Most of us are familiar with the old children's song, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so."
Though I suppose it should long have been obvious, recently I discovered that I have a radically different relationship to God and the Bible than many Christians. I know God exists because of my personal spiritual experiences, and as I read the Bible, I find confirmation that others across the centuries have also similarly experienced God. I do not believe God is there simply because the Bible says so.
The Bible channels my beliefs toward Christian doctrine. I could not, of course, have independent knowledge of the resurrection. What validates the Bible for me is the litany of shared experiences and sentiments that are found throughout scripture.
This approach liberates me to read the Bible critically. I am not concerned that scientific, historical or archaeological discoveries challenge or seem to contradict the literal veracity of ancient texts. If God is ultimate truth -- and the Bible says he is! (wink wink) -- then all truth brings us closer to God. And while I believe that all of scripture was written in good faith and is divinely inspired, I don't believe that's at all the same thing as inerrancy.
That means I can view certain passages as historically significant yet in moral conflict with the Gospel. It means I can find truth in Genesis without needing to believe there was ever actually an Adam and an Eve, and believe that God is responsible for all creation no matter how long it took.
This has also allowed me to find God and truth in other traditions. I'm still a Christian, but I'm not prepared to discard the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the teachings of Buddha and the songs of U2 as categorically wrong or devil-inspired. Like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (though she was referring to studying international law), "I'll take enlightenment wherever I can get it."
Jesus loves me, this I know, because of the countless manifestations of divine grace and mercy present in this world, not because some guy 2000 years ago said so. I just agree with him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
So like millios you have found a definition of God that you can live with.
Does it matter that your definition of God does not fit into other sect's ( Catholic. Luthern, ect.) definition of God?
If that is your passionate belief in the creator of all things, then don't you have to disagree with all other definitios of this same God?
Another great post, Andy. You have an incredible ability to put into words so much of how I, too, see my faith -- thanks for the edification.
Anon, I think Andy's point is that he's *not* looking for division among sects, but instead similarities. If Lutherans or Catholics want to reject his assessment of his relationship with God, that is not the same as him rejecting them. Does that make sense? Looking at this as "you have to disagree" completely misses the point. God can be many things all at once -- if some people say "God is only X" *they* may find disagreement with those who say "God is X and much more", but not vice versa.
LF: thanks for the compliments! and the defense.
Anon: I feel like you're accusing me of shopping around for a church that I like, which I freely admit I did, and frankly encourage everyone to do. I think we have to worship God in the place that feels real and authentic to us, and that's going to lead some of us in different directions. But I didn't settle where I did because the Anglican view conformed completely to my pre-conceived notions about God, nor did I stay because I found complete acceptance and no pressure to change my ideas on anything. Quite the contrary. I find that my church pushes my buttons, forces me to ask myself questions that need to be asked, and to constantly revisit and re-evaluate old ideas.
As far as your question about different denominations, honestly the differences between us are negligible in the grand scheme of things. As I read the Gospel, I don't see that Jesus is particularly interested in the finer points of church doctrine. He is interested in how we behave, in how we interact with each other, and to value things which have no price. As far as faith goes, Jesus tells us to become like little children. Children don't sit around worrying about canonical reporting structures and the sharing of the eucharist with the unbaptized. No mind has ever fully understood God, and none ever will. It's only natural to accept that in our general understanding of God, some of us will have different ideas. That I might disagree, based on my experiences and understandings, with Catholics or Baptists on some issues, is not the same thing as me saying "they're wrong."
You rock :).
My point is; looking from the outside, that's what religions do, argue with each other about who has the REAL God.
Muslims say that people who don't believe in their God should be enslaved or eliminated. Christians say that if you don't believe or follow the rules of their God, you are a sinner and will go to hell.
There seems to be an infinate number of negative effects for members who misbehave, or non-members who refuse to believe in their particular form of God.
Each sect seems to have their punnishment for not obeying their God. Each feels their mission is to convert every person to the truth of their belief.
