Leum's Epistle to the Pastor of a Local Church

Dear Pastor [redacted],

A member of your congregation recently knocked on my door and gave me a pamphlet and invited me attend your church. While I thank you for your concern, I do not think your current method of evangelizing is particularly effective.

In the first place, your congregant was clearly uncomfortable with distributing this pamphlet. This is not unsurprising. Evangelism requires the development of a relationship with the evangelee, where the evangelist demonstrates by word and deed the changes that Christ has made in his or her life. It is a slow process, motivated by sincere love. And this love cannot, by the very nature of love, be a mere means to an end (i.e. converting the person), but must be a genuine appreciation of that person.

Compared to that, giving me a pamphlet is about as warm and loving as an automated phone call. It left me with no sense that your congregant cared for me in the slightest, that I was anything more to him than a potential convert, and possibly not even that. I may have simply been a notch in his belt, done more to satisfy himself that he was trying to bring people to Christ. Reading your page on your "Soul Winning" ministry made this seem all the more likely. Calling evangelists "soul winners" implies that their sole aim is to bring people to your church, not to change their lives for the better, let alone to make them part of the community of the Body of Christ. I realize that this is not the case, it is simply a poor choice of wording combined with a poor evangelism technique that gives this impression.

While conversion is necessarily a part of any church's mission, it is best effected in accordance with James 2:14-17. If I am without food, what do I care for salvation? My need for food will be far more pressing. A church that feeds and clothes me will be far more likely to turn me to Christ than one that does no more than send a "soulwinner" to me with a pamphlet. I personally am lucky enough to be able to support myself, but my point remains, as I would have been far more impressed had such an offer been made.

I was happy to see from your pamphlet that your church does engage in at least one ministry of true evangelism. I am referring of course, to your addiction program: Reformers Unanimous. Addiction is a serious problem, one that affects many people in my life. However, your pamphlet merely mentions it in passing, and even your web page provides little explanation of what this ministry does. It is clear that it is based in Scripture, but I have no idea how your church uses Scripture to help people with their addictions.

I also wish to discuss your pamphlet. It is, I am sorry to say, not very good. It tells me almost nothing about your church. I do not know anything about your theology beyond your soteriology, I do not know anything about the community your church provides, I do not know how large your church is, I do not know how it can help me (spiritually or materially). In short, I came away from your pamphlet with little more than an address and the times of a few of your services.

The inner panels ("God's Personal Invitation to Heaven") are particularly ineffective. There are three categories of people who might read your pamphlet: 1) those who have already turned to Christ and who would be far more interested in knowing what your church thinks should happen after salvation. Being already saved, they will have little interest in your soteriology.

2) those who have some confidence in the Bible, but are not committed to Christ. They may be swayed by the pamphlet's Bible verses, but they too will also be interested in what it means to be part of your church. An open door means little if the room beyond is dark, while a closed door with light in the cracks and the sounds of laughter may be far more inviting.

3) those who have no confidence in the Bible, or at least not the New Testament. Whether they are Jews, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, Wiccans, Hindus, agnostics, Sikhs, or any of a dozen other religions, quoting the Bible will mean little to them. Why should they have trust in this book you are quoting? What does it mean to them? Far better to show them what you as a church can offer them, rather than the threat of an invisible Hell and the promise of an unseen Heaven.

Thank you again for your concern.

Sincerely yours,

[Leum]

CARM has 28 questions for "homosexuals." I have some answers.

CARM, for those not blessed enough to have encountered them is a fundamentalist Christian website, I believe they are evangelical, but I am not sure. In any case, Matt Slick wrote a list of of 28 "Questions for homosexuals - and those who approve of it." I found this list via Former Conservative Blogger's own responses. Slick's responses to FC's responses tended to be a very dismissive, which I suppose was only fair as FC's responses were somewhat dismissive.

From PostSecret

-----Email-----
God isn't the one who is lost; we all are. God is where He always is... we need to stop trying to "find God" and instead rid ourselves of the things that we use to hide from God.


-----Email-----
I was so deeply offended that someone would assume that it is one's fault that they feel void of God's presence. It is the worst thing to be told when you are so desperately trying to feel something that once seemed to be ever present, and then one morning is just gone. 

The Labyrinth

There is only one rule in the Labyrinth: do not look back; make no attempt to retrace your steps. This is a rule not enforced by a watchman and the certainty of punishment, nor by some design of the maze itself. Rather, it is a rule written on the hearts of its myriad wanderers. Those who disobