The Body of Christ could use some Ex Lax

Image via Wikipedia

I think this could apply to some Anglican churches (and other groups) as well. From the Enlightened Catholicism blog, some inspiring use of metaphor:

Roman Catholicism really is showing the signs of a collective organism which is being poisoned by it's own waste products.  The Vatican bureaucracy with it's emphasis on sacred tradition and creeping infallibility is serving as a cork backing up the whole system.  Living systems die when they can't eliminate their waste products.  The Body of Christ needs either a good dose of Ex Lax or the cork removed.  The sixty four million dollar question is who is going to serve as the proctologist?

Reconciling Tradition follow-up: The atonement and appeasement models in Christianity (again)

I recently ran across (was not looking for or expecting to find) some sources related to my recent series critiquing and  exploring some of the concepts often considered traditional and essential to modern Western Christianity, especially the more fundamentalist or legalistic varieties. Whether you are a student of theology, a practicing Christian, or someone curious about what people believe, these sources may be of interest to you. In my series I really hammered atonement and appeasement models for understanding the death of Jesus, particularly how they are understood and employed.  But I kept suggesting these and other concepts I was criticizing were not as central and essential to Christianity as some think, either historically or globally. So if you want to go further into how that is or what other perspectives sound, give the following sources a whirl.

First up is an essay that helped me find some of these other sites and which echoes my own problems with how many people, especially many outspoken Christians, present such ideas and how through that others come to have a truly horrific view of God and the sacrifice Jesus represents in the Gospels. It comes from the blog of a friend, Joe Hinman, who uses the nom de plume "Metacrock". From there, other sources open up, such as this one describing the varied views of the early church:

The dominant Christian understanding of the atonement is the ‘penal substitution’ theory, which states that Christ was punished by an angry God as a substitute for those he came to save. However, the ‘representative’ or ‘participatory’ understanding of the atonement was the first to be held, originating with Clement of Rome (fl. 96).[1] [2] [3]

This interpretation understands Christ as the representation of how Christians should live, making salvation dependent on participation in the life of Christ.[4] The atonement changes the attitude of the sinner towards God, but no penalty is inflicted, no substitution made.

Early beliefs on the atonement often contain a range of elements. For example, Ignatius described Christ’s sacrifice as an example,[5] yet included other themes in his exposition of the subject.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Prologue

This series of essays was inspired by an original single essay on the consequences of how one thinks about traditional religious language and imagery and some of the pitfalls that go along with it; it was a haphazard collection of thoughts that attempted to record an earlier and more orderly thought process. The series has been a way of fleshing out and exploring out the original essay and the original topics were: Who was Jesus? Was he was without sin?, Who was Jesus? Did he "die for me"?, Does Jesus save? Can we call on Jesus?, How do we connect to Jesus? What is the "good news" and who is it for?, Connecting the vision of the Gospel and salvation and debates about faith vs. works, The role of the church, and How to live, meeting God, and judgment. You can use this index to help you jump back and forth between the essays, but keep in mind that each builds on what was said before, starting with the original pilot essay. The basic idea is that they would form the basis for future essays which explore the picture began with these original installments.

 Before you read any of them, please bear in mind the context in which they are written and the purpose they were intended to serve. First, they were written by someone who came of age in churches which were largely what we would refer to today as heavily conservative evangelical fundamentalist churches which claimed no denominational affiliation. I ended up abandoning and eventually completely disbelieving all of Christianity. Having begun the process of rediscovering it, both through my own practice as well as through the writings of various priests, monks and theologians, I have been inspired and troubled. This is most evident in these essays. They are in one sense a way to expose and expunge much of the baggage still lurking below my regular thoughts, clinging to traditional words, phrases and images like leeches. Some of the fiery rhetoric used to burn it off may be offensive to some, although my intent is never to mock or ridicule Christianity. Far from it. It is a most genuine and sincere attempt to deeply and truly take Christianity seriously.

