Religion For {this} Life

I like to switch religions every now and then just to keep things fresh.  Here is my latest.  I call it a Religion For {this} Life.   The astute observer will notice that the title of my new religion echoes the title of my new radio program.   Here are a few of its non-doctrines.

It comes from Christianity.  I call it Christian Naturalism.  It is a religion.  It is not science.  It is not atheism or agnosticism.   It has beliefs.  The basic belief of my version of Christian Naturalism is that this universe is cool enough for me.   I have no care to speculate about what is outside the universe.   My belief is that there is probably nothing outside of it at least that can affect me (or the universe for that matter).   I am sure that thinkers who speculate on these things will keep me informed.

I cannot prove this belief is true.  My religion operates by trust.  I trust that this universe is fine for me.  My religion believes that the scientific method is pretty good and that public knowledge is more trustworthy than private revelation. 

I think human beings are special and unique.  We are the only beings we know of so far that exhibit a level of consciousness that can comprehend the universe.   I think it is good for humans to stay around and it would be wise if we learned to live compatibly with our environment so that we can do so for millions of years into the future.

God and the gods function in my religion as human creations.  They are products of the human imagination which is a product of the universe as is consciousness, love, art, and everything else.   Of course, I like to read and reflect on the Bible as a human creation and to reflect on other human works as well.  

Jesus is there.  He plays a large role in my religion.  He is an historical person that I have reconstructed with the help of others.  He is also a fictional character.  When I see him as a fictional character, I am mostly interested in the authors who created him.   I love Jesus.  I love Buddha, too, and Krishna, even Gilgamesh.   But at the end of the day, Jesus is my man.   That is probably because I feel at home with him. 

I love church.   My religion is happy with church, even with Presbyterians.  I like Presbyterians as on the whole they are pretty tolerant and they do have that freedom of conscience thing going for them.   Presbyterians have changed for the better.  They used to be pretty intolerant.   Now, rather than burn heretics and witches they prefer to form committees to study the issue.

I believe in goodness.  I believe in justice.  I like the concept of what Joanna Macy calls The Great Ball of Merit.  That gives me hope. 

I think religion has important tasks.  One of which is to help people cope with the contingencies of life.  Another task is to provide permission and resources so people can create their own religion.  Yet another task is to help people develop an internal moral compass in order to live well and to engage the powers.   And potlucks.  Always potlucks.

My religion also affirms the Great Peace.  I trust that after my brain ceases to function I will drop into unconsciousness like I experienced before birth (which was no experience at all).  There is nothing I need to do to earn the Great Peace or anything I can do to miss out on the Great Peace.   I don't have to worry about being good enough.  I do not need to fear hell.    I learned this oddly enough from Presbyterians.  It is my understanding of justification by grace.   Knowing that one day I will experience the Great Peace whenever that time comes gives me the freedom to live and love today. 

My religion even has a hymn.  There are other hymns in my loose-leaf hymnbook.  This one is delightful and sung beautifully by Iris Dement.

I could change my religion again next week.

So...stay tuned.

What Presbyterians Believe (Except Me) Part 4

A recent post, Doing My Best to Undermine the Authority of Scripture, apparently raised an eyebrow or two.  I think I hit a nerve.    If our denomination is not splitting, it is at least flaking off at the right edge.      There are a significant number of congregations leaving.   I think a question to ask is,

"Why?  Why are these congregations leaving?"

A second question to ask is,

"What can we learn from this?"

The congregations that are leaving are telling us why.    This is from the Layman about the First Presbyterian Church of Orlando:

The 2011 approval of Amendment 10A and the passage of the new Form of Government (nFOG) topped the list of factors leading to FPCO’s departure in what many similar churches see as symptoms of a serious underlying problem in the denomination: variant views of the authority of Scripture.

 You saw what I saw, right?  

...a serious underlying problem in the denomination: variant views of the authority of Scripture.

Yeah, that is what I saw, too.  Authority of Scripture.

We all know that we are supposed to affirm, at least by vow and theory, that the Bible is authoritative, the Word of God.   But what does that mean?   Is it communication from a divine being?   Those leaving the church complain that the PC(USA) doesn't believe this anymore. The liberals and moderates complain that that isn't the case.  They say they believe in the authority of scripture.  

I am nobody's judge, but I would have to side with the conservatives on this one.   Now I know I am the 1% (See this chart).    In 2008 1% of pastors checked this box, "The Bible is not the word of God."   That would be me.  I am a proud one-percenter. 