I'm glad you found something you are comfortable and passionate about, spiritually. I'm really glad you don't feel the need to argue, defend, fight about, convert others to, or claim yours is the only true understanding of God.
As an outsider, that's all I see most religious sects in the world doing as an expression of their faith, and I deplore it.
I was just wondering why you don't feel the need to behave as I see other sects behaving about their passionate beliefs.
As an outsider, that's all I see
Well, where are you looking? In the news? Because I have to tell you, kind, generous peaceful people going about their daily business don't make for great headlines. Maybe you should check out things like the thousands of faith organizations around the world who provide food, housing and healthcare for the world's poor. Or the faith organizations that are struggling to get governments to finally do something about the slaughter in Darfur. Or the faith organizations calling on our government to recognize that global warming isn't some theory, it's happening and it's now and people are dying because of it.
Yes, a lot of bad stuff happens in the name of religion. But let me pose it to you this way. Last year, a couple of ex-NYPD cops were convicted of working for the mob, including assassinations, using their police uniforms and connections to gain advantage to information and sensitive targets. Now, do we say police are bad and there should be no more police forces? Because you know, this wasn't an isolated incident. We have all kinds of police brutality going on -- not just here, but all over the world. But no, of course not, because we all know what the police are there for. These are bad men because they broke the rules, they did what they are not supposed to do, and they took advantage of their position to do it.
In the same way, it should not come as a surprise that some violent, hateful people see religion as a tool of influence and power and who not only fall short of the rules of their faith, they openly break them and commit heinous sins in God's own name. But it's the people who are at fault, not the faith. Search out and see what Jesus taught. See what the Koran says about "the People of the Book" -- meaning Jews and Christians. See what the Bhagavad Gita says about humanity's relationship with God. I think you'll find religion is not what you think it is.
It's not what I think, but what they say they stand for compared to their actual behavior.
There's always bad with good.
What balance do we settle for, and why do they create violence against each other? If it is the same God being worshiped in different ways, what is the basis for waring against each other.
In the case of Iraq, the President says it is not a religious war, I disagree.
From the Islamic point of view, I believe they see it as a religious war. JIHAD!
You have a nice live and let live attitude, I wish these sects would have the same peacefull attitude.
One off hand, innocent remark by the Pope and the whole Muslim world is up in arms.
One manger scene in front of city hall and were in court.
One word like "God" in a pledge, and they want to change the Constitution.
Religious debate around the world does not end like the nice debates on your blog.
Violence around the world, caused by religious debate, is not as rare as a bad cop in NY, and the consequences are much more severe.
I'm not saying religion is bad, or hasn't done good; but you can't just say that because people do bad we can't look at the religion they claim to be an example of.
If an ideology claims to be the ultimate, surely the followers of that ideology should reflect it better than they do.
What are we talking about here? The pro's and con's of religious effect on human kind?
History shows that the world has been warlike and violent since Christ. Was the world worse before Christ? How do we measure Christ's effect on mankind?
No matter what "bad" people have done; isn't it reasonable to ask what good God has brought to people's behavior because of his instructions to the people on how to behave?
I'm not talking about blaming God for the sinfull behavior of humans, but what have humans learned from this God they claim to have so much respect for?
After all a large majority of the people of the world claim to follow one religion or another, but I wouldn't judge the behavior of humans all that great.
My opinion, based on all the violence and war over the last few thousand years.
If an ideology claims to be the ultimate, surely the followers of that ideology should reflect it better than they do.
Yep. I am in complete agreement. But I think the larger question is whether religion actually has anything to do with the behavior we're discussing, or whether that tendency toward incivility, violence, discrimination based on fear and ignorance, classism, racism, sexism, etc. is just part of the human condition, and whether religion often gets distorted as a convenient vehicle for the abuse of power and manipulation of the innocent. Can't we make the same argument about democracy? I'm with you on all of that. But you need to understand that is not in fact the whole story of religion. I am not as rare a bird as you might think. Really and truly, most religious people are peaceful and moderate. They're just not on the nightly news, precisely because they're not out blowing things up or sawing off people's head or loudly insisting against mountains of evidence that the world was created in six days and that God sent Hurricane Katrina as a sign of his displeasure against welfare and homosexuals.
