"How Can I Believe When the Church Lets Me Down?"

               My sermon on doubt this coming Sunday, January 27th, is really different from the past several sermons.  My topic is:  “How Can I Believe When the Church Lets Me Down?”  We will be exploring situations that arise when a person’s faith is undermined by the failure of the Church, or individual Christians within a congregation.  Usually this failure occurs when clergy or devout church-goers behave in ways that are inconsistent with the teachings of Christ and the life of discipleship.  In other words, doubt can arise when persons perceive hypocrisy in the attitudes and actions of Christians.

         When I first began preparing for Sunday, I imagined myself speaking to someone who struggles with the faith because of the hypocrisy they perceive in the Church and among Christians. However, as I continued to reflect, it occurred to me that there will be a second audience for this sermon: all of us in the church, whose actions and attitudes erect barriers that prevent others from faith and the knowledge of God’s love for them. What are we in the church to do when, despite our best efforts, we actually become obstacles separating others from God?

            My sermon will be grounded in a passage from the Gospel of John, 7:53-8:11, which is the story of “Jesus and the Woman Caught in Adultery.”  I think that this scripture will be very instructive, in terms of seeing how Jesus confronts religious hypocrisy.

               In preparing for the message on Sunday, I have been impressed by some observations made by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons in their book, unChristian[1], based upon opinion surveys which they conducted.  Kinnaman and Lyons asked adult Christians to identify the most important priorities for living a Christian life.  The most popular response to this question, with 35%, was “Lifestyle—doing the right thing, being good, not sinning.”  Ironically, Kinnaman and Lyons observe that in another survey, which they conducted among non-Christians, only 15% of these respondents indicated that they could see a lifestyle difference between their Christian friends and others.

            Kinnaman and Lyons conclude by observing that Christians “…lives are a poor advertisement for these standards.  We  [Christians] have set the game board to register lifestyle points; then we are surprised to be trapped by our own mistakes.  The truth is [Christians]  have invited the hypocrite image.”

            I think that Kinnaman and Lyons are on to something.  Although Christians should try to pattern their lives in such a way that others see Christ reflected in their actions and attitudes, the truth is that we remain finite, sinful human beings.  We make mistakes; we have the wrong attitude; we forget to love; and, yes, we act like hypocrites.  However, as the old saying goes, “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.”  For me, the most important thing about being a Christian is not lifestyle.  Rather, it is knowing that God loves me, even though I am a sinner and I can be quite the pompous hypocrite at times.  I am a Christian because this love enables me to flourish and be happier than I could ever be on my own.  But, in response to God’s love for me, I love God and my neighbor and God’s Creation.  Hopefully, my response of love to God results in a lifestyle that is ethical and without too much hypocrisy.

           This sermon is the fourth in a series, called:  “Confronting Our Doubts.”  For a complete listing of the series, see my first post below.  Through confronting issues that raise doubts, I believe that we can gain deeper understanding and a stronger faith.  I hope that this sermon will stimulate deeper reflection and understanding.

Feel free to post your comments on this blog.  If you live in the Meriden-area and do not have a regular church home, please consider attending Meriden United Methodist Church this Sunday.  Meriden UMC is located at the corner of Dawson and Main.  Our worship service starts on Sundays at 10 am.  Everyone is welcome and accepted because God loves us all.

 

---

[1] David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, unChristian (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 2007), Chapter 3-“Hypocritical.”

Follow Up to Sermon on Evolution

            On Friday, January 25th, I will post a blog previewing my sermon this Sunday, January 27th, exploring the doubt:  “How Can I Believe When the Church Lets Me Down?”  Before moving to that topic, however, I have a few final comments concerning my sermon on evolution last Sunday. 

             In that sermon, I tried to present the opposing positions of creationism and theistic evolution.  I defined creationism as “the attempt to scientifically ground our belief that God created the universe with an alternative explanation to evolution that agrees more literally with the Creation account in Genesis 1.”  Basically, creationists reject any aspect of evolution that cannot be brought into harmony with a literal reading of Genesis 1.  By theistic evolution, I mean a theological perspective that accepts evolution as the scientific explanation of how biological life emerged and developed, but it understands God’s creative action as working through the evolutionary process.  This perspective does not read and interpret Genesis 1 as a literal, scientific explanation.

