Who Is God?

Last summer, my church had a 6-week discussion class on Paul Alan Laughlin's excellent book, Remedial Christianity: What Every Believer Should Know about the Faith, but Probably Doesn't. I highly recommend this book for all Christians, liberal and conservative. It's the first book I've seen that deals honestly with traditional Christian theology--its positive points and its inconsistencies. It also deals honestly with the history of how traditional Christian theology developed during the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. as a way to solidify Constantine's empire, shutting out alternative theologies that existed at the time.

While Laughlin certainly casts a critical eye on traditional beliefs, his tone is not derogatory or dismissive. In fact, unless s/he is particularly hyper-partisan, a conservative Christian should find the book's tone non-offensive, and would indeed find valuable content within, even while disagreeing with the author at points. The book is written as a textbook for undergraduate-level "Introduction to Christianity" classes, so it's accessible to non-specialists that have attended at least some college.

Anyway, the first chapter on The Bible in Historical Perspective covered material that was familiar to me from my academic background. However, having avoided the study of pure and systematic theology, the rest of the book was very eye-opening to me--particularly Chapter 2, "Christian Theism and Its Alternatives."

I had always had a problem with the traditional view of God--a separate being with a separate identity, inevitably male, theoretically loving of all creation but practicing love only for those on "his side." As a pastor, I explained away some of the more offensive commandments in the Hebrew Bible by saying that God was "meeting people where they were and nudging them toward the ideal of human equality." There's some validity to that statement, and the trend continues into the New Testament in my opinion. But something in the traditional view of God that made it difficult for that claim to make a lot of sense.

I had read books by writers such as Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan that seemed to have a healthier view of God, but I had not been able to get a handle on the relationship between these various theologies.

Laughlin hits the nail on the head by explaining that the various views of deity differ in two areas: transcendence and immanence. Transcendence refers to the "otherness" of God, while immanence refers to the nearness or "within-ness" of God. Thus there are four possibilities:

• Theism (active God above), the traditional view of God in monotheistic religions, involving high transcendence and a relatively weak immanence. God is separate from the universe and everything else, and is active to some degree in the world today.
• Deism (uninvolved God), well known as the theology of many of the U.S. founding fathers, involving high transcendance and no immanence. A separate God created the world, set it in motion, and then became uninvolved.
• Pantheism (everything is God), an element of many Eastern, Native American, and New Age spritualities, involving virtually no transcendence and very strong immanence. The spirit or concept of God infuses the universe as a whole; thus the universe is God. When this concept is used without reference to "God," it's called Monism.
• Panenthism (everything in God), espoused by Borg, Crossan, and other progressive Christian theologians, and involveing very strong immanence and a certain amount of transcendence. Panentheists agree with pantheists that God saturates and infuses the universe as a whole, but they see God as "the entire universe and then some." God is present everywhere and in everything, and also has another aspect that is untouched by the universe.

You might have guessed that I have gravitated to panentheism, now that I understand it more fully. Now I want to go back and read more of Borg and others, now that I have a "nail to hang them on." I'm also excited that our pastor, Peg Pfab, has agreed to teach a class delving more deeply into these concepts as a part of our adult education program this spring.

Among several books I'm reading now is another book by Laughlin, Getting Oriented: What Every Christian Should Know about Eastern Religions, but Probably Doesn't. It's a great read so far.

Merry Christmas

Contrary to the right-wing complaint that there is a "war on Christmas," I see the profound influence of Christmas on people of all faiths and non-faiths:

• A friend I recently met is the adult education minister at a non-Christian new age congregation, but celebrates Christmas with her family as the time to refocus on a giving life.
• The message board at our local Baha'i worship center currently reads: "Jesus: A Gift from God."
• My corporate intranet featured a picture of the Christmas tree in our office in Pune, India, where Hindus, Christians, and others celebrate the holiday.
• My office, consisting mostly of non-churchgoing folk, is well-known within our company and in Washington County for our hands-on work in the community, including providing Christmas gifts and food for around 20 families (in an office of 250+ people).
• The commercialization can be maddening, but it can't be denied that totally secular people have fallen in love with the inflatable yard figures--the Cat in the Hat with the Grinch, Santa on a motorcycle, etc.

The point is that for good or for bad, Christmas is a cultural, religious, and spiritual phenomenon globally. It's a contribution of my faith tradition to the spirituality of the world at large.

And the true meaning of Christmas? From this global perspective, I would say that the Christian doctrine of incarnation symbolizes our union with the universe and with each other. Jesus did not come to establish a systematic theology. He came that we and the universe might be transformed. As Zechariah sings in Luke's story,

"By the tender mercy of our God,
the dawn from on high will break upon us,
to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace."
(Luke 1:78-79)

Merry Christmas!

For the Bible Tells Me So

Last night my wife and I watched the new documentary For the Bible Tells Me So, and I highly recommend it. It features interviews with five families from evangelical Christian backgrounds who had to deal with the fact that one of their number was gay or lesbian. The prominent names among the five are Bishop Gene Robertonson of the Episcopal Church and former congressman Dick Gephardt (whose daughter is gay). The others were the family of a young gay man who came out as a teenager several years ago; a woman whose daughter committed suicide after the mother rejected her identity as a lesbian; and an African-American Baptist preacher's family whose daughter is gay.

The movie also features theologians, sociologists, and clergypeople, inlcuding Harvard chaplain Peter Gomes, Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, and others. Their interviews focus on the biblical text and the sociological phenomenon of homophobia. They offer good perspectives on the six or seven biblical verses that are ripped out of context by fundamentalists and evangelicals to provide a "biblical veneer" to cover their fear and exclusion of people different from themselves.

It's a series of well-weaved-together quotes and clips, and it illustrates in a powerful way the spiritual growth that these issues forced within several normal American Christian families. Toward the end of the movie, one of the families participates in a march at the Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs, staged to call attention to the homophobia propogated by that ministry.

The movie is a clear illustration of the well-documented fact that people who know a gay person are much less likely to be opponents of the "homosexual agenda," and are almost certainly less belligerent about it if they are. But gay people who exist in fundamentalist and evangelical communities typically don't come out, and thus most people in those communities do not know an openly gay person.

Political issues around GLBT rights are not really moral or theological issues for most. Certainly allowing gays to marry won't hurt heterosexual marriages. The real issue is fear--fear of the unknown, fear of the 'other'. It's the same reason that the current Republican rhetoric against "scary brown people"--Latinos and Arabs--is so effective. It's fear of the 'other'.

A friend of mine is an engineering manager at a local tech company, and a member of his team is a lesbian. He has had several experiences of co-workers who learn of her orientation for the first time, and their first response is always, "But she's so nice!"

Once Americans realize that GLBT people are just normal, everyday, nice people, we will have come a long way. I'm very optimistic that today's younger generations, once they hit critical mass in our culture, will lead the way for us.

Countdown on Climate Change

A couple of my friends have "coundown watches" that are counting down the seconds to the end of Bush's term. I only hope that his term ends as scheduled; I have a real fear that he might pull something to stay in office. More on that in another post.

One reason to celebrate 1/20/09's becoming more imminent is for the sake of the earth. The Bush administration's blatant disregard for the environment has softened a bit with the political winds, but his practice is to disregard, or even change, the findings of science to fit his political ends. The latest salvo is the EPA's decision yesterday to deny California and 14 other states the right to regulate greenhouse gases from cars. My home state of Oregon is included in this initiative, which will do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country than any other.

Why should the federal government care if a state wants to enact regulations more strict than the federal standards? Federal leadership on these issues has been anemic over the past seven years, leading more than 200 cities and 25 or so states to enact their own environmental standards. Now the party that has always trumpeted "states' rights" has denied them the right to do this in a very crucial area.

California, Oregon, and other states have already indicated the intention to sue. As has been noted on at least a couple blogs, the fastest method of reversing this terrible decision lies with the 2008 elections.

How To Deal With Traffic Congestion

For 40 years, our nation disinvested in public forms of transportation such as streetcars, and invested the vast majority of transportation funds on highways. The result in most major cities is unending sprawl, few public transportation choices in newer areas, and yes, traffic congestion.

Most people believe that the way to reduce congestion is to widen freeways. But every time freeways are widened, development goes farther out, creating congestion once again within a few years. There's no way to build yourself out of congestion.

An article a few months ago in The Oregonian cites the fact that Portland, Oregon has done better than its peers at limiting the growth of congestion, thanks to our urban growth policies and our investment in public transit.

