Wednesday, October 21, 2009

sophisticates of Christianity

Some Christians identify and then disparage or debunk the perception that no sophisticate can be a devout Christian. (Depending on the group of self-appointed sophisticates, the taboo might extend to all religions, all "organized" religions, or all unfashionable religions.) This perception is intellectually flimsy and contradicted by numerous examples, but the aspect to which some Christians most often object is the accompanying attitude. They complain that such anti-Christian sophisticates display, intentionally or not, a disrespect to practicing believers that verges on contempt (of course, those whose actual goal is to express unambiguous contempt are a narrower category). Since there's no shortage of coverage to this topic, no more than a short line of advice is necessary here: review the biblical sections on being hated and persecuted by the "world" and shift expectations and perspective accordingly.

Unfortunately, the antagonistic stance between Christians and some self-appointed sophisticates is mirrored by a division within Christianity between its own set of "sophisticates" and anyone whom they define to be "not-sophisticates". Like their anti-Christian counterparts, these sophisticates of Christianity pride (yes, pride) themselves on having achieved a level of enlightenment/achievement that marks them as having surpassed their lesser brethren. They likely have favorite ideological divergences from the not-sophisticates, differences which they will gladly explain on request. They tend to know exactly what mistakes are to blame for any way that Christianity is ineffective. They relish debating the definitions and practices of Christianity in clever ways, especially if the items under debate are traditional. They prefer to squeeze Christianity through the strainer of secular philosophy rather than consent to accepting it for what it claims to be.

Most of all, they must differ from the not-sophisticates. Whether they are doing something pretentiously creative and new or something that fell out of favor one hundred or more years ago, the point is that they certainly aren't doing what the not-sophisticates currently are. Moreover, they're eager to remind everyone, including each other, that they can and will name the multitudinous flaws of the not-sophisticates and mention that they're past those flaws.

To clarify, the problem with the sophisticates of Christianity isn't that they're reform-driven or independent-minded (no matter what the accuracy of those two self-applied descriptions may be). It's a matter of humility and empathy. A Christian who wants to entice other Christians into a "deeper walk" won't do that by relentlessly pointing out how and why sophisticates of Christianity are so special. Elevating oneself by endlessly criticizing others is a hopelessly negative strategy for real, lasting change. It also appears small-minded - and dare I say unsophisticated - to assume that someone who is a not-sophisticate according to a particular standard can't be consumed by God. If sophistication were that important, He selected the wrong apostles.

Friday, October 16, 2009

the "rain dance" worship approach

I wrote that God is ever-present, and thus it's superfluous to observe that "God is here" in the middle of a service or while camping or hurrying to a hospital after a sudden injury. A related issue is the approach to worship that might correspond to this sentiment: the modern Christian equivalent of a "rain dance".

The basic idea of a rain dance is that a prescribed series of perhaps-frenzied movements will convince the rainfall manager to disburse rain sooner rather than later. It seems to me that the modern Christian equivalent is the principle that God is more likely to "arrive" depending on what people do during a service. This is the God's-presence rain dance. One is left to ponder the effects of the musicians who messed up so completely that they stopped and restarted, the crying child who interrupted the speaker in the midst of the call for a tangible congregational response, the deacon who misread the church announcements in a spectacularly embarrassing way. After all, if by one's estimation God opted to stay "home", then the logical follow-up question is which step of the God's-presence rain dance went wrong, even by just a smidge.

Apart from interpreting the flops, a further consideration is how to improve the God's-presence rain dance. One technique is to import fancier steps from another Christian community that appears to be getting better results. Another is to repeat steps that have previously worked well, taking care that overuse doesn't result in decay of potency. Yet another is to experiment with a range of step variations to obtain a general sense of what makes each step good at inviting God.

Partly why the process is tricky is the detection of God's presence. What is the dividing line between a "positive" or "negative" diagnosis, and how is the measurement carried out? Assume God's presence is indicated by people's outward reactions; what people's reactions should be included in the sample and how to score each reaction? What's-her-name who sits front and center has a history of moving around a lot during every song, so maybe her reactions, even when done in broad motions, are less significant for careful presence detection. On the other hand, stoic-fellow on the right side of the sanctuary has a history of keeping still no matter what happens, so maybe overly-vigorous nods of his head are a clear sign.

In any case, a song that contains the words "let it rain", preferably with many repetitions, is an undoubtedly shrewd choice for the God's-presence rain dance.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Worldview Fragment: everything is political

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

Few habits are more tiresome than relating every subject to politics. I'm fine with people expressing their political opinions, especially when politics is the topic under discussion. But it bothers me that some seem so steeped and invested in a worldview in which a ruthless battle is constantly raging: "It's us versus them! We're under siege! If you talk like that, then you must be one of them! How dare you question that and consider yourself one of us!"

More in general, I bristle when people appear to believe that politics and (sub-)culture and religion and morality must be intermixed and interdependent. It's ignorant and/or incurious to not ever consider that the pieces could fit together in myriad combinations. It leads to assumptions such as, "If you make moral decision X then your politics must be Y", or "If your politics is Q then your culture must be Z." People who seem similar on one dimension could hold much different opinions in the second, and people who seem dissimilar could agree on many things.

The basic problem in equating personal characteristics that are only indirectly related is that it leads to stereotypes and preconceptions, which are more likely to divide people and incite hate than to unite people and promote love. When a worldview separates people by a prevailing animosity, political or otherwise, there's little hope for reconciliation. Demonizing is demons' work.

Monday, October 5, 2009

looking up or in the mirror?

Anyone else out there ever ponder why God's presence (in typical Christian portrayals) is associated with "up" or "above"? This metaphorical association is quite biblical, but that still doesn't answer the question "Why?" Literally speaking, God doesn't inhabit every part of creation. Creation can't fully contain Him anyway, and to suggest that this fallen existence is equivalent to a perfectly holy God would be incredibly disrespectful/profane. Note that His place of total dominion and control, heaven, isn't located anywhere in creation (i.e. the normally visible universe). Well, not in the current ("old") creation but it will be in the future ("new") creation.

However, it's also biblical that one of God's facets or "persons", the Spirit, has and continues to dwell or abide in selected holy places such as the temple/tabernacle's Holy of Holies and believers who welcome Him in. In short, it seems to me that there's it's more reasonable for Christians to look for God "in the mirror" instead of looking "up".

I wish my meaning to be as clear as possible. God, i.e. his Spirit person, isn't equivalent to you the Christian any more than He is equivalent to a misshapen cloud of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere or the wooden cross decoration hanging on the church wall. He is "present within". As a Christian stands up in a worship service and lifts up his or her arms, the target of worship isn't hovering above those arms. He's much, much closer, closer than the surrounding people, closer than the air breathed in, closer than the very same lifted arms. Christians must forget the concept of having "personal space" between them and Him. According to common doctrine, Christians should never need to "seek" God. As many people have said, if God isn't close to you, guess who "moved"?