Intro to Religious Thought (or: What They Don't Teach in Sunday School)

The academic study of religion is the most thoroughly depressing field out there. I'm pretty sure of it. It shouldn't be, but it is. They take everything you believe and show you how stupid it is to believe in it. All interpretations (at least according to my professor, and yes he means all, as in every, including those by non-believers) are wrong (yeah, he's a big fan of Nietzsche, for those who were wondering). What's weird is when you get home and realize you still believe, despite how incredible the beliefs are. There's an old joke I once heard, that if you have enough faith to still believe after going through Seminary, you have enough faith to be a preacher. I'm starting to think the same is true for religion majors. This reminds me of a mewithoutYou quote, "We have all our beliefs, but we don't want our beliefs; God of Peace, we want you."

The problem with the way we teach beliefs in modern churches is that we claim them to be fact. In the most conservative churches, it goes without question that Moses wrote the Torah, the world was created in seven days, we are the only religion to hold this view, there was a flood, we are the only people who believe in a Noah figure, the Patriarchs are all very real, we can prove that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, and the Bible has absolutely no contradictions, historical or otherwise. In reality, the Torah has four sources and probably more authors, our TWO accounts of creation coincide with accounts from all over the Near and Middle East, the Epic of Gilgamesh recounts a flood and an ark, there is not proof for any of the Patriarchs, least of all Joseph, who should have proof, and no proof of Israelite presence in Egypt. On top of that, the mention of iron and the Philistines should not be in the Torah, as neither would not be in Canaan until after 1200 BCE. Not to mention the fact that there are multiple versions of the texts we found at the Dead Sea, especially Isaiah, on who's prophecies much of our understanding of Jesus as Christ is based. It's quite sad to listen to the students in my class who haven't been introduced to these ideas until now. Their entire faith is shattering before them (though whether or not their faith should be based on creationism is another topic).

Then there are the ideas that nobody sees coming, no matter how progressive of a church they attended or how much study they do on their own. The idea that the Israelites worshiped multiple gods, that the Hebrew Bible affirms the existence of multiple gods, the idea that God had to wrestle a sea monster during creation, the suggestion that Noah's son slept with him while he was drunk, and the idea that Mary very possibly wasn't a virgin. Even though these ideas are not as wide-spread as the first, they'll still through you for a loop the first time you hear them.

So why isn't the Church teaching its members to think? Why is it that you don't hear these ideas until you get into the lecture hall? I'm not saying they should be a part of every sermon, but they are certainly things that older Christians should be concerned with. These are serious problems for our faith and if we want to be able to say we have a relationship with God and that we understand our faith and where it comes from, these are issues that need to be addressed.

On the issue of where our faith comes from, why is it that we don't look into the Israelite background of our faith? What makes Jesus distinct from all these other deities in the ancient world is not being born of a virgin or rising from the dead. It's the long, glorious history that culminates in Christ. Almost as if God looked around at all of these ancient cults and said, "Ha, watch this," and blew them all out of the water. If you don't learn about what distinguishes Jesus from others in the "divine man" genre of ancient history, then when you hear about these other "divinities", you face a tremendous crisis.

In Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell says our faith should be more like a spring than a brick, in that it should be flexible (and springs can be used for trampolines and to invite people to come play, where as bricks can only be used in walls, to keep people out). When we raise people to have brick-like faith, when it comes time for someone to need to reexamine their faith, it shatters. When a person whose faith is like a spring reexamines their faith, they survive. How do we make our faith like a spring? By learning about it.

Rock on.

Edit: Ben Witherington expresses his thoughts on a similar subject at his blog.
My friend Pat writes on a broader sense of Christian complacency over at Notes from Underground.

Good, Clean, Christian Sex

I hear that sex is supposed to be fun. Like, a lot of fun. This comes from parents, friends, family, TV, the radio, and the movies. And I don't doubt that it is. I have a question, though. Why is it that what I hear from most churches is that sex is God's gift to married couples? Why do we leave it at that? It's either this one line about how good sex is or a long list of "thou shalt not's" that if thou doest, make sex bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for "free love" along with communion (though that would make for a catchy church sign and a great double entendre), but if sex is so great, why don't we discuss it more in church?