Rush-hour traffic clogs the nation's cities more than ever, but the Portland area appears to be fighting the growth in misery behind the wheel better than many regions.

Portland-area motorists were delayed 38 hours in 2005 because of rush-hour congestion -- about 14 percent less than the 44 hours a year average for the nation's top 85 metro areas.

Take away our mass transit, and the region's congestion delay would be 21 percent longer.

It's not necessarily a good thing that the average motorists waits 38 hours in traffic, but the trend lines show that Portland is doing better than most cities, and better than many cities whose philosophy has been to build wide freeways and not limit sprawl.

Our average commute here is 7 miles--one-third the distance of many other cities--and the Metro government has encouraged development of all levels of housing near all major employment areas. They've also introduced the concept that the best transportation system is one that has more than one choice in terms of mode of travel.

As a result, our light rail, streetcar, and bus lines (as well as our new aerial tram) carry enough people to reduce congestion by 21 percent.

Good public transit is not a socialistic plot to deprive people of the choice to drive. It's an option that many people actually find more convenient than driving. We will need to widen some roads, and even build a few roads, over the next 20 years. But I hope that the majority of investment continues to be on rail. With Peak Oil approaching and climate change accelerating, we need to provide options.

The Spiritual Benefits of "Leaving Church"

I recently read Barbara Brown Taylor's Leaving Church, the memoir of an Episcopal priest who decided that serving a church was draining her spirit. About the time she felt a breakdown coming, by luck or providence, a college approached her about a teaching position, near enough to her beloved rural Georgia property that she did not have to move. The memoir is the story of her happy and successful years in ministry and what she has discovered from being on the other side of the altar. In a few words, what she has discovered is deeper spirituality.

As an ex-clergyman, I identified closely with much of her writing. True, her experience in ministry was almost the polar opposite of mine. Hers was a denomination that was open, at least in theory, to many expansive concepts that mine would have rejected out of hand. Her tradition settled the "women's role" argument years ago and is on its way to justice and equality for gays, lesbians, and other sexual minorities. Her church was open to diverse spiritual practices while remaining unapologetically Christian in its orientation.

Her churches were not beset with serious conflict or shrinking vitality; in fact, her last church had grown significantly and had established counseling and other ministries for the community. Despite the fact that her last church was in rural north Georgia and mine was in urban California, her church was truly progressive while mine was more rural in character.

Yet the spiritual refreshment of "leaving church" has been similar for me as it was for her. Neither of us has left church in terms of membership; we're just free to open our spiritual lives beyond the walls of the church. She suddenly didn't have anything to inhibit her from participating in the Native American spiritual ceremonies that her husband had attended and even hosted on their property (which, they learned, was considered a sacred place). Such practices brought her closer to the earth and to God, and strengthened her Christianity. The ability to do such things without fear of criticism refilled her spiritual gas tank.

For me, it was a longer process; but with the help of my wife, my church, and others, I'm discovering that the real truth in Christianity is its connection to the spirit that unifies us with each other and with the cosmos. Jesus never intended his teachings to be made into a systematic theology. Paul leaned more in that direction, but it's really Augustine's misinterpretations of Paul that form the basis for traditional Christian theology. As Marcus Borg points out, faith is not affirming a list of statements, but rather is being spiritually transformed. And there are many ways that this can be accomplished.

In some reflections on what she has kept through the transition from clergy to laity, Taylor says this about the Bible:

I will keep the Bible, which remains the Word of God for me, but always the Word as heard by generations as flawed as I. As beautifully as these witnesses write, their divine inspiration can never be separated from their ardent desires; their genuine wish to serve God cannot be divorced from their self-interest. That God should use such blemished creatures to communicate God's reality so well makes the Bible its own kind of miracle, but I hope never to put the book ahead of the people whom the book calls me to love and serve.

I will keep the Bible as a field guide, which was never intended to be a substitute for the field. With the expert notes kept by those who have gone before me, I will keep hunting for the Divine Presence in the world, helped as much by the notes they wrote in the margins while they were waiting for God to appear as by their astonished descriptions of what they saw when God did. I know that nine times out of ten, the truth scripture tells is the truth about the human search for God. Still, with the help of the guide, there is always the hope of glimpsing the bright dove that splits the sky, fluttering in full view before turining with a whirr and a cry to make its clean getaway.