not's", should be emphasized a great deal. Sometimes above all else.
However, the more I immerse myself in this sort of culture and familiarize myself with these sorts of people, these puritans of the modern day, the more I start to see just how little their faith in Christ really is.
Let me clarify just what I mean by "these sorts of people." Take Bible-thumping Bill, for instance. He'll sit in his room all day, reading the Bible and praying to God, while the rest of the world sinks in the abyss. Lest he fall into temptation and stumble, Bill should not go out into the world. He shall remain "pure and holy" before God, by staying in his house all day, or remaining a shiny but lifeless saint in a church, similar to a beautiful tiger stuffed and mounted by a taxidermist, or a wax doll.
He doesn't struggle with the sins emphasized by his puritan community -- no, he's too holy and too "spiritually up there." No, he doesn't struggle at all. And, I'll have to agree on this; I don't think it's possible to burn with lust after zebras and goats in a bestiality flick if you don't have a TV or a computer to begin with, and I don't think it's possible to commit adultery when you're not even married. Outwardly, at least.
Still, however, the question remains: does he struggle? Yes, he doesn't outwardly do the sins -- but does he wrestle with keeping his heart and mind clean from lusts of a hurtful sort? It doesn't matter if you don't outwardly do a sin if your heart wishes it.
Let's say for now, however, Bill doesn't think those sinful thoughts at all. Is he still struggling with them? And does this defiant act of holiness necessarily show a firm faith in God? Continuing to live the reclusive lifestyle that he does, I'd have to say no.
First of all, faith in Jesus Christ implies faith of the final result of any sinful deed and struggle being positive. The Book of Romans talks extensively about this, repeating this principle over and over again to the point of one's exclaiming "okay, I get it already!" If Bill truly believed that God will carry him through any misstep he makes after putting himself out there in the real world, and truly had faith that everything would work together for good in the end in spite of sin, and that the truth will prove itself in the end amongst other things, he would not be running away from the very thing that he's neurotically convinced himself he's conquered. He'd not be afraid to reach out to animal porn addicts, or seek out a love partner. Why? Because he knows that either he won't fall from grace, or that if he does mess up, the consequences of that sin won't have any power over him due to the power of Christ and his faith in that.
Hiding in a room all day isn't an active exercising of this faith, in my opinion.
Another way to look at it is this: suppose there is another man in his church named Bob. Bob struggles with both indulging in alcohol and occasionally getting in an affair with another woman not his wife. But he goes out to the homeless shelter every single week to give encouragement to those in need and to spend quality time with them.
Who is more fit for the kingdom: Bill or Bob? Bill doesn't sin remember, but neither does he do anything. Therefore, there is no kingdom advancement (at least one that's fully realized). Bob sins and screws up from time to time, but he infuses life to the souls who need it the most. He advances the kingdom.
The difference between Bob and Bill is their focus: Bill is focused on sin, Bob is focused on actually doing something and advancing the kingdom. And, lo and behold, he actually does advance it. Bill focuses on what he can't do -- and what do you know, he does nothing in the end. How ironic!
I feel like a whole flock of Bills have congregated under the steeples of disillusionment, and have amassed onto the grassy pastures of weak faith in this present day and age. They've formed "purity cults" amongst themselves -- organizations of devotees who've dedicated their lives to serving full-time the god of neurotic holiness, an idol of fear and denial gilded with the pseudo-precious metals of righteousness. They're not pure: they've just lied to themselves, that's all. Because if they really overcame their sins and their impurities, they'd definitely have an answer to those in the world who are still struggling with them.
Sitting in front of a blank wall in your room all day with a Bible in your lap isn't quite that convincing, oh thou of little faith.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Hating the Sin and Not the Sinner
I've heard this phrase (given in the title) often said in many Christian debate circles, and often used as a defense phrase on many a blog's comment section; and I must say that I find this phrase used too often in vain, or as a cover-up for a hidden agenda or an unclean emotion. Take, for example, blog posts or real-life arguments centered on homosexuality, a touchy subject in today's world. (For this example, the arguers will both have claimed to be Christians and will each rely on Scripture to make their points.) One of the biggest arguments is that we should "love everyone" -- since "God is love!" The rebuttal for this argument is, usually, "I don't hate homosexuals, I hate their sin. There's a difference."
However, the problem I find is that the owners of this proposition usually don't know anything about their homosexual neighbor, other than the fact that he's gay. How can you not hate homosexuals, when all you see is their sin? To hate their sin is to hate them, especially if you've labeled them "gay" and that's the only label you've given them. Since all you see is their homosexual sin, in both their actions and in their words, how can you say the gay does anything else except be gay, and love that other part of them when that other part is a complete void?
Simply put, people who defensively throw back the "love the sinner but not the sin" argument in a heated debate are effectively lying to themselves. Most, especially those who engage in these debates for the sole purpose of defending their own values and winning, hardly know anything about the gays they've labelled in their lifetime. Some don't see the doctor in them, or the hard-working American citizen. The only thing they see and know is the fact that they're gay. When this type of person says "I hate their sin but I love them," what else is there to love after he's hated their sin? He's basically hated almost everything he's labeled the person to be. What else can he love about them, then, when the only thing he sees in them is what he hates?
Also, a side note. I don't recall Jesus ever clarifying to anybody, "Hey, don't get me wrong -- I don't hate you, I hate your sin." This is because Jesus was beaming with love, and it only took a brief glimpse at him or a slight hint of his presence for the people around him back in the day to automatically feel it. Jesus didn't have to prove his love with words, because his life was his words. He is love, and people really don't need clarification on that fact when they are in his presence.
However, the problem I find is that the owners of this proposition usually don't know anything about their homosexual neighbor, other than the fact that he's gay. How can you not hate homosexuals, when all you see is their sin? To hate their sin is to hate them, especially if you've labeled them "gay" and that's the only label you've given them. Since all you see is their homosexual sin, in both their actions and in their words, how can you say the gay does anything else except be gay, and love that other part of them when that other part is a complete void?
Simply put, people who defensively throw back the "love the sinner but not the sin" argument in a heated debate are effectively lying to themselves. Most, especially those who engage in these debates for the sole purpose of defending their own values and winning, hardly know anything about the gays they've labelled in their lifetime. Some don't see the doctor in them, or the hard-working American citizen. The only thing they see and know is the fact that they're gay. When this type of person says "I hate their sin but I love them," what else is there to love after he's hated their sin? He's basically hated almost everything he's labeled the person to be. What else can he love about them, then, when the only thing he sees in them is what he hates?
Also, a side note. I don't recall Jesus ever clarifying to anybody, "Hey, don't get me wrong -- I don't hate you, I hate your sin." This is because Jesus was beaming with love, and it only took a brief glimpse at him or a slight hint of his presence for the people around him back in the day to automatically feel it. Jesus didn't have to prove his love with words, because his life was his words. He is love, and people really don't need clarification on that fact when they are in his presence.
