Forget Stations of the Cross! It’s stations of the UN!

When I was a Catholic, I went through the stations of the cross several times, including a couple which included props and sound effects. It’s one of the reasons I never felt the need to go see Mel Gibson’s snuff movie – as a former Catholic, I was well aware of Jesus’ suffering on the cross. It was real for me already.

However, since The Passion of the Christ, the movie, accomplished the task of helping Christians experience the horror and suffering of Jesus’ passion and death, the Episcopalian Relief and Development Agency has apparently decided that they can move on other, important topics. Like reducing our carbon food print and promoting third world debt relief. From an article about it on Slate:

This year in time for Lent, Episcopal Relief and Development, the relief agency of the Episcopal Church, began offering a variation on the Stations of the Cross called the Stations of the Millennium Development Goals. It features eight stations, one for each of the global priorities identified by the United Nations in 2000, from eradicating poverty to promoting gender equality. Where each of the 14 stations of the traditional Stations of the Cross represents an event leading up to Jesus’ death—”Jesus is condemned to death” and “Jesus falls the first time,” for example—the alternative version, promoted by Episcopal Relief and Development, shifts the focus to righting global problems. At Station 8, “Create a Global Partnership for Development,” participants are reminded that a “fair trading system, increased international aid, and debt relief for developing countries will help us realize” the U.N. goals. An optional activity at Station 7, “Ensure Environmental Sustainability,” asks that “pilgrims calculate their carbon footprint and come up with three strategies to reduce it.” . . . A suggested activity for Station 4, on reducing child mortality, calls for participants to shade in drawings of children’s faces, coloring-book-style.

Goodness. Continue reading “Forget Stations of the Cross! It’s stations of the UN!”

The sins of the fathers

Over at Crunchy Cons, Rod has a post up linking to a rather unfunny piece by Diogenes on Catholic World Daily which is meant to mock those who have or would like others to, ask for forgiveness for the sins of our ancestors. A clip from the piece:

It’s back in style: the political fashion of issuing official “apologies” for wrongs committed by others — especially long-dead others — in order to cash-in on the compassion sweepstakes and dutch rub the opposition in the process. Australia’s Labour Government apologized to the aboriginals last month, and now Canada appears ready to follow suit. Perhaps the following Mea Culpa, first offered in response to the initial wave of vicarious mortification, might bear repeating:

Bless me, Father, for my ancestors have sinned. It has been two episodes of 60 Minutes since my last confession.

— My parents were unwelcoming of government mandated integration in their working class neighborhood. At least, I ‘m not absolutely sure they were unwelcoming, but they had a statue of the Sacred Heart in the parlor, and that was typical of the kind of people that put property values before justice in those days. For these and all their other sins of bigotry I ask pardon and penance.

I think it’s safe to say that our pastors are doing a really, really bad teaching the flock how God wants us to deal with the sins of our ancestors. The gap between what God calls us to do and how many Christians, even good faithful Christians, think about what is the right way to deal with the sins of our for-bearers could hardly be greater. A commentator on the Catholic World News sight where the item was put up had this to say: Continue reading “The sins of the fathers”

Beliefism’s Co-joined Twin, Biblism

Last night I wrote about “Beliefism” which for some people, is living as a parasite off its co-joined twin, “Bibleism”.  Now, let me be clear, I believe in the authority of scripture, I believe that it is the inspired word of God, I have and continue to study it.  However, the truth of the matter is that there is a lot of abuse which goes on around the bible.  So many people become “Beliefists” because they cannot see the difference between their interpretation of scriptures and scripture itself.  There is also a tendency to insist that we cannot understand any part of scripture as being mythological or allegorical or otherwise not accurate as a history book without discrediting scripture, and therefor God.  I like to call this bible abuse.  It is a form of beliefism wherein a person’s faith is in scriptures rather than in the living God.

Anyhow, what really brought this to mind was something I read last night.  I’ve been skimming through How People Grow by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend and came across this line which just hit me as odd:

I don’t know if she fully understood the depth of theology she communicated in that one answer to how she made it trhough.  But the Bible does understand it.  It commands it.” (emphasis mine)

Now, I know the verses from Hebrews (“The word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword” Hebrews 4:12).  And I do know what they’re saying here.  However, I still wonder about a Christian author who attributes understanding, feelings and such to a book – even the bible.  It seems to me that it would be more accurate, and more helpful for the proper mindset of the reader to say, “God understands this and that is why He put it in His word”?  Maybe I’m nitpicking here.