           As I noted last Sunday, there are a wide variety of differing interpretations of evolution within the broad categories of creationism and theistic evolution.  And, I tried to describe some of the varied interpretations on both sides of the question as fairly and objectively as possible.  In the interest of transparency—and, without claiming that everyone has to agree with me on this issue—I also concluded by sharing that in my own faith journey I have adopted the theistic evolution perspective. 

I know that announcing my position thrilled some people and horrified others.  Evolution is a very deep controversial topic and there are many members from my congregation on both sides.  As I’ve said before, disagreement, as long as it’s civil, can be good for Christians.  When we only talk with people who agree with us, then we just confirm our own beliefs.  We stop thinking and growing in that area.  But, when we have authentic conversations with others who disagree with us, then we think more deeply and we grow in our faith as a result. 

Still, sometimes I think that evolution is too controversial for Christians.  It’s too controversial because it distracts us from the true meaning of Genesis 1.

 The true meaning of Genesis 1 centers on two relationships:  (1) God’s relationship with Creation and (2) humans’ relationship with Creation.  In Genesis 1, God affirms again and again the goodness of creation.  When at last God’s creative work is done at the end of the sixth day, Genesis 1:31 records:  “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.  And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”  God’s relationship with Creation is that of an affirming Creator, who sees the value of what has been created; who values and loves nature.

 As for the second relationship between humans and nature, the key verse is Genesis 1:27.  “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”  We humans tend to see and interpret things from within our particular socio-cultural context.  Biblical research suggests that the early Hebrews would have heard this verse within their socio-cultural context, in which they were neighbors with the Babylonians and Egyptians.  Both of these cultures idolized their King—or, Pharaoh—seeing them as created in the divine image of their gods.  The Babylonian and Egyptian rulers were charged with insuring the safety and security of their land, or ecology, and ruling with justice.  In Genesis 1, what God says to the Hebrews is that taking care of nature and working for justice is not just the responsibility of a single person--even a King-- but rather of all humans.  So, humans’ relationship with nature should be one of care-taking of this Creation that God loves and sees as “very good.”

 At the end of the discussion, when everything has been said, it does not really matter whether God created in six 24-hour days, or in six “day-ages,” or through the process of evolution.  What really matters is whether we humans respond faithfully to God by becoming good stewards of God’s Creation—and, that should be something we can all agree on.

Can I Be a Christian and Also Accept Evolution?

For many of us living in the 21st century, the relationship between science and faith raises critical challenges and troubling doubts.  This is especially the case in regards to the theory of evolution in biology.  Here, doubts arise for many people because evolution’s account of how biological life emerged and developed on Earth appears to directly contradict the story of Creation in Genesis 1 of the Bible.

 

Although almost all 19th century Christians believed that the Genesis 1 Creation Story could accommodate evolution without conflict, a radical “creationism” emerged among many American Christians during the 20th century.[1]  Basically, “creationism” is the attempt to scientifically ground our belief that God created the universe, as described in Genesis 1.  Creationism proposes an alternative theory that explains away or replaces the theory of evolution.  While popular news reports tend to treat creationism as a single, unified theory, there are actually several alternative proposals.  In my Sermon this Sunday, January 20th, I will review and discuss three of these alternatives:  (1) “day-age,” (2) “gap,” and (3) “Flood” or “Creation Science.”

 

Even though many Christians hold some view of creationism, there are other viewpoints, as well.  On the other end of the continuum, there are some Christians who do not attempt to reconcile creationism with our understanding of God as the Creator.  They accept evolution as an explanation of the origins and development of physical life on Earth, and they see religion as focused on an otherworldly spiritual domain, which is completely separate from the physical.