Selfish "Compassion"
Selfish "Compassion"
I sit atop the hill alone,
Clad in holy white.
And sitteth smugly upon my
pristine throne,
Beholding a joyful sight.
Look at the sinners below,
All tiny as ants.
They walk maimed
towards the flame,
I hath already warned them once,
So for their death they are to blame.
From up here
My view is pure.
From up here,
I can watch my word unfold
and my authority upheld.
I am free to move about--
Even free to go down.
But I enjoy sitting up here
in pompous priestliness,
I am safer up here,
And I loveth my throne
and the purity of my robe
way too much.
Righteousness abideth
up here on the hill.
Come up here thy sinners,
Thy weak and crippled sinners,
Crawl up the hill on your knees
And come and join me.
Where nobody heareth my words
Except thee.
I sit atop the hill alone,
Clad in holy white.
And sitteth smugly upon my
pristine throne,
Beholding a joyful sight.
Look at the sinners below,
All tiny as ants.
They walk maimed
towards the flame,
I hath already warned them once,
So for their death they are to blame.
From up here
My view is pure.
From up here,
I can watch my word unfold
and my authority upheld.
I am free to move about--
Even free to go down.
But I enjoy sitting up here
in pompous priestliness,
I am safer up here,
And I loveth my throne
and the purity of my robe
way too much.
Righteousness abideth
up here on the hill.
Come up here thy sinners,
Thy weak and crippled sinners,
Crawl up the hill on your knees
And come and join me.
Where nobody heareth my words
Except thee.
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Prayer Request Box
There's a pretty good symbol I'd like to share with you today, reader. And that is the “prayer request box.” This little cardboard box has a slit on the top to serve as an entry point for little slips of paper to penetrate and get stored inside the box. What does these little pieces of paper have written on it? The answer is simple: prayer requests.
Each time a holier-than-thou spots a sinner in real life, she'll take out a slip of paper and a pen, and write the person's name and the dominating sin they're living out. She'll then fold the piece of paper and slip it inside. Then, she'll somehow open the box – usually there's a little door at the side that enables a person to grab a slip of paper. She'll grab a random piece of paper and, you guessed it, start praying for you.
She'll keep doing this until you've “changed” – until her prayer's have been answered and she see's God's miraculous work in the person's life. After that has happened, she forgets about you.
I see this way too often in CC. How often do holier-than-thou's only approach others when they see them “sin”? They go up to them, “stand up” for the truth, and maybe (just maybe) pray for you when they're not in public anymore and no one's watching them. Praying more than once may even be a stretch. And they'll keep going up to you, telling you to quit what you're doing, being the holy and righteous crusader for “justice” that they are – until you quit. Then they'll quit. Quit paying attention to you, only focusing on themselves, their own “holy” relationship with God and only seeking self-preservation for their purity. The Scripture says, “He that saveth his life shall lose it.” In my viewpoint, these holier-than-thou's have already lost it – they share quite an ineffective gospel message.
Each time a holier-than-thou spots a sinner in real life, she'll take out a slip of paper and a pen, and write the person's name and the dominating sin they're living out. She'll then fold the piece of paper and slip it inside. Then, she'll somehow open the box – usually there's a little door at the side that enables a person to grab a slip of paper. She'll grab a random piece of paper and, you guessed it, start praying for you.
She'll keep doing this until you've “changed” – until her prayer's have been answered and she see's God's miraculous work in the person's life. After that has happened, she forgets about you.
I see this way too often in CC. How often do holier-than-thou's only approach others when they see them “sin”? They go up to them, “stand up” for the truth, and maybe (just maybe) pray for you when they're not in public anymore and no one's watching them. Praying more than once may even be a stretch. And they'll keep going up to you, telling you to quit what you're doing, being the holy and righteous crusader for “justice” that they are – until you quit. Then they'll quit. Quit paying attention to you, only focusing on themselves, their own “holy” relationship with God and only seeking self-preservation for their purity. The Scripture says, “He that saveth his life shall lose it.” In my viewpoint, these holier-than-thou's have already lost it – they share quite an ineffective gospel message.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Is there more to the Word of God than just 66 Books?
One of the trademark beliefs of CC is that the Bible is the complete Word of God. They say that all of what you need to know about the Christian life and how to get closer to God is given by the Bible. In fact, most members of CC will say that God wrote the Bible directly. From my knowledge and reasoning, all of this seems to be incorrect.
The meanings and definitions belonging to words on a page are very dependent on your personal experience and prior knowledge. This is a basic concept. A person can't possibly decipher the parable of Jesus feeding the five-thousand if he has been living in an arid desert all his life, a place completely devoid of fish. In addition, much of how we interpret the Bible is based upon what we've learned throughout history outside of the Bible. Just go online and look at the numerous apologetics and theological studies about the Bible written on web pages -- it relies on archaeological evidence and background knowledge about Jewish and Greek culture and other outside historical knowledge. Open any book on the history of the world, and chances are most of what you'll find was hardly mentioned in the Bible.
Science and mathematical textbooks are also an interesting topic to add to this discussion. If teachers in the private Christian schools teach that it is only the 66 books that will sustain you, and that that is all you need, why teach science and mathematics? There are hardly any science or mathematical principles taught in Scripture. But, these principles are still the truth -- and we believe in them, even if the Bible leaves those things out.
So what do I currently believe about the modern Bible? It's hard to know at times...but there are some overarching patterns I've noticed about the world (specifically the CC sect of it) and their approach to it. This is why it's confusing: there are more than one version to the Bible, each one teaching different things and each one leaving out certain scriptures. Which one is correct? Also, after reading some apologetics outlining the Bible's origins, a lot of the choices made of whether or not to leave out certain books of the Bible (e.g., the Apocrypha) seem to me to have been based upon "authority figures" instead of God himself. It seems to me that the decisions were based on faith in man, instead of faith in God (or by labeling these men as God, which is close to blasphemy). In addition, there are many different denominations of Christianity, some waging wars against one another due to their different interpretations of the Bible, even though they all refer to themselves as "Christians." The reason for this? To me, the answer seems to be "different experiences and ways of seeing life." Consequently, this also causes people to "pick and choose" what they want to believe about the Bible -- to take the Bible literally at times, whereas other times (especially when contradictions are proposed to them), to say, "Look at the verse in context," or "Given knowledge about the Apostle Paul's personal life, that verse means something different."