Regardless, the wording struck me as odd and reminded me of a parody I read a while back at The Wittenburg Door:

Professors at Dallas Theological Seminary published a position paper Tuesday eliminating the concept of “God” and/or “Lord” from Christian worship and replacing it with worship of the Bible only. The step had been anticipated for several years and was considered a formality within the actual “Bible only” movement . . . Continue reading “Beliefism’s Co-joined Twin, Biblism”

Beliefism is poison

Christianity has literally tens of thousands of denominations. Which can’t be honoring to God; the unity of the body of Christ seems to be very important to God. Jesus talked about the desire for us to be one. Paul speaks repeatedly of the need for Christian believers to be unified. And yet, we keep splitting up, often acrimoniously. Of course this isn’t particularly new; the early Christian church was much more diverse than we often realize.

What drives these divisions, for the most part are disagreements, often valid and serious, about what Christian beliefs are true. Are sacraments necessary for salvation? Is the sinner’s prayer? Must members of a church affirm a particular creed? What is the role of tradition? How should various scripture verses be interpreted? How should claims of revelations be handled? All serious points. All with presumably one right answer, or at least a limited range of right answers. Then again, many of these disagreements are more than likely completely besides the point; does anyone seriously think God cares if we are sprinkled or dunked at baptism?

So we have all these disagreements, and thus all these divisions. And we can argue all we want over the particulars, the fact still remains that this level of division among God’s people cannot be pleasing to God. But what to do about it?

I certainly don’t have the answers sheet for who has the right answers to all the issues which lead to our division (although I have plenty of opinions!). However, I would suggest that we look at the biblical principle of “good fruit/bad fruit”. That is, if we see a good result, we can assume that whatever is producing it is good. If we see a bad result, then we can assume that whatever is producing it is bad. Obviously the division in the body of Christ is bad, so we would do well to figure out what is creating this bad fruit.

I would argue, as does this article titled “Giving Beliefism the Bird” from The Ooze, that something we can call “beliefism” is at the root of this bad fruit. This article provides this explanation:

beliefism [is] ‘about me being right.’ This is a lot different than being devoted to a Person, to Jesus. Beliefism is devotion to a system of beliefs.” Continue reading “Beliefism is poison”

Teaching Creation Science or ID? A formula for putting your child’s Christian faith at risk.

In my last post I kind of poked at those who use ridiculous notions of socialization to criticize homeschooling. Today, I’m going to sharpen my stick and point it in the direction of some of my fellow homeschoolers. It is my firm belief that an unfortunate number of Christian homeschoolers are putting their child’s future spiritual walk at risk in service to an idea which is not even necessary to the faith. I am talking, of course, about those who are teaching their children a from a creationist, anti-evolutionary POV. (Of course there are parents and churches who are teaching kids who aren’t being homeschooled the same things, but for the purposes of this discussion, I’m going to focus on homeschoolers who are doing this.)

Of course, one of the primary reasons some Christian homeschoolers teach their children that evolution, the big bang and such are wrong, is because they feel an obligation to inculcate a strong faith in their children. However, it is my very strong opinion, backed up by the experiences of many people who have been down this road themselves, that these parents are actually sowing the seeds of the destruction of their children’s faith in the future. Continue reading “Teaching Creation Science or ID? A formula for putting your child’s Christian faith at risk.”

Jesus, Virtuous Vanilla Lip Balm, and a Prostitute

I wrote an article recently for a magazine about “The Jesus Brand”. It basically revolved around our relationship as Christians with Christian retailing, but if I had seen this doozy of a product line before writing it, I may well have gone in a different direction with it: The tagline on the webpage says “Look your Sunday best! Guaranteed to help you be worthy and … Continue reading Jesus, Virtuous Vanilla Lip Balm, and a Prostitute

“My yoke is easy and my burden is light . . .”

Come to me all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.  Matthew 11:28-30

This is one of these verses which sounds nice and for a while you can take comfort in it.  Until things really just get pushed too far and you realize that you have no idea what the blazes it’s supposed to mean and it doesn’t even seem to be true as far as you can see.  What is Jesus’ yoke anyways?  Continue reading ““My yoke is easy and my burden is light . . .””