I am one of the few PC(USA) clergy (at least that I know about), who admits publicly that the Bible is not a communication from a divine being.  I can play with metaphors, like "Word of God" like the rest of my colleagues to get through the vows, but there is nothing in the Bible, nor is the Bible as a whole, special revelation.  

Now I cannot prove that a divine being, spirit, or presence didn't hover over, blow upon, or otherwise inspire the various authors, but, is it necessary to think so?   Isn't it interesting enough that human beings came up with it?

I know we are not supposed to say that.   In fact, we clergy in particular are supposed to work our tails off and tie ourselves in knots to find a way to affirm the authority of scripture.   But it is getting tedious, isn't it?  It is getting harder and harder to defend the incredible.   

I cannot think of one good thing that comes from this notion.   I can certainly name a number of harmful things that have come from it.  This is not an abstract theological point I am bringing up.

Churches are splitting over this.   Gay and lesbian people have been denied ordination because of the authority of scripture.    For many, the Bible trumps science regarding how humans arrived.   The authority of scripture gives people a pass to do things or say things that they could never do or say if they had to rely on reason and logic to make their case. 

There is a reason for the doctrine of biblical authority.  That reason is power.  It is the power to control access to institutional goods. I think it might be a good time for us to admit to what we don't believe or do believe.  There is reason for the institution to seek clarity on this.

I think it is time for the PC(USA) to revisit all of its beliefs, but this is a good place to start.   The churches are telling us that they are leaving because of "variant views of the authority of scripture."  I think we should believe them when they say that.    

I think that people on the left have been leaving the church for a lot longer.  These are the folks who in decades past might have been part of a mainline church such as the PC(USA) but no longer find it credible.  Bishop Spong calls them the church alumni association.    If you want a snapshot of who these folks are, listen to my interview with Sarah Sentilles. 

What can we learn from this?

I am going to ask some questions and write some posts about the authority of scripture.  I want to know:

1. What is meant by the phrase, "the authority of scripture"?
2. How is the Bible authoritative?
3. Why should the PC(USA) continue to affirm this doctrine?
4. What is lost or gained if we let it go?

Please give me your best reasons, colleagues.   If you know of articles, books, or blog posts, that you find convincing, please let me know.    Make your own case.  At the very least, the Presbyterian Church website could include an article in the "What Presbyterians Believe" section that might address the above questions.

I still stand by what I wrote in 2005:

I believe that many clergy are overdue for a heart to heart with their congregations about the metaphor “Word of God” especially as it applies to the Bible. I have found that this metaphor more often stops creative thought than inspires it. The question we might ask our congregations is, “If the Bible is the Word of God, what makes it so?”

Modern scholarship has eroded the foundations for this metaphor. We have come to a time in which it is incredible to assert that our canon of scripture is objectively true or authoritative for all of humanity. Appeals to the Bible’s historical or scientific accuracy are naive. The claim that our canon has been dictated or inspired by supernatural revelation amounts to little more than special pleading. There is no magic power that makes the Bible or any text within it superior, truer, or more divinely inspired that any other human writing, religious or secular. The hands of human beings through their own imaginative power made every jot and tittle of carving and of script. The Bible is a collection of the writings of humans for humans. Once we dismiss the assumption that our book or library of books is more authoritative than any other collection, we can finally take our seat around the table of humanity.

When faith communities begin demythologizing the Bible, some interesting things will happen. The Bible’s authority will shift away from the text and toward the individual interpreter or community of interpreters. No longer will the Bible be considered an authoritative source of truth that contains infallible propositions about God or the human condition. Rather, it will become a resource for wisdom. Since authority is earned by the truth it tells, the Bible will have whatever authority the individual or community gives to it. People may find through its narratives, poetry, and song, an oasis of spiritual refreshment. Or they may not. It will be up to the people (both collectively and individually) to draw out what is meaningful and good and to discard what is not meaningful and good.

The preacher’s task will be to offer permission and encouragement for the congregation to engage in this discipline of freedom. The preacher can no longer assume that within a biblical text is a Word from God that needs to be teased out through exegesis and delivered to the waiting faithful. The preacher can no longer assume that just because a text is in the Bible that it is from God or is even valuable. A preacher can, however, provide information about a text using such tools as literary and historical criticism. The preacher can also provide an opinion regarding the text’s value for the community of faith. The preacher may even use the text as an impetus to speak about a contemporary concern. But I believe it is unethical for a preacher to make the claim that what s/he is saying is true, good or of God because it is based on his or her interpretation of a biblical text. In other words, a preacher cannot use a biblical text to prove a point. Anything a preacher says must stand on its own terms. This ethic will free both the biblical text and the preacher. The text will be freed from the preacher’s misuse of it. The preacher will be freed from the constraints of needing to “preach from the Bible” or to have everything s/he says to be backed by scripture.