Because of this, it seems like a lot of the Bible is what we make it to be. And it also seems to me that knowing God happens with both learning about the lives of those in history (and the ones around us) and going through personal experiences -- just living life every day, seeking to know Him more instead of merely going to words on a page for an encounter with God. We can learn many great lessons from the Bible, sure, and without the manuscripts upon which it relies we might not be aware of Jesus Christ. However, if we experience life always asking the question, "Is that in the Bible?" we'll never learn or experience anything more than what we already know or have experienced. It is life itself, your personal experiences and knowledge, and your attitude that makes the Bible spring to life. Without those things, you're just reading words on a page with no meaning or weight to them. Words are symbols that reference certain emotions, spiritual states, concepts, or personal experiences. To me, the Bible is just that -- it's a collection of spiritual diaries, documents, and letters of men who were very close to God (as they have much to say about Him and the life-giving experiences they've had). But to say that they are God is having faith in man instead of God, not to mention, like I said earlier, blasphemy.
It's illogical to reason that the word "inspiration" or "moved" as mentioned in the verses II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:16-21 respectively mean the same things like the words "direct revelation" or "written." To me, "inspiration" means just that: inspiration. Much as a great tragedy in real life (like the death of a loved one) inspires a playwright to write a sad play, so does God with man when he's inspiring authors to write the stories and concepts found in the Bible. God is the reason they write, but it's not Him writing it per se (like the deceased love one not writing the sad play). In a case like this, that would mean that all the things the authors of the Bible did was God directly doing them, and thus we could reason that all of us, if we would document our spiritual lives the same way, are being God. I don't see it this way -- I see it as God giving them (and also us) the life and the inspiration to do the things we do. But He's not actually doing them for us. God gives us the experiences in real life (if we choose to see them or accept them). It is we who write about them and interpret the way we do. God will remain God, man will remain man.
In this light, it is thus logical to conclude that there are more works out there documenting experiences with God -- not just the Bible itself. Works written by historians, scientists, priests, pastors -- even writers of autobiographical works -- these are all major contenders of God's Word. If God inspired the Book of Romans, He also inspired The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. To members of CC, the latter book might not seem to be inspired by God due it's lack of the word 'God', but if leaving out the word 'God' is the sole basis for making a work "non-Christian," then that must mean the Song of Solomon was written by Satan. I'm not saying that all works are inspired by God (some are very good expressions of a lack of God in the author's life) -- but The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People brings life to those who read it. And we all know who the giver of life is, right?
In short, the Word of God consists of more than just 66 books, much as the fully documented life of Jesus would span thousands of volumes according to the Gospel of John. We can read God's Word not only by reading the NIV Bible but by exploring the world around us and learning about other people, by learning about different places and cultures. We can learn more about God by doing research in a given field, or reading a history book. To say that in all cases a person who doesn't read the Scriptures very often is farther away from God than a person who reads the KJV Bible every single day of his life, is very, very inaccurate.
In fact, I question the spiritual validity of those who solely read the Bible but don't experience much else in life, other than reading words on a page.
Why? Because the words will lack definition.
The meanings and definitions belonging to words on a page are very dependent on your personal experience and prior knowledge. This is a basic concept. A person can't possibly decipher the parable of Jesus feeding the five-thousand if he has been living in an arid desert all his life, a place completely devoid of fish. In addition, much of how we interpret the Bible is based upon what we've learned throughout history outside of the Bible. Just go online and look at the numerous apologetics and theological studies about the Bible written on web pages -- it relies on archaeological evidence and background knowledge about Jewish and Greek culture and other outside historical knowledge. Open any book on the history of the world, and chances are most of what you'll find was hardly mentioned in the Bible.
Science and mathematical textbooks are also an interesting topic to add to this discussion. If teachers in the private Christian schools teach that it is only the 66 books that will sustain you, and that that is all you need, why teach science and mathematics? There are hardly any science or mathematical principles taught in Scripture. But, these principles are still the truth -- and we believe in them, even if the Bible leaves those things out.
So what do I currently believe about the modern Bible? It's hard to know at times...but there are some overarching patterns I've noticed about the world (specifically the CC sect of it) and their approach to it. This is why it's confusing: there are more than one version to the Bible, each one teaching different things and each one leaving out certain scriptures. Which one is correct? Also, after reading some apologetics outlining the Bible's origins, a lot of the choices made of whether or not to leave out certain books of the Bible (e.g., the Apocrypha) seem to me to have been based upon "authority figures" instead of God himself. It seems to me that the decisions were based on faith in man, instead of faith in God (or by labeling these men as God, which is close to blasphemy). In addition, there are many different denominations of Christianity, some waging wars against one another due to their different interpretations of the Bible, even though they all refer to themselves as "Christians." The reason for this? To me, the answer seems to be "different experiences and ways of seeing life." Consequently, this also causes people to "pick and choose" what they want to believe about the Bible -- to take the Bible literally at times, whereas other times (especially when contradictions are proposed to them), to say, "Look at the verse in context," or "Given knowledge about the Apostle Paul's personal life, that verse means something different."
Because of this, it seems like a lot of the Bible is what we make it to be. And it also seems to me that knowing God happens with both learning about the lives of those in history (and the ones around us) and going through personal experiences -- just living life every day, seeking to know Him more instead of merely going to words on a page for an encounter with God. We can learn many great lessons from the Bible, sure, and without the manuscripts upon which it relies we might not be aware of Jesus Christ. However, if we experience life always asking the question, "Is that in the Bible?" we'll never learn or experience anything more than what we already know or have experienced. It is life itself, your personal experiences and knowledge, and your attitude that makes the Bible spring to life. Without those things, you're just reading words on a page with no meaning or weight to them. Words are symbols that reference certain emotions, spiritual states, concepts, or personal experiences. To me, the Bible is just that -- it's a collection of spiritual diaries, documents, and letters of men who were very close to God (as they have much to say about Him and the life-giving experiences they've had). But to say that they are God is having faith in man instead of God, not to mention, like I said earlier, blasphemy.
It's illogical to reason that the word "inspiration" or "moved" as mentioned in the verses II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:16-21 respectively mean the same things like the words "direct revelation" or "written." To me, "inspiration" means just that: inspiration. Much as a great tragedy in real life (like the death of a loved one) inspires a playwright to write a sad play, so does God with man when he's inspiring authors to write the stories and concepts found in the Bible. God is the reason they write, but it's not Him writing it per se (like the deceased love one not writing the sad play). In a case like this, that would mean that all the things the authors of the Bible did was God directly doing them, and thus we could reason that all of us, if we would document our spiritual lives the same way, are being God. I don't see it this way -- I see it as God giving them (and also us) the life and the inspiration to do the things we do. But He's not actually doing them for us. God gives us the experiences in real life (if we choose to see them or accept them). It is we who write about them and interpret the way we do. God will remain God, man will remain man.