Andy-
You don't have to answer the following (unrelated) question if it reveals personal info or endangers your privacy to stalkers.
I've been trying to sleuth out which parish you belong to, based on vague clues I have picked out of the ether.
Do you belong to a large Midtown parish with busy programs and an onsite bookshop that worships in a Goodhue-designed building with a predominantly brown facade and a predominantly contempo-language liturgy? I sub in the choir there sometimes. I've never seen your face in the pews yet, but maybe you attend a service other than the 11:00.
Just curious.
Bingo, huomiseksi! : )
Yeah, I'm usually at the 11. I've only been going there since June, but I'm there more often than not.
I don't mind stalkers. Some of them send me lovely gifts! It's fabulous. Just as long as they don't, you know, actually stalk me.
A question:
If you can take your own meaning from the bible, then what is it that requires you to call yourself a Christian? Why not start your own religion, or why not become a Unitarian or a new age flake?
At what point does recognition of the bible's fallibility make the bible irrelevant to your personal understanding of god?
Another really good question.
I don't think I'm really taking my own meaning from the Bible to suit my personal worldview while deliberately ignoring the inconvenient parts, but a lot of people do just that, yes.
My process is like this: for me, the Gospels come first, the epistles come second, and the Old Testament a distant third. So I balance everything in these other parts against the Gospel, and when there's conflict, I defer to what the Bible says Jesus said. In my humble, non-ordained amateur opinion, a lot of what is contained in Old Testament law is amoral in light of the Gospel, as are some passages in the epistles. I acknowledge them, but feel that they have been vacated by Jesus' teachings.
There are unhappy, hard things in the Gospel, too. Jesus said, "I did not come to bring peace, but the sword." He said, "No one can follow me who does not hate his father and mother." He said, "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." He taught that we must sell all our possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him. Youch. I'm not ignoring these things, I'm wrestling with them. I just haven't written about them yet.
But I can definitely tell you that because of my religious beliefs, I make choices in my life that otherwise I would prefer not to make. Details would be getting a little too personal. But I don't think the Bible is a "Choose Your Own Religion" book.
Future Geek--
I agree, yours is a really good question. How DO you know if you’re a Christian if you develop your own meaning from the Bible?
My answer is, you can’t BE a Christian without taking your own meaning from the Bible. Salvation has to be real for you personally. You have to understand it for yourself. In a way that means something to you. In the place where you are.
Evangelical Christians are famous for confronting people with the provocative question, “Do you accept Jesus Christ as your PERSONAL Lord and Savior?” I’ve never known exactly what they’re getting at by asking it the way they do. But I’d like to think they’re asking, “Does Jesus’ message speak to you? Does he answer your suffering? Does he show you joy?” I wouldn’t want to be a Christian if the answer weren’t “yes,” in some way. In a way I arrived at by my own conclusions, rather than by some dictated viewpoint.
Jesus preached to individuals as well as to crowds, adjusting his approach to his hearers. We have a hard task today in figuring out what his message has to do with our existence, but unless the words of scripture truly take root in our hearts, at a very intimate level, what point is there in merely “joining the group?”
Wrong conclusions about the Christian message are possible, obviously. But we all have to start somewhere. Even if we’re mixed up at first God will lead us by degrees to sharper understanding. Somehow.
Andy--
I pat myself on the pack for figuring it out! I'll look again for you this Sunday. I'd like to meet you and reassure you that I'm no stalker. If you're there and see me first, I'm the tenor with clipped-down brown hair and black Nana Mouskouri style glasses. (Wow, that description makes me sound weird!)
“Do you accept Jesus Christ as your PERSONAL Lord and Savior?”
what they are really saying:
do you think like i do, or are you going to hell?
Andy, what a nice, quiet, calm and explicable religious outlook. I like it. I think peace will be with you this holiday season.
Post a Comment