Preaching can do a great deal of good in a community of faith. It can inspire, comfort, challenge, and inform for the betterment of humanity. Preaching can also do a great deal of harm. The harm results not so much on the content of the message or its style of delivery as on the implied authority of the preacher because s/he supposedly preaches the Word of God. I believe that Word of God is not only a meaningless metaphor; it is also a harmful metaphor for both the Bible and the preaching act. I recommend that preachers discontinue its use and have this conversation with their congregations.

To be clear, I am not so concerned about keeping the people on the right who are leaving.  Those on the right see the issue as the authority of scripture.  It is time for the rest of us to admit that, dismiss the doctrine, and move into the future.

What Presbyterians Believe (except me) Part 3

This is the third post in this series. Here are the first two:

What Presbyterians Believe (except me)
What Presbyterians Believe (except me) Part 2



My series began in response to this special issue of Presbyterians Today.

You can go to the Presbyterians Today website and read articles about various things "Presbyterians Believe."


These articles are not definitive statements about what Presbyterians believe. These articles are the opinions of particular authors about what they think Presbyterians believe or should believe.

Presbyterians in the PC(USA) have a Book of Confessions and a Book of Order. They make up our constitution. Both of these books change as we vote to change them. Even the vows ordained officers affirm are subject to change. Views of the Bible change. Theological theories change. We could even decide to throw out some creeds and add books to the Bible. We could toss the Nicene Creed and add the Gospel of Thomas.

I cannot think of anything that is not theoretically subject to change. Actually, what I would really like to see is to change our approach to canon and creed and allow them to be porous and seen as resources for wisdom rather than sources for belief.

While these changes are theoretically possible, the denomination cannot handle too much change without splitting. Fracturing occurs even in response to small changes. This is a reason churches and denominations are so reticent to change. The pain of change is too great. It includes loss of people and resources and lots of nasty sniping along the way. But there comes a time when the pain of not changing becomes greater than the pain of changing, and change happens.

The points I am making are these:

1. Presbyterians don't have a list of things we are supposed to believe, and
2. What Presbyterians believe is not static. We are always in flux.

I love this video from the theology and worship unit that speaks about essential tenets. The message is that essential tenets are important but we don't have a list. There you have it. That is a survival technique for responding to change.

The challenge is that the world is changing so quickly and what we know and how we know it has changed so dramatically that compared to what we are learning through science traditional forms of theological reflection sound like quaint medieval fairy tales.

Through the 19th century (and in evangelical circles still today) the Bible was regarded as a fairly reliable account of the history of the world. Now we see it as mostly fiction. Rather than God being the author of the book, God becomes a character like Zeus or Athena in a book of dated mythology and legend.

The great Christian doctrines such as Trinity, Creation, Sin, Christology, Atonement, and Eschatology, are no longer great. They are shadows. They don't speak of reality on a grand scale like they once purported to do. They may fill an emotional or psychological niche here and there. For more and more people they hold little interest or suasion. The world has passed these doctrines by in the way that science has left alchemy.

The church is now pulled by a first group who wants to hold on to these doctrines and deny reality (ie. Creationism) and a second group who wants to change theology in response to the insights of science and the humanities. There may be a third group. These are the folks who are scientists six days a week and on Sunday put on the faith hat and believe even when it makes no sense. I have a soft spot for this third approach but I don't know if it is sustainable. Maybe. As to the first group I just hope they don't do too much damage in their panic while their worldview crumbles around them.

This second group is where I find myself. What can be salvaged from our Christian past? Are there resources within it that can help us make life more humane, meaningful, and prophetic? How might we appreciate the universe as itself holy and transcendent? Do we reclaim and reinterpret Jesus and God or do we let them go? How can we regard the Bible and our tradition both critically and as a source of wisdom? To use Karen Armstrong's language, how can we draw from the mythos so it can dance with the logos? I am speaking of the poetry, music, and heart of faith. Finally, what do we do with our faith communities, our churches and institutions? How do they adapt?

And the question with which I started this post, what do Presbyterians believe? It sounds rather small now. But I ask in the spirit of affection. What becomes of this institution that I have grown to love and that has served me as I have served it? Will we be stuck in "beliefs" and heresy trials or will we be able to embrace a posture of openness, learning, and compassion?