In this light, it is thus logical to conclude that there are more works out there documenting experiences with God -- not just the Bible itself. Works written by historians, scientists, priests, pastors -- even writers of autobiographical works -- these are all major contenders of God's Word. If God inspired the Book of Romans, He also inspired The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. To members of CC, the latter book might not seem to be inspired by God due it's lack of the word 'God', but if leaving out the word 'God' is the sole basis for making a work "non-Christian," then that must mean the Song of Solomon was written by Satan. I'm not saying that all works are inspired by God (some are very good expressions of a lack of God in the author's life) -- but The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People brings life to those who read it. And we all know who the giver of life is, right?
In short, the Word of God consists of more than just 66 books, much as the fully documented life of Jesus would span thousands of volumes according to the Gospel of John. We can read God's Word not only by reading the NIV Bible but by exploring the world around us and learning about other people, by learning about different places and cultures. We can learn more about God by doing research in a given field, or reading a history book. To say that in all cases a person who doesn't read the Scriptures very often is farther away from God than a person who reads the KJV Bible every single day of his life, is very, very inaccurate.
In fact, I question the spiritual validity of those who solely read the Bible but don't experience much else in life, other than reading words on a page.
Why? Because the words will lack definition.
How Christian Culture Catalyzes the Disintegration of my Faith
For a while, I must say that I didn't have a problem with Christian Culture (CC). I grew up in that environment, and for the majority of my life I was either quite fond of it or had a neutral stance with it. Church was there on a Sunday. I went to it, fellowshipped with others like I would at school -- I said what I was supposed to say but all the while still felt like the odd one out because I felt if I was myself, I wouldn't be accepted at all (or understood). This always ended up in the result of me coming across as shy, or not very talkative. Socially, church and school were equivalents of one another; I felt comfortable being more reserved and isolated, and I stayed this way up to my final year of high school. Because I kept myself hidden and was in a place where I knew what I was supposed to do, I ironically felt at home more often than not. High school was different, but nonetheless I still felt like I had a firm faith in Jesus Christ (and in God).
I now go to ORU, a university notorious for CC -- and the strange part is it's actually quite different from the churches I went to back in L.A. Being at this university has taught me that CC is not exactly the same everywhere you go (although the similarities remain), CC in California is different from that in Oklahoma or maybe even Texas and other southern states. I must say that the culture here is pretty antagonistic to my personality and my upbringing at times. Many people would view many aspects of my beliefs as conflicting with those of CC here, and would thus question my faith in Jesus Christ.
The clash didn't just happen purely because of a change in location -- being more independent now has taught me to think for myself, to blaze my own trail in life. Instead of just accepting things the way that I knew them, I now am seeking out the truth on my own, trying to resolve conflicting thoughts in my head rather than ignoring them. It has taught me a lot. It has taught me that culture and common attitudes are different from one place to the next, that many people's beliefs are shaped by the society around them and not by personal experience or by thinking globally, and that people are afraid of change even if their current way of living causes them grief and unhappiness, or is illogical. It has opened my eyes to a lot of truths that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. And now, some of these truths conflict with traditional teachings of the CC.
Because of this conflict, there are times where I feel like I'm not a Christian. The reason for this is because when the people in the society around me call themselves Christians, I believe them more often than not, even when, more often than not, they don't act like such. I'm not saying people in the CC are bad or evil -- they're definitely not going to be your next Hitler or all grow up to be terrorists. What I'm saying is that the word "Christian" here doesn't even mean what it originally meant anymore, and often times I find myself very confused at that. This leads to it causing me to feel like I'm losing my faith, or that I myself am not a Christian.
What happens is this: the society around me communicates its definition of "Christian." According to this popular definition, a Christian is a loving and outwardly friendly soul who goes to church every Sunday, reads his or her Bible every morning, prays at least one prayer every day, and says the commonplace phrases "Praise God!" or "Amen."
But here's the problem I run into: most of the things that members of the CC do is actually not found in the documentation of the disciples' lives in the Bible. The disciples didn't have the Bible back then so they couldn't have possibly read what many of us CC folks read today, and (correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't mention them going to church every Sunday morning. Jesus didn't go to church on Sunday. And although he went to the temple on the Sabbath, it was a Jewish temple -- not a denominational one like the "Baptist" church or the "Pentecostal" church. And it's peculiar to note that many modern Christians don't go to Jewish temples even though they preach that we should follow Jesus every step of the way. This example of reasoning, along with many others, has led me to conclude that members of CC and members of the "secular world" have many common similarities -- they pick and choose what they want to believe even if the beliefs contradict one another, rather than believing or discovering universal truths about God and humanity. The god they believe in is the one they've created and assembled from scouring a buffet of comforting beliefs.
However, I don't always remember this conclusion when I'm interacting with those in CC. So, on occasion, I will believe a person when they communicate or act out their pure and holy lives. Consequently, it will make me feel less righteous -- and at times, cause me to doubt my faith in Jesus Christ. How this happens is as follows (and I reason this way): if they say they're Christian, then how come I'm different from them and have different beliefs? Therefore I'm not a Christian.
The good news though, is this: this voice that whispers into my head, "You're not a Christian," is speaking less and less these days, due to me becoming more grounded in my beliefs. Also, getting to know people in depth causes me to see them for who they are more and more.
(The one example I shared is actually just one of the many cases where I clash with Christian culture. More to follow -- I will continually blog about the truths I've discovered, and the new questions that have arose as a result.)
I now go to ORU, a university notorious for CC -- and the strange part is it's actually quite different from the churches I went to back in L.A. Being at this university has taught me that CC is not exactly the same everywhere you go (although the similarities remain), CC in California is different from that in Oklahoma or maybe even Texas and other southern states. I must say that the culture here is pretty antagonistic to my personality and my upbringing at times. Many people would view many aspects of my beliefs as conflicting with those of CC here, and would thus question my faith in Jesus Christ.
The clash didn't just happen purely because of a change in location -- being more independent now has taught me to think for myself, to blaze my own trail in life. Instead of just accepting things the way that I knew them, I now am seeking out the truth on my own, trying to resolve conflicting thoughts in my head rather than ignoring them. It has taught me a lot. It has taught me that culture and common attitudes are different from one place to the next, that many people's beliefs are shaped by the society around them and not by personal experience or by thinking globally, and that people are afraid of change even if their current way of living causes them grief and unhappiness, or is illogical. It has opened my eyes to a lot of truths that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. And now, some of these truths conflict with traditional teachings of the CC.
Because of this conflict, there are times where I feel like I'm not a Christian. The reason for this is because when the people in the society around me call themselves Christians, I believe them more often than not, even when, more often than not, they don't act like such. I'm not saying people in the CC are bad or evil -- they're definitely not going to be your next Hitler or all grow up to be terrorists. What I'm saying is that the word "Christian" here doesn't even mean what it originally meant anymore, and often times I find myself very confused at that. This leads to it causing me to feel like I'm losing my faith, or that I myself am not a Christian.