 

Other Christians continue to believe that evolution and Christian faith can be reconciled.  From this perspective, accepting the theory of evolution does not exclude God’s work as Creator.  Just as there were several alternative proposals for creationism, so also this perspective has diverse alternatives.  During my sermon, I will discuss two options:  (1) God actively creates by guiding the evolutionary process itself; and (2) When God created the universe, God set up the evolutionary process as the mechanism through which biological life would emerge and develop.

 

The theory of evolution raises many important faith questions and challenges for Christians.  I will not have time to discuss all of these different challenges, but I will explore some of these challenges.  For instance, Genesis 1:27 asserts that human persons are created “in the image of God.”  If the theory of evolution is correct, and humans have evolved from monkeys, what does this mean for our understanding that every single human person bears the image of God?  In other words, was there some line that was crossed along our evolutionary path, so that before the line we were just animals and after that line we acquired the image of God?

 

This sermon is the third in a series, called:  “Confronting Our Doubts.”  For a complete listing of the series, see my first post below.  Through confronting issues that raise doubts, I believe that we can gain deeper understanding and a stronger faith.  In exploring these topics, I am not trying to convince everyone that they must resolve their doubts by agreeing with my position.  I think it is important for each person to develop their own answer to these doubts.  At the same time, I believe that as the pastor I should share where I am on this issue.  So, in answer to the question, “Can I Be Christian and Also Accept Evolution?” my personal response is, “Yes.”  Whether you agree or disagree with me, I hope that this sermon will stimulate deeper reflection and understanding, concerning the troubling doubts raised by evolution.

Feel free to join and post your comments on this blog.  If you live in the Meriden-area and do not have a regular church home, please consider attending Meriden UMC this Sunday.  Meriden UMC is located at the corner of Dawson and Main.  Our worship service starts on Sundays at 10 am.  Everyone is welcome and accepted because God loves us all.

 

 

---

[1]See Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists, The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA:  The University of California Press, 1992).

Follow Up to Sermon on Interpreting the Bible Literally

One of the things which I am discovering about my sermon series on “Confronting Our Doubts” is that each topic could actually be a sermon series in its own right.  That was certainly the case last Sunday, when my topic was “Is the Bible Literally True?”  There was much more to say on this topic.  Following the service, someone asked me to elaborate more on the conclusion of my sermon and to post my four points about how I, personally, read and interpret the Bible.

 

So, today I am going to blog a follow-up to my sermon on interpreting the Bible literally, with the promise that I will post a blog on Thursday, previewing the sermon for this coming Sunday, January 20th:  “Can I Be Christian and Also Accept Evolution?”

 

In my sermon, I tried to treat all viewpoints fairly and sympathetically.  And, I really appreciated the point made in the “Preface” to the 1978 “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”  As I paraphrased the Statement in my sermon:  “What is important is not so much whether we interpret the scriptures literally or not.  Rather, what is most important is that others can see the scriptures portrayed in the way we live our lives.”  This is a very important insight to remember.

 

As promised, I concluded by sharing how I interpret the Bible in my own faith journey.  What I came to realize in preparing the sermon was that there are some parts of the Bible that I interpret literally and other parts that I just cannot interpret literally.  If I take this position, then it is important to articulate some guidelines or criteria, which guide my thinking in discerning which parts of the Bible should be interpreted literally and which parts should not be interpreted literally.  So, I concluded my sermon by delineating four points that guide my thinking:

 

1.      The Bible is just one way in which God is present and speaks to us.  On this point, I really appreciate Albert Outler’s proposal for a “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” which recognizes that God speaks to us in four broad categories:

a.      Scripture

b.      Tradition/History—including the teachings of the Church Fathers and other historical figures, such as John Wesley.

c.       Experience—including our personal experiences, such as God speaking to us through prayer or, spiritually, through a beautiful sunset or by walking in a forest.  Experience also includes the experiences of other persons whom we know, as well as the experience of our community of faith.

d.      Reason

 

I believe that scripture is our principal means of learning about God and how God intends for us to live our lives.  However, I also believe that the other forms of learning about God are also important and that there should be some consonance between scripture, along with tradition, experience, and reason.