I think our denomination because of its polity and history is in a fairly good position to adapt to these changes. Because we don't have lists of essential tenets and because we allow freedom for our governing bodies to elect leadership and because we do embrace science and social justice we may be able to hang on and hang in. We may be smaller as the disaffected grow frustrated and find ways to leave with property but those who remain may find a new sense of intellectual vitality and a sense of purpose.

What Presbyterians Believe (except me) Part 2

I am uncomfortable with this question:

What do Presbyterians believe?

My answer tends to be,

"Well some Presbyterians believe some things some of the time. Others believe other things some of the time. Just ask a Presbyterian."

I am not particularly happy when I read magazines with the title:

What Presbyterians Believe

I strongly resist those blanket statements. It doesn't relate so much to the content of what the authors or editors might believe, it is the assumption that everyone believes or should believe these things. I raise my hand and say,

"I'm a Presbyterian and I don't necessarily believe that."

That is the spirit in which I made my last post on this topic What Presbyterians Believe (except me). I don't write to be obstinate or to say that I have the absolute truth or that my views are more important than the views of another or to call attention to myself. I am simply an individual expressing my autonomy and my views at this point in my life. That is why I use "I" statements.

"I believe."

Nor do my statements constitute my last or only word on the topic. Many of my views seem to contradict each other. They probably do contradict each other. I say "yes" to my ordination vows even as I struggle with their content. I say "yes" to my (most recent and official) faith statement even as I find myself changing.

I don't find this work easy or finished. I likely always will be seeking and my theological views likely always will be changing. I hope that I will seek and change until I die. As a minister, yes a Presbyterian minister, I respect and encourage that same freedom and autonomy in others. You have the right to speak and own your truth. You also have the right to change. As I often tell couples who come for counseling,

"You will change. When you do, don't forget to tell your partner."

In the 2011 Special Issue of Presbyterians Today, the editors reprinted a 2001 article by Cynthia L. Rigby, Jesus is the Way: Presbyterian theology affirms the uniqueness of Christ.




Dr. Rigby is an excellent professor. I was in her precept at Princeton when taking a course from Dr. Migliore on Karl Barth. She was getting her Ph. D. at the time and was the teaching assistant.

I respect her views even as I don't share all of them. It really isn't her views with which I quibble. It is the blanket statement about what Presbyterians believe. To illustrate, she writes:

Presbyterians believe that Jesus Christ is "fully human and fully divine, one person in two natures, without confusion and without change, without separation and without division." This statement dates all the way back to the fifth century (451 to be exact) and is known as the Chalcedonian Definition.

That statement from 451 doesn't even make logical sense. It is a contradiction. Not that there is anything wrong with contradictions, I make them myself. This statement from 451 was a political compromise. It isn't a statement of absolute truth or Divine proclamation.

Human beings decided this. Whether the means of decision were violent, manipulative, or a democratic vote, human beings made it up. I doubt they were even as democratic as the Jesus Seminar when it votes. I certainly don't think they were any more or less divinely inspired than the Jesus Seminar (or than you and me).

Human beings made decisions in 451. They didn't all agree. There were losers. There were people who didn't win "the vote" that day. Were they wrong just because their view didn't win the day? As Dr. Rigby writes:

The people who wrote the Chalcedonian statement were, like us, trying to figure out what it means to confess that Jesus Christ is divine as well as human.

What does "divine" even mean in 451 let alone today? I think we need to know how our ancestors wrestled with decisions. We can respect their efforts. We can criticize their efforts. We can learn from their process and their decisions. We can honor our tradition but we are not beholden to their provisional conclusions. Not all Presbyterians believe these statements, nor in my view, should we be required to do so.

The statement, "Presbyterians believe ______________" is not a statement of truth or even agreement. It is a statement of power. This is not the power that enables truth seeking but the power that restricts and coerces.

One may argue that Presbyterians have the right to do that. They have the right to make their own rules regarding belief and to include and exclude through their own means of power management. That is true.

My question to the denomination is whether or not we wish to be that. Is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

1. going to sequester itself in a self-imposed grotto of ancient theology and impose it on all of its leaders and thinkers or
2. is it going to be open to the challenges of our time and encourage change and truth seeking?

My suggestion as to a way forward is not particularly dramatic. It follows a trend that many within our denomination have already been taking. That has to do with how we approach creeds and confessions. Are they

1. statements of belief to which we must adhere or
2. are they streams of tradition from which we are free to learn?

Are they

1. tests of faith or
2. testimonies to faith?