What happens is this: the society around me communicates its definition of "Christian." According to this popular definition, a Christian is a loving and outwardly friendly soul who goes to church every Sunday, reads his or her Bible every morning, prays at least one prayer every day, and says the commonplace phrases "Praise God!" or "Amen."
But here's the problem I run into: most of the things that members of the CC do is actually not found in the documentation of the disciples' lives in the Bible. The disciples didn't have the Bible back then so they couldn't have possibly read what many of us CC folks read today, and (correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't mention them going to church every Sunday morning. Jesus didn't go to church on Sunday. And although he went to the temple on the Sabbath, it was a Jewish temple -- not a denominational one like the "Baptist" church or the "Pentecostal" church. And it's peculiar to note that many modern Christians don't go to Jewish temples even though they preach that we should follow Jesus every step of the way. This example of reasoning, along with many others, has led me to conclude that members of CC and members of the "secular world" have many common similarities -- they pick and choose what they want to believe even if the beliefs contradict one another, rather than believing or discovering universal truths about God and humanity. The god they believe in is the one they've created and assembled from scouring a buffet of comforting beliefs.
However, I don't always remember this conclusion when I'm interacting with those in CC. So, on occasion, I will believe a person when they communicate or act out their pure and holy lives. Consequently, it will make me feel less righteous -- and at times, cause me to doubt my faith in Jesus Christ. How this happens is as follows (and I reason this way): if they say they're Christian, then how come I'm different from them and have different beliefs? Therefore I'm not a Christian.
The good news though, is this: this voice that whispers into my head, "You're not a Christian," is speaking less and less these days, due to me becoming more grounded in my beliefs. Also, getting to know people in depth causes me to see them for who they are more and more.
(The one example I shared is actually just one of the many cases where I clash with Christian culture. More to follow -- I will continually blog about the truths I've discovered, and the new questions that have arose as a result.)
Monday, June 6, 2011
Voice of Authority (I)
All of us have that voice in our head - the voice that tells us what to do and makes a direct link with our emotions and "gut feeling," thereby causing us to feel the need to obey it and do what is right. Therefore, it is the voice that tells us what is right and what is wrong. Many people call this God's voice - and I agree that it just may be. However, there are some earthly links to the spoken voice and the subsequently evoked emotion (the "do what is right" emotion, or the "I am right" emotion). One of those links is with other voices - the expressed and passed-down beliefs, values, and ideals of our earthly father and mother.
Sometimes when we approach God, we'll hear our parents talking instead. The core feelings toward what is right and what is wrong will be directly linked to what your parents - your mentors, teachers, and authoritative peers - had taught you was right and wrong. They had the aura of authority, and expressed the emotion of confidence and the "this is the right thing to do" feeling to you whenever they gave you a command, drilling their ideals into your head.
Now, I acknowledge that, because of this, parents are indispensable tools - they are the symbols translated from God's authoritative side into what we as human beings can perceive and understand as "authority." Thus, they are to be in many ways representations of the Father.
However, parents aren't always perfect. They've got impurity issues and many of them have fallen prey to the system of this world. Most parents, specifically of those who have raised children in a Christian household, have more than likely drilled in beliefs to their children that have subconscious roots in fear. "Stay close to God," my parents told me, "and stay far away from this world." The effect of them was yes, always reading their Bible and praying, being good and ethically righteous people; but there was also to the contrary another consequence, a sinister and more harmful one associated with the dogma of "keeping yourself pure and away from the sinful world."
And it was this: inaction. They never *did* anything. Well, I mean they worked as most parents should - go out and get a living, work around the house - but as Christians successfully reaching out to the lost, not too much.
The reason for this is because they believed a theology where God was always wanting their attention, much as a possessive boyfriend would want the heart of his girlfriend to be wholly transfixed on him and no one or nothing else. They believed that all you need to do in life is spend time with God - the rest of the world and other people in life were rather unimportant and "unholy" in comparison. They believed that you need to spend time with God, yet this God that they got closer and closer to was more and more distant from the world. Which is why they were always so confident and feeling like they were "doing the right thing" when they weren't talking to or avoiding "unbelievers," or talking to them (or rather *about* them behind their backs) in a very self-righteous and condescending manner.
So should that mean that we *not* spend time with God? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. But there should definitely be some discernment as to what God you're getting closer to, and how much of just one side of him you are indulging. Specifically, I'm talking about the authoritative side.
There are many sides of God - he is loving, he is smart, he is socially hip, he is trendy. All the "good" that you have ever known and will ever discover: he is all of those things, *combined.* So, if you're just focusing on his authoritative and confident side - that's a very dangerous trap you should avoid as it is very self-sustaining. Here's why.
You feel like it's the right thing to do to spend time with God, and soon you'll start to focus on his authoritative side. When you see his authoritative side, whatever have been taught from birth will more than likely surface into your head and make an associative link with God. In many cases, what we've been taught is actually harmful on a visceral level (as I have just described). But since you feel it's from God (you're hearing his voice when you're spending time with him, remember?), you'll feel like your running away from him if you at least attempt to question and explore the possible harms of these core feelings, if not reject them or change them. So, instead,you stay close to God, indulging more in his authoritative side. And the more you indulge, the more you believe you are doing the right thing - so you indulge more and more, until you become so hardened and so self-confident in believing that God is telling you to do these harmful things learned from birth that you'll start to ignore everything else around you, labelling all those things as manifestations of "Satan."
Sometimes when we approach God, we'll hear our parents talking instead. The core feelings toward what is right and what is wrong will be directly linked to what your parents - your mentors, teachers, and authoritative peers - had taught you was right and wrong. They had the aura of authority, and expressed the emotion of confidence and the "this is the right thing to do" feeling to you whenever they gave you a command, drilling their ideals into your head.
Now, I acknowledge that, because of this, parents are indispensable tools - they are the symbols translated from God's authoritative side into what we as human beings can perceive and understand as "authority." Thus, they are to be in many ways representations of the Father.
However, parents aren't always perfect. They've got impurity issues and many of them have fallen prey to the system of this world. Most parents, specifically of those who have raised children in a Christian household, have more than likely drilled in beliefs to their children that have subconscious roots in fear. "Stay close to God," my parents told me, "and stay far away from this world." The effect of them was yes, always reading their Bible and praying, being good and ethically righteous people; but there was also to the contrary another consequence, a sinister and more harmful one associated with the dogma of "keeping yourself pure and away from the sinful world."
And it was this: inaction. They never *did* anything. Well, I mean they worked as most parents should - go out and get a living, work around the house - but as Christians successfully reaching out to the lost, not too much.