 

Here’s an example of what I mean by consonance:  When I was in high school, I questioned how I could objectively know that the Bible was really sacred scripture.  Afterall, I was growing up in the southern United States, in the area frequently called the “Bible Belt.”  And, other religions have their own sacred texts, such as the Torah in Judaism, the Qur’an in Islam, and the Vedas in Hinduism.  How could I know for sure that out of all these sacred texts, the Bible was the divinely inspired Word of God? 

 

I struggled with this question for years.  Finally, I accepted the Bible as the sacred text for me because there was a consonance between the Bible and my experiences in life, as well as the experiences of my family and community.  In other words, my life experiences confirmed that the Bible was my sacred text. 

 

(Now, obviously, my Jewish friends may claim that same consonance for the Torah; my Muslim friends may claim that same consonance for the Qur’an, and Hindu friends for Vedas, and so on for friends from other religious traditions.  Although I’ll speak in more depth on February 3rd, my basic position is that that is to be expected because my Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and other friends have all had different experiences than me.)

 

2.      God loves each and every person, including me.  The only way to respond to God’s love is with love.  Love and human dignity run like a red thread throughout the scriptures, from beginning to end.  We see this thread in the very first chapter of the Bible:  “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”  (Genesis 1:27) 

 

If each human person possesses the image of God, then we must treat each person with love and dignity.  This red thread runs throughout all of the scripture, until the end where we read:  “We love because he first loved us.  Those who say, ‘I love God,’ and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.”  (1 John 4: 19-20)

 

I believe that God intends for our love to extend beyond human persons to include all of God’s Creation because God saw that all Creation was “Very Good.” (Genesis 1:  31)  Given this red thread that runs throughout, I believe that in order to be consistent, I must interpret scriptural passages about justice and environment stewardship as literally true.  Therefore, the Great Judgment in the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus tells us to care for those who are hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison (Matthew 25: 31-46), I believe Jesus literally means that we are to do just that.

 

3.      The Bible was not intended to be a modern scientific textbook.  I really appreciate and agree with the point made in the “Exposition” of the 1978 “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” when the conference writes that we should treat the sections in the Bible as the type of literature which they were intended to be.  To quote the document directly:  “So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor…”.

 

The point where I part ways with the Chicago Statement is that I do not see any portion of Scripture, which was intended as a modern science textbook.  How could there have ever been this intention, since modern science, as we know it, did not emerge until literally hundreds of years after the canon was set?  Therefore, it is inappropriate to literally interpret the Creation Story in Genesis 1—as well as the Creation Story in Genesis 2—as though they were intended to be a science textbook and thus a literal account of Creation.  This does not mean that these Creation stories are unimportant.  They are crucially important and they have important things to tell us about humans’ relationship with nature and God’s relationship with nature as well as with us.  A similar case could be made for all of the miracles in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament.

 

4.      When God is Ready, God will create and establish God’s Reign on a New Heaven and New Earth.   The Staff-Parish Relations Committee (Personnel Committee) at Meriden UMC has asked that I preach a whole sermon series on this point as part of some continuing education that I have been doing.  So, there is a sermon series planned, beginning on Easter Sunday.  For now, I will just say that I interpret the stories of Jesus’ Resurrection and the promise of Heaven as being literally true. 

 

Well, those are the four points that I made at the conclusion of my sermon on interpreting the Bible literally.  As I noted in the sermon, I may be completely—or, perhaps partially—wrong on this topic.  If you think that I’m wrong—or, even if you think I am right—please feel free to post a comment on this blog and tell me why you agree or disagree with me.

 

Also, please check this blog tomorrow for a preview of Sunday’s sermon on evolution.

"Is the Bible Literally True?"

For contemporary Christians, many of our questions and doubts are shaped by how we view the Bible.  For instance, how we view the Bible frequently shapes Christian views on the theory of evolution, which will be my sermon topic the following Sunday on January 20th. 