In our vows, candidates for ordination are asked if they will be "guided" by our confessions. That sounds like option two (if "guide" allows the freedom to choose differently). But when I read articles that state what Presbyterians believe, that sounds too much like option one for my conscience.
How will we approach our tradition?

As I see it, this is the struggle the PC(USA) is facing at this time.
I recommend option two.

What Presbyterians Believe (except me)

I received a special issue of Presbyterians Today in the mail. The cover says, "What Presbyterians Believe."

Charles Wiley, the coordinator of the PC(USA) office of theology and worship, wrote the first article, "Reclaiming the Trinity." The subheading reads:

The Trinity is not an optional 'extra' to God; it is the very nature of God as revealed to us in Scripture.

In the article he writes:

We haven't rejected the Trinity outright; we simply do not seem to need it anymore. If we can express our faith using only "God," we have become functional Unitarians.

He is not happy about that. He wants us to "reclaim the Trinity."

I like Charles Wiley. I have met him. He is a great guy. I wish I had half his intellect. I would love to spend hours hashing this stuff out with him. I also appreciate the magazine, Presbyterians Today.

But I disagree that we need to reclaim the Trinity except as one metaphor among many. If it is true that we Presbys have become "functional Unitarians" it may not be because we are bad or wrong. It could be because the Unitarians are more persuasive. (Many of the Unitarians I know have moved beyond "God" altogether).

I do not mean this as an insult, but I find much of our modern theological work little more than dealing in antiquities. The Trinity, the person of Christ, the sacraments, the authority of the Bible, eschatology, and so forth were invented in the pre-modern era and are best suited for that time period.

This does not mean that we are smarter or more hip than the people who invented these ideas. We simply have changed. Trying to retrofit our belief systems to a modern understanding of the Universe, Earth, and Earth's inhabitants turns theologians and pastors into pawn brokers for ancient religious relics that fewer and fewer people embrace.

If folks aren't interested in the Trinity and have become functional Unitarians, it could be because they have moved. Rather than make people feel bad, theologically inept, or heretical--"You are not Presbyterian unless you believe all of this stuff"--maybe we should listen to what people are really saying.

While I find the Trinity to be poetic and artsy, I have a hard time finding any reality to it. The only reason I am forced to care about it is because of the power issues regarding ordination. We require modern people to affirm anachronistic "vows" thus forcing them to take great liberties in their interpretation.

We could make another decision. We could change. We could change our theology and not try to make old concepts fit new realities. We could decide and say clearly that the creeds, doctrines, and confessions tell us where we were (and some of us still may be), but now we are on the move.

The issues that plagued folks in the 4th, 16th, and 17th centuries are not ours. We have different issues. We honor and learn from our past but we are not beholden to its ideas.

In response to "What Presbyterians Believe" (except me), here are a few things I think about.

I title the following "What This Presbyterian Believes."
I believe...

1. in evolutionary theory. This obviously includes human beings. Evolution and science in general have had major implications regarding theology that we mostly ignore or in our worse moments deny.
2. in higher criticism of the Bible. The Bible like all other books are human products (what else could they be?) and should be read as such as opposed to special revelation from a divine being.
3. that all religion is a human construct. Its primary purpose has been and should be an attempt to find and evoke meaning amidst life's contingencies as opposed to speculation regarding supernaturalism.
4. that "God" functions as a symbol. The concept of "God" is a product of myth-making and "God" is no longer credible as a personal, supernatural being. For me, "God" functions as a shorthand for the Universe and sometimes for qualities and aspirations I wish to pursue or to emulate.
5. that human consciousness is the result of natural selection. Human beings do not have immortal souls nor will consciousness survive death. Thus there is no afterlife. There is no heaven, no hell, and no need for salvation from one realm to another.
6. that there is no "end" in human time. Earth is four billion years old. Earth was here long before human beings. Earth will spin on its axis and revolve around the sun long, long after the last human being has breathed her last. We will have to find meaning and our "eschaton" in this life.
7. that Jesus may have been historical but most of the stories about him in the Bible and elsewhere are legends. But he's cool. He serves as a human ideal and a focal point for devotion (like an ishta deva).
8. that industrial civilization is in for a long descent. Peak Oil and Overshoot should be everyday terms in our lexicon. We ought to be putting our religious energies toward spiritual, emotional, and practical preparation for this reality.

Those are some of the things that I think about. Again, I don't insist and I could change many of my ideas tomorrow. That is where I find myself in the present. I guarantee you, I am not alone. I do think it would be in our denomination's interest to step out of our doctrinal boxes and face squarely these changes.