The reason for this is because they believed a theology where God was always wanting their attention, much as a possessive boyfriend would want the heart of his girlfriend to be wholly transfixed on him and no one or nothing else. They believed that all you need to do in life is spend time with God - the rest of the world and other people in life were rather unimportant and "unholy" in comparison. They believed that you need to spend time with God, yet this God that they got closer and closer to was more and more distant from the world. Which is why they were always so confident and feeling like they were "doing the right thing" when they weren't talking to or avoiding "unbelievers," or talking to them (or rather *about* them behind their backs) in a very self-righteous and condescending manner.
So should that mean that we *not* spend time with God? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. But there should definitely be some discernment as to what God you're getting closer to, and how much of just one side of him you are indulging. Specifically, I'm talking about the authoritative side.
There are many sides of God - he is loving, he is smart, he is socially hip, he is trendy. All the "good" that you have ever known and will ever discover: he is all of those things, *combined.* So, if you're just focusing on his authoritative and confident side - that's a very dangerous trap you should avoid as it is very self-sustaining. Here's why.
You feel like it's the right thing to do to spend time with God, and soon you'll start to focus on his authoritative side. When you see his authoritative side, whatever have been taught from birth will more than likely surface into your head and make an associative link with God. In many cases, what we've been taught is actually harmful on a visceral level (as I have just described). But since you feel it's from God (you're hearing his voice when you're spending time with him, remember?), you'll feel like your running away from him if you at least attempt to question and explore the possible harms of these core feelings, if not reject them or change them. So, instead,you stay close to God, indulging more in his authoritative side. And the more you indulge, the more you believe you are doing the right thing - so you indulge more and more, until you become so hardened and so self-confident in believing that God is telling you to do these harmful things learned from birth that you'll start to ignore everything else around you, labelling all those things as manifestations of "Satan."
Voice of Authority (II)
So am I saying snuff your intuition and quench what you might deem the Holy Spirit? Not at all. But I must say that the Holy Spirit definitely isn't self-righteous: he leads to the expression of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control - you know, all the fruits of the Spirit.
Self-righteousness isn't one of those gifts.
Then does that mean when I spend time with God I should always doubt myself? Not at all either. Since the authoritative side of God is, in fact, a part of God, you shouldn't ignore it. What I'm saying is, you shouldn't *indulge* in it, as you'll get a very narrow picture of who God is, and you won't affect the people around you in a very positive way (more than likely). So here's what I suggest - alternate between these two "modes" when interacting with God: inquiring (i.e., introspection, questioning, rationalizing, reshaping your beliefs and views of God, etc) and believing (i.e., attaching God's command to an authoritative and self-righteous emotion, loving, feeling his love, knowing, being self-confident, etc). There is a different time for everything, as it states in the Bible. And I believe that there is a time to question and search for truth as much as there is a time to believe and feel like you should do the right thing.Going back and forth between these two modes will give you a healthy, balanced perspective of the world - and you'll definitely be much more effective when interacting with others.
Effects are what indicate roots. Fruits are what indicate the type of tree. In the Bible, it says that by your fruits you shall know them. Well, let me examine myself - just what *are* my fruits? The effects of my beliefs? Well, I know for one thing - especially lately - the effect that I've been having on the world has been close to zero (well, at least to my knowledge), or very far away from a huge chunk of what the Holy Spirit is really all about. It has been something much more sinister, and I believe that it has been because I've been indulging in God's authoritative side without giving time to experience his other qualities.
Just last night I discovered this.
Before last night, I've been spending brief periods of time talking to God. I mean, I've been listening to his smart and intellectual side speaking to me for quite a long time, but when it comes to me talking to him, conversations are usually short (albeit definitely not rare). But, over the past couple of days, I've been becoming increasingly more and more "fluent" with God, speaking to him more and more freely on a long term basis. And I must say, it has created quite a difference in my heart - a lot of positive changes have resulted and I am so excited!
However, last night I decided to do this longer than ever - maybe a little longer than I should have. And what ended up happening is me viewing the world as a place extremely saturated with Satan and his minions (which is true, but not the point as you shall see shortly). Somebody joked around with me about something that night, and I felt like he had a lot of darkness in his life and subsequently I got upset and angry - feeling hurt in the meantime. In addition, all the people I saw everyday mostly became very demonic in my eyes, and it appeared as if they were extremely far away from God.
When I got back to my room after taking the walk, I was thinking, "God, I just want to spend time with you and no one else." After that, everything else in the world became unimportant, including my previous hopes and dreams. I no longer wanted to do anything - work on my projects, write, etc. - but just talk with God and follow the thread of commands uttered from his mouth. I remember going outside to the alcove of my floor, and hearing "God" say to me, "Get up from your seat and move that chair by the elevator into a more perfect position." I didn't do it, and was subsequently plagued by guilt. And so, it was after then that I kind of just stopped "spending time with God" and kind of just rested my heart and mind for the rest of the night. The scary thing, though, was (after all this had passed) I actually felt it was the *right* thing to do. And now, as I'm sitting here writing about all this, it was because I realized that I was indulging too much in God's authoritative side with my non-reality based subconscious coming out.
I am very very detached from the world, so I see reality in ways most people usually don't. So, upon introspection, I realize that God telling me to move the chair was a manifestation of my sinful subconscious making a link with God's authoritative side. I was being delusionally self-righteous.
Well, now that all this has passed, I know what to do next time - not to "rush it" with getting close to God. Just as getting close to a girlfriend or boyfriend too fast too early might spark some major problems, so it is the same with God. The reason for this is because some of our core beliefs are very far away from the actual Principles of Heaven, and we need to be careful not to let some of the harmful things we've been taught as children make a link, via indulgence, with God's authoritative side. In this case, we should very much be careful when following our self-righteous gut feelings. And we should alternate back and forth (or *around* as there are many aspects of God) in experiencing the many different facets of God, taking turns and giving each aspect equal and ample time along with the others.
Self-righteousness isn't one of those gifts.
Then does that mean when I spend time with God I should always doubt myself? Not at all either. Since the authoritative side of God is, in fact, a part of God, you shouldn't ignore it. What I'm saying is, you shouldn't *indulge* in it, as you'll get a very narrow picture of who God is, and you won't affect the people around you in a very positive way (more than likely). So here's what I suggest - alternate between these two "modes" when interacting with God: inquiring (i.e., introspection, questioning, rationalizing, reshaping your beliefs and views of God, etc) and believing (i.e., attaching God's command to an authoritative and self-righteous emotion, loving, feeling his love, knowing, being self-confident, etc). There is a different time for everything, as it states in the Bible. And I believe that there is a time to question and search for truth as much as there is a time to believe and feel like you should do the right thing.Going back and forth between these two modes will give you a healthy, balanced perspective of the world - and you'll definitely be much more effective when interacting with others.
