Facebook Group: I'm religious not spiritual....wha?

So, on facebook I've been invited by a friend of mine to join the group "I'm Religious, Not Spiritual." Intrigued, I went further to see what this particular group was about and discovered that many friends of mine are already in it--meaning that a fair bit of clergy were represented as well as some other young religious types. At first I thought it might be a sort of tongue-in-cheek group identity--at least I was hoping. It seems, however, that it really is a group responding to that oft-heard response of many non-church-goers to clergy: "Oh, I'm spiritual, not religious!" Meaning that while the individual may not go to church, it doesn't preclude him or her having a faith life and/or experience of God.

Admittedly, I once viewed this answer as the moral equivalent of Bill Clinton's 1992 rendition of "I didn't inhale:" wow, look, you're just lying to my face like I'm stupid or something...
Now that I have more experience with this sort of thing, especially due to my particular kind of work, I have come to a different understanding. Oh, I don't doubt that some people just say this to allude to some kind of churchy practice that they feel may appease the ecclesial powers that be (actual or perceived), I do feel that there is a great bit of truth underlying this statement.

For one thing we are actually spritual beings. So, these spiritual, non-religious people are wholly correct in recognizing this. Furthermore, there is growing disillusion among later generations when it comes to religious institutions. A disconnect has been growing between church and, in particular, younger people. From what I am hearing and reading, people want something tangible, something that can be felt, something that lets them know that God is present to the world. They want this experience to happen directly to them and not through the institution. They want an experience of the divine. Who could deny them this? While I represent the institutional church, I do not cling to it for its own sake. For me it is a tool to my experience, identity and vocation in God. It is the means, not the end. The end is always God, and things that start to get in the way of this should probably be re-evaluated or risk becoming idols. Church is who we are as the body of Christ, not our doctrine, not our buildings, not our hymns even. It is in the experience of being in communion with each other, in a relationship to both God and or fellow diciples that we come together to be Church. And it is in this context that our spiritual natures have full expression and meaning. Thus, I think it is fair to say that "I'm spiritual and not religious."

So, this is why I can't join this particular Facebook group (sorry Rick). Just as I preach that humans must engage with the bible dynamically, I must do the same with the idea of church (lest I be a hypocrite). Not that I'm throwing away 2000 years of hard work and tradition. In fact, many of these things I want to see maintained and re-adapted to the contemporary context. But I don't want us to get stuck in a hard-nose understanding of how church has to be done. Because if the world around us is changing and we refuse to pay attention then we all might as well be inhaling.

Bible Study is starting

Ok, so I have a bible study beginning--very fabulous--and I want to basically use this time with people to reintroduce the bible to them. I want to hear (if they wish to share) everybody's understanding/experience with the bible. We all pretty much have one, even if it isn't much. I am curious because people have many different ideas about what the bible is and what it should be. For some, their experience of the Scriptures has been fabulous, life-changing and powerful. For others, this book has been nothing more than a weapon to discriminate against those who might be different. Remember that movie, Saved? Well, there's a scene in there when, during a heated argument, one girl throws the bible at another (who is in the process of walking away) and hits her in the back with it, all the while screaming about the love of Jesus. Yeah, for some, it's kinda like that. Fortunately, most of us don't believe in bible-throwing.

However, what I've been running into in my conversations with people is an understanding or outside perception, that the bible exists to tell people how to live. I think most of us have had or now have this take on the good book. Hence, when they read it (if they ever do) it reads flat, like reading a phone book. This means then that engagement with the bible is one-dimensional meaning then that it is there to provide information that should go into our heads and stay there. We have to then believe what the bible tells us like we believe what we read in a social studies book. I have one thing to say about this: NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO! This is not what the bible does or is.

The bible is a story--a narrative of a people and their experience of God in the world. In being a story, the bible is then capable of engaging us as whole persons and not just our minds. It is meant to engage our minds and our emotions: our loves, our fears, our anger, or even our utter despair. This means a few things. 1) We can't read it in tiny little verses. Chopping up the bible and taking meaning from a single line of text is like taking a symphony, killing off all the musicians save for one triangle player and having her play, and only her. What's left? Nothing except that one little tinkle of sound which has been robbed of the richness of the composition that would be surrounding it if only the symphony was still around to accompany. The bible is too wonderful to be broken up this way, and far too complicated. 2) It would help to spend some time with the bible, without reading it. It may be that for some, they need to hear the bible read out loud, in its various translations so as to let the story come to life. This may mean acting out part of the story if that's what it takes. 3) The bible is authoritative, but as a story and not as a lawbook. Tricky concept, but doable.

Ok, enough for today!

San Joaquin

Well, the Diocese of San Joaquin has voted to leave the Episcopal Church. Like you do. While I don't know much about this particular diocese, I've always known it was "one of those dioceses:" conservative, not so open to the women priests, and certainly not to the gays. At least, this is what I think I know about the diocese of San Joaquin--it's what I've heard. And while the recent action of said diocese appears to only confirm this perception, I still really don't know these people; given the recent decision, my likelyhood of ever getting to know them is diminished. They have opted to sever their relationship with the Episcopal Church and thus with people like me. My first reaction is to say "Fine, go. You're wrong (and nasty to boot)." But at the same time, I am sad about this. Believe it or not, I feel that we need these people to remain with us even more (not necessarily the attitude, but the people). While I strongly disagree with their action and their interpretation of Christianity, I also need them to remain with me, and hold me accountable and stretch me in my daily faith life.

I am a church planter, I have a particular openness to people who aren't comfortable with many things that the "traditional" church holds to be "true." (humor me while I abuse quotation marks) I also hold a particular understanding of faith that resonates with what these people are telling me on a day to day basis. So far, the people I have gotten involved in my ministry here often hold similar views to my own. But I don't necessarily want this, because I want to avoid my own hypocrisy. I want to be faithful, not right. I want the community i am a part of to be radically open--open in the way that answers with love the inhospility we have all experienced at some point or another. I want it to be open, not merely another exclusive place singing the same old tune, just in a different key. A community, a church, needs to be the model of reconciliation that recognizes differences yet commits to remaining one. It is easy to leave each other, the hard work is remaining in a kind of relationship (notice I am speaking of relationship in a very broad sense.) I don't think Jesus' work made him the most "correct" teacher, the smartest or the most believable. I think his work showed him to be present, showed him committing to breaking bread even with those who would betray him, In remaining linked to all people, Jesus showed us that salvation is not escape to a place like heaven, or even the "church." It is doing the hard work of staying in at-one-ment with each other. I think this might just be eternal life.

Is it Christmas yet?

A friend of mine recently found a website dedicated to answering the question: Is it Christmas yet?