This Sunday, January 13th, I will explore the question of how we should view the Bible, focusing on whether we must interpret the Bible as literally true.  Many Christians accept the Bible as literally true.  These Christians “affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.”  They deny that science invalidates what the Scripture teaches about the creation of the universe or the flood when Noah built the Ark.[i]  The advantage of this approach is that it preserves the authority of scripture and recognizes that scripture is God’s divine word.  The difficulty with this approach is that it seems to put scripture in direct conflict with much of modern science, such as the theory of evolution.  This perspective also asks Christians to suspend their scientific perspective when interpreting certain stories and passages in the Bible, such as Noah and the flood.

By contrast, other Christians do not interpret the Bible as literally true, although they usually recognize the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God.  This approach to the Bible opens up additional options for interpreting the Bible, which do not put the Christian in direct conflict with what we know from science about evolution.  Neither does it require Christians to suspend their scientific perspective when interpreting stories, such as the story of Noah and the flood.  Yet, at the same time, a difficulty with this approach is that it may raise questions about the authority of scripture that the literalist approach powerfully rejects.

My sermon this Sunday, January 13th will explore this crucial question concerning how we should approach the Bible.  I will base the sermon on 2 Timothy 3: 14-17.  The key verse here is verse 16:  “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”.

This sermon is the second in a series, called:  “Confronting Our Doubts.”  For a complete listing of the series, see my first post below.  Since these topics raise doubts, there are always at least two viewpoints.  In exploring these topics, I am not trying to convince everyone to take one side over the other.  Rather, through confronting issues that raise doubts, we can gain deeper understanding and a stronger faith.  At the same time, I think it is important that as the pastor I share where I am on this issue.  So, in answer to the question, “Is the Bible Literally True?” my response is “No.”  Whether you agree or disagree with me, I hope that this sermon will stimulate deeper reflection and understanding, concerning this doubt.

Feel free to join and post your comments on this blog.  If you live in the Meriden-area and do not have a regular church home, please consider attending Meriden UMC this Sunday.  Meriden UMC is located at the corner of Dawson and Main.  Our worship service starts on Sundays at 10 am.  Everyone is welcome because God loves us all.

---

[i] Article XII of “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” sponsored by the International Council on biblical Inerrancy, 1978.

Is It OK to Doubt?

What is it about religious doubt that frightens Christians so much? Many of us never really confront our religious doubts.  We just put them out of our minds, with promises that one day we will come back to this doubt or question and really confront it.  But, year after year, we never come back to our doubts and they just sit there in the back of our minds, lurking in the shadows.  Perhaps we are afraid that confronting our doubts will lead to a loss of faith and our world will be turned upside down, without any structure or reassurances.

My personal experience with doubt has been diametrically opposed to this fear.  I have discovered that honestly examining and exploring my religious doubts has led me to a deeper, broader Christian faith.  For me, confronting my doubts has led to spiritual growth and renewal.  And, I believe that my experience is not unique.

My sermon on Sunday, January 6th will be based on the Gospel of John 20: 19-29.  This passage of scripture tells the story of the disciple, Thomas.  When the resurrected Christ first appeared to his followers in the Upper Room, Thomas was not present.  Later, when the other disciples told Thomas about the appearance of the resurrected Christ, Thomas doubted.  We could say that Thomas became famous for his doubt because he is frequently referred to as “doubting Thomas.”  Yet, when Jesus appeared again and addressed his doubts, Thomas believed.

My sermon will be somewhat autobiographical this week.  I’ll talk about some of my own doubts and how I have grown in my faith because I have confronted and struggled with these doubts.  So, the answer to this week’s question, “Is it ok to doubt?” is “yes”. 

I hope that you will free to comment on this blog.  Perhaps you’ll consider sharing some of the doubts which you struggle with, in your own faith journey.  If you live in the Meriden-area and do not have a regular church home, I hope that you’ll come to Meriden UMC this Sunday and hear about my struggles with doubt.  Meriden UMC is located at the corner of Dawson and Main.  Our worship service starts on Sundays at 10 am.  Everyone is welcome because God loves us all.