Effects are what indicate roots. Fruits are what indicate the type of tree. In the Bible, it says that by your fruits you shall know them. Well, let me examine myself - just what *are* my fruits? The effects of my beliefs? Well, I know for one thing - especially lately - the effect that I've been having on the world has been close to zero (well, at least to my knowledge), or very far away from a huge chunk of what the Holy Spirit is really all about. It has been something much more sinister, and I believe that it has been because I've been indulging in God's authoritative side without giving time to experience his other qualities.
Just last night I discovered this.
Before last night, I've been spending brief periods of time talking to God. I mean, I've been listening to his smart and intellectual side speaking to me for quite a long time, but when it comes to me talking to him, conversations are usually short (albeit definitely not rare). But, over the past couple of days, I've been becoming increasingly more and more "fluent" with God, speaking to him more and more freely on a long term basis. And I must say, it has created quite a difference in my heart - a lot of positive changes have resulted and I am so excited!
However, last night I decided to do this longer than ever - maybe a little longer than I should have. And what ended up happening is me viewing the world as a place extremely saturated with Satan and his minions (which is true, but not the point as you shall see shortly). Somebody joked around with me about something that night, and I felt like he had a lot of darkness in his life and subsequently I got upset and angry - feeling hurt in the meantime. In addition, all the people I saw everyday mostly became very demonic in my eyes, and it appeared as if they were extremely far away from God.
When I got back to my room after taking the walk, I was thinking, "God, I just want to spend time with you and no one else." After that, everything else in the world became unimportant, including my previous hopes and dreams. I no longer wanted to do anything - work on my projects, write, etc. - but just talk with God and follow the thread of commands uttered from his mouth. I remember going outside to the alcove of my floor, and hearing "God" say to me, "Get up from your seat and move that chair by the elevator into a more perfect position." I didn't do it, and was subsequently plagued by guilt. And so, it was after then that I kind of just stopped "spending time with God" and kind of just rested my heart and mind for the rest of the night. The scary thing, though, was (after all this had passed) I actually felt it was the *right* thing to do. And now, as I'm sitting here writing about all this, it was because I realized that I was indulging too much in God's authoritative side with my non-reality based subconscious coming out.
I am very very detached from the world, so I see reality in ways most people usually don't. So, upon introspection, I realize that God telling me to move the chair was a manifestation of my sinful subconscious making a link with God's authoritative side. I was being delusionally self-righteous.
Well, now that all this has passed, I know what to do next time - not to "rush it" with getting close to God. Just as getting close to a girlfriend or boyfriend too fast too early might spark some major problems, so it is the same with God. The reason for this is because some of our core beliefs are very far away from the actual Principles of Heaven, and we need to be careful not to let some of the harmful things we've been taught as children make a link, via indulgence, with God's authoritative side. In this case, we should very much be careful when following our self-righteous gut feelings. And we should alternate back and forth (or *around* as there are many aspects of God) in experiencing the many different facets of God, taking turns and giving each aspect equal and ample time along with the others.
Friday, March 18, 2011
The Christianese Language
Lately (come to think of it, actually my whole life), I've been really struggling with the cringing in disgust and the getting upset over people's brief and shallow mentionings of God and the Bible, or their responses to any of my problems with a "one-solves-all" Scripture reference. I get turned off by it, and it's annoying. But I don't think that's the main issue even - the main problem I have with it is that I feel so bad afterwards for being disgusted! The main reason is, of course, I feel like I dislike God after these uncontrollable feelings rise within me, in response to comments made by overly-religious people - when, in reality, I'm just inadvertently accepting their beliefs as unquestionably "right" when I know I shouldn't.
Let me give you two scenarios to exemplify this. Suppose, for instance, I'm struggling with depression. I want somebody to be there for me, to be my friend - and to listen to me and understand me. So I go to Holy Joe over here (unaware at the time that the only language he speaks in is Biblinese), and tell him about this struggle I have with thinking bad thoughts. Holy Joe, who hardly even knows me, starts spitting out a Bible verse and tells me to go "suck on it." (Well, okay - he doesn't say that specifically, but he says the Bible verse with such quickness and with such ease, it makes me think he really is saying just that.) I try to talk to the guy some more, but all he does is say, "Go read your Bible," or "Pray some more." Or he just spits out another Bible verse and leaves, making me feel further away from God instead of closer. (And also, how can he be so confident that that specific verse was meant to help me solve my problem - he doesn't even know me that well!)
Of course, I know very well not to go to these people for help, but sometimes it's difficult to know whether or not someone is like that (especially whom you don't know very well - but whom you want to know better). I'm not saying that all are like that - that's just one type of Christian (or Churchee, whatever you want to call it). There's another type that I want to discuss in this essay, and that is the "This World is Heaven" Christian, or the "God Explains Everything" Christian - or, as one of my friends would say, the "Super Christian."
Typical behavior of these Christians are characterized by having extreme faith in Christ, so extreme to the point that the only thing they see in this world is what they claim to be "God." Although I respect their confidence, and although I do admire the faith - I'm not a very huge fan of ignoring other people's viewpoints, or labeling everything you see, "God." Try to have a decent conversation with them about movies, books, or video games - and they can't restrain their love for Christ by saying, "I know movies are good, but God is better," or something along those lines. All these people seem to talk about is God, and nothing else. Now, I'm not against talking about God, but I am against talking about God in cliches impertinent and oblivious to what others perceive the world to actually be. Empty phrases like "Praise the Lord!" or "Amen!", coupled with a very lacking amount of knowledge or a very shallow understanding of the situation at hand, are the very things that turn me off - and hinder me from using church jargon myself (due to the unoriginality or vagueness of it all).
I think the main reason for my disgust is not because I'm opposed to God (and I'm not, by the way), but because I just don't believe in these people's love for Christ, thus making me wrongly suspect (or rightly suspect, depending on who the person is) that they really don't mean what they say, and that they are just phony hypocrites trying to sound "good" for their peers around them, or for society. And, it's probably also because I feel like they don't care about me, or don't want to hear what's on my mind or understand my perspective.
Of course, there should be a resolution to this issue. And I think the resolution comes from deeper explanations and, most importantly, richer and more revealing descriptions, specifically of God or anything Scripture-related.
Back to empty phrases, let's take a good look at this void and nondescript one: "God is good."
Okay, I know that God is good - I've heard it a billion times from a billion different people. Mind elaborating?
Like, tell me specifically what you mean by "good," and, more importantly what you mean by "God." The Buddhist says I believe in "God," the Muslim says I believe in "God." The Mormon says that he works for a "God," and some New Agers say that we are "God." Please, you need to tell me what you mean by "God" - specifically by throwing in some more adjectives, or by giving an explanation as to why you say that. Why do you think God is so good? What has he done in your life specifically? (And please, don't go on further by throwing in some more vague and overly-abstract Christian gobbledygook.) I just want to know how exactly you see God, and what he looks like in your eyes. Because I know He's a lot more than just two words, that's for sure.