Going along with the first point, I do subscribe to (and discuss) the idea that religious language and imagery must be free to challenge and inspire, as a starting place for our spiritual development and maturity rather than a narrowly defined set of boundaries that limit such growth and are ends unto themselves. I also subscribe to  the idea that we should not look down on others for not having the same understanding or for not getting the exact same thing out of such material as we do (see the essay "Caveman Og and the problem of religious mystery"). As a  commentary I read a few years ago by a Buddhist master said you have to believe the Pure Land is a real place, then you can move to Pure Land as metaphor, then you can see that it is both and yet beyond both. To start with metaphor only is to not fully grasp the teaching. I can't cite where, though I think it was a tiny book by Thomas Merton on how to read the Bible, but I also recall an admonition that we should avoid deciding ahead of time how we will react to imagery, including that in sacred literature, and only find that narrow way acceptable. One day a passage may make sense in a more literal way, and on another it might not. But in either case to try to pin it down by saying there is only one preset meaning for everyone and every time misses the value of such imagery.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: How to live, meeting God, and judgment

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  taking a look at how the way in which we understand the nature of God, the vision of Jesus, the nature of the Gospel, and the purpose of the Church impacts how we live our lives and what it means to meet God and face judgment.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: The role of the church

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  and examine how a mystical approach to the identity, life and passion of Jesus can inform us about the Gospel and the role of the Church.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Connecting the vision of the Gospel and salvation and debates about faith vs. works

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  and examine how a mystical approach to the identity, life and passion of Jesus can inform us about the Gospel and the role of the Church.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: How do we connect to Jesus? What is the "good news" and who is it for?

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  and examine how a mystical approach to the identity, life and passion of Jesus can inform us about connecting to Jesus and the meaning of the Gospel.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Does Jesus save? Can we call on Jesus?

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  taking a look at the significance of Jesus' death and how it relates to the notion of salvation.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Who was Jesus? Did he "die for me"?

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  taking a look at the idea that Jesus was "without sin" and what that means about who he was and the significance of his death.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Who was Jesus? Was he was without sin?

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's take a look at the idea that Jesus was "without sin" and what that means about who he was and the significance of his death.

Two competing visions: What I do and do not find appealing about Christianity

Unfortunately, my thoughts on this earlier today were crystal clear, but I was not in a position to take them down. I hope my memory can do them justice. This is another part in what has essentially become a series on my current religiosity. This essay will likely have parts broken down and repeated, perhaps with elaboration, in the (near) future. So if you want a glimpse of my vision of Christianity could be and should be, strap yourself in. This is going to be a long one.

To begin, I am not one of those who is clinging to Christianity. Some who are dubbed to be "liberal" or "progressive" Christians have remain with it because they grew up with it, stayed with it, and are fond of it; they see themselves as trying to rehabilitate it, perhaps keeping some elements on life support. That isn't me. I grew up in what many would call a fundamentalist set of churches, the kind where you have really hard core right wing politics and an emphasis on a literal interpretation of the Bible, where other religions and even other denominations were typically seen as "of the devil". I don't say that as an insult, nor do I wish to denigrate anyone who practices their faith in this way. But it didn't work for me, and as I got older it worked less and less. I eventually went on hiatus from religion, and like many in a position like mine I had this hidden assumption that if the version of Christianity I had known was inadequate, they all were. Eventually I drifted from lapsed Christian to atheist.

Atheism was one the best things that ever happened to me on my spiritual journey. I was not clinging to or harboring anything from my previous religious beliefs. While it wasn't my intention, atheism gave me more or less a clean slate to work with on matters of faith. When after a time I decided to venture back into serious questions about meaning, life, etc. beyond the walls of non-committal agnosticism and haughty cynicism toward religion, I started off as a secular seeker. I thought I could start from scratch, mining religious traditions for truths to be freed from barbaric superstition. Then I encountered Buddhism and the concept of religious humanism. It was my first inkling that there were two major frames at work in the human mind and in the debates over religion. One wants certainty, clearly defined phenomena contained in rational and readily described categories, things which are uniform and predictable and easily subjected to the grossest forms of empirical verification, phrased in math and historical statements; the other allows for ambiguity, creativity, and paradox, engenders humility and wonder, allows for things beyond our ability to fully grasp, pin down, or control, phrased in metaphor and poetic language.