Sex is the greatest level of physical intimacy that humanity can have, yes? So it's no wonder that the Church is called the Bride of Christ, with the obvious intimate connotations that come with this, the description of Love that is inherent in this term. There's a reason we have an entire book that is little more than a love letter between two people in our Bible, despite the fact that this is often looked over (part of me is glad about this, as a sermon on the Song of Songs would be incredibly awkward). I know I'm just stating the obvious here; this is the same stuff you always hear in the obligatory youth group relationship talks. So why in the world are we not applying this?

The Church is going through something of a sexual revolution right now. By this, I mean that some on the progressive side of ministry are discussing sexuality as it pertains to faith. Not a list of what you can and can't do, but actually taking a look at how sex ties into our relationship with God. Rob Bell's new book has one of the most provocative titles in modern Christian writing: Sex. God. I was quite literally speechless when I first saw it. "Surely he can't have written a book about that!" I picked up a copy at the book store and was flipping through it. The first section is titled, "This Is Really About That". Then there is this little article from the Burnside Writers' Collective, which prompted this post, simply entitled "Sex, God, and Rock & Roll". Then there was the most awkward month of middle school youth group. It was our frank discussion on sex. This was meant to educate us. In public schools, discussions in sex ed are limited to talking about the basics. Nothing controversial (oddly enough, this is because of the Christian Right). So, to make sure that we weren't going blindly into the world of high school and sex, my youth pastor decided we would have four sessions of no-topic-off-limits sex talk. I assure you, this was quite unheard of in the suburbs of Columbia, SC, and most of my friends were quite shocked. Come to think of it, I think most people would still be shocked if this were to come up at most youth groups. All of this, I think, is for the better.

This leads us into the important question: What impact does it have on the world when the Church is afraid to discuss a gift from God? Well, it means that other people have to do the discussing. As the author of the article, Steve Simpson, points out, the porn industry is not afraid to talk about sex. The media is not afraid to talk about sex. This is where, then, people will go to learn about it. MTV and Ron Jeremy. I see in the dorms how good of a job they do in instilling good sexual values (or values of relationships in general). I thank God for those progressives in the Church that are not afraid to talk openly about sex because it's too important of a topic for Christians to not be involved in.

Rock on.


Edit: Something I thought and hoped I would never see - a Christian sex advice site. Somebody left a comment advertising for a web site "For Christian Husbands Only". And when I mean "sex advice site", I don't mean topics like "I struggle with lust/pornography/whatever", but "Keep Your Erection as Long as You Desire". This is another example of slapping the label of Christian on anything to make it all right. Sites like this, whether done in the name of God or not, still turn the focus of a marriage towards sex. Again, sex in marriage is a great thing. But it should not be the focus. And if there are sexual problems in a relationship, I would hope that the couple in question would have friends they could turn to for such advice.

A Criticism of Rob Bell, Part Two

Ben Witherington continues his criticisms (though he uses a better term, "wish list") of Rob Bell here.

As previously stated, I am a fan of both authors and the posts have really been stretching my brain.

Shalom,
Drew

A Criticism of Rob Bell

Rob Bell is among my favorite modern (meaning in my lifetime, so the past eighteen years) authors. Ben Witherington is among my favorite bloggers (and since blogging is a modern invention, this means ever). Which is why, when I checked his blog today, I was very pleased to see a post devoted to Rob Bell. Even if it was a criticism.

While I normally ignore criticisms of my favorite authors, college has forced me to think slightly more critically (I blame my philosophy professor). While I still support Bell, having an idea of where his flaws are is always a good thing.

Shalom,
Drew

Post Script: I'll be in Gatlinburg, TN for a CCF conference this weekend. If you're lucky, I may post a few pictures of mullets.