"Isaiah 41:3 - For I am the Lord, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you." So quotes Holy Joe when I tell him about a problem I'm facing. Now, don't get me wrong - that's a comforting verse if you use your imagination well. The image of a lovely being in heaven taking your hand and protecting you from harm is sometimes one of the most comforting things to anybody going through depression.
But, the problem is, Holy Joe doesn't tell me what the verse means specifically to him. Yeah, the verse is great - but a lot of its greatness has to do with me and my imagination. How about you, Holy Joe? Why don't you tell me what it means to you? Describe to me an experience you've had where you felt like there was no hope, and where, upon discovering this verse, suddenly leaped up for joy, exclaiming "God is good!" (There's that phrase again.) Tell me what was going on in your mind when you read that verse - the images that were evoked, the specific insight it gave to your life, the new perspective it gave you on the issue you were dealing with. Please, tell me your story.
The Bible is chock full of abstractions, so it could be very well said that a lot of it is open to interpretation. Because of this, people are going to have to start applying it to their lives and to the world around them, specifically in the way they see the world (given that these people aren't living in denial or oblivion - which, often times, many of them do). What gives the word "God" more life, or makes the Bible more alive and real, is the personal meaning people give to these verses or these words - and the stories/insights they share with each other. That would be a lot more beneficial and meaningful - not only to me, but to everyone else as well.
I think if people did this, the disgust I have with Christianese would start disappearing (as well as the language itself, I bet!), and Scripture would start to be much more intimate, personal, and real - as opposed to the overused "God is good!" trope that carries with it no explanation, story, or description to back it up.
Let me give you two scenarios to exemplify this. Suppose, for instance, I'm struggling with depression. I want somebody to be there for me, to be my friend - and to listen to me and understand me. So I go to Holy Joe over here (unaware at the time that the only language he speaks in is Biblinese), and tell him about this struggle I have with thinking bad thoughts. Holy Joe, who hardly even knows me, starts spitting out a Bible verse and tells me to go "suck on it." (Well, okay - he doesn't say that specifically, but he says the Bible verse with such quickness and with such ease, it makes me think he really is saying just that.) I try to talk to the guy some more, but all he does is say, "Go read your Bible," or "Pray some more." Or he just spits out another Bible verse and leaves, making me feel further away from God instead of closer. (And also, how can he be so confident that that specific verse was meant to help me solve my problem - he doesn't even know me that well!)
Of course, I know very well not to go to these people for help, but sometimes it's difficult to know whether or not someone is like that (especially whom you don't know very well - but whom you want to know better). I'm not saying that all are like that - that's just one type of Christian (or Churchee, whatever you want to call it). There's another type that I want to discuss in this essay, and that is the "This World is Heaven" Christian, or the "God Explains Everything" Christian - or, as one of my friends would say, the "Super Christian."
Typical behavior of these Christians are characterized by having extreme faith in Christ, so extreme to the point that the only thing they see in this world is what they claim to be "God." Although I respect their confidence, and although I do admire the faith - I'm not a very huge fan of ignoring other people's viewpoints, or labeling everything you see, "God." Try to have a decent conversation with them about movies, books, or video games - and they can't restrain their love for Christ by saying, "I know movies are good, but God is better," or something along those lines. All these people seem to talk about is God, and nothing else. Now, I'm not against talking about God, but I am against talking about God in cliches impertinent and oblivious to what others perceive the world to actually be. Empty phrases like "Praise the Lord!" or "Amen!", coupled with a very lacking amount of knowledge or a very shallow understanding of the situation at hand, are the very things that turn me off - and hinder me from using church jargon myself (due to the unoriginality or vagueness of it all).
I think the main reason for my disgust is not because I'm opposed to God (and I'm not, by the way), but because I just don't believe in these people's love for Christ, thus making me wrongly suspect (or rightly suspect, depending on who the person is) that they really don't mean what they say, and that they are just phony hypocrites trying to sound "good" for their peers around them, or for society. And, it's probably also because I feel like they don't care about me, or don't want to hear what's on my mind or understand my perspective.
Of course, there should be a resolution to this issue. And I think the resolution comes from deeper explanations and, most importantly, richer and more revealing descriptions, specifically of God or anything Scripture-related.
Back to empty phrases, let's take a good look at this void and nondescript one: "God is good."
Okay, I know that God is good - I've heard it a billion times from a billion different people. Mind elaborating?
Like, tell me specifically what you mean by "good," and, more importantly what you mean by "God." The Buddhist says I believe in "God," the Muslim says I believe in "God." The Mormon says that he works for a "God," and some New Agers say that we are "God." Please, you need to tell me what you mean by "God" - specifically by throwing in some more adjectives, or by giving an explanation as to why you say that. Why do you think God is so good? What has he done in your life specifically? (And please, don't go on further by throwing in some more vague and overly-abstract Christian gobbledygook.) I just want to know how exactly you see God, and what he looks like in your eyes. Because I know He's a lot more than just two words, that's for sure.
"Isaiah 41:3 - For I am the Lord, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you." So quotes Holy Joe when I tell him about a problem I'm facing. Now, don't get me wrong - that's a comforting verse if you use your imagination well. The image of a lovely being in heaven taking your hand and protecting you from harm is sometimes one of the most comforting things to anybody going through depression.
But, the problem is, Holy Joe doesn't tell me what the verse means specifically to him. Yeah, the verse is great - but a lot of its greatness has to do with me and my imagination. How about you, Holy Joe? Why don't you tell me what it means to you? Describe to me an experience you've had where you felt like there was no hope, and where, upon discovering this verse, suddenly leaped up for joy, exclaiming "God is good!" (There's that phrase again.) Tell me what was going on in your mind when you read that verse - the images that were evoked, the specific insight it gave to your life, the new perspective it gave you on the issue you were dealing with. Please, tell me your story.
The Bible is chock full of abstractions, so it could be very well said that a lot of it is open to interpretation. Because of this, people are going to have to start applying it to their lives and to the world around them, specifically in the way they see the world (given that these people aren't living in denial or oblivion - which, often times, many of them do). What gives the word "God" more life, or makes the Bible more alive and real, is the personal meaning people give to these verses or these words - and the stories/insights they share with each other. That would be a lot more beneficial and meaningful - not only to me, but to everyone else as well.
I think if people did this, the disgust I have with Christianese would start disappearing (as well as the language itself, I bet!), and Scripture would start to be much more intimate, personal, and real - as opposed to the overused "God is good!" trope that carries with it no explanation, story, or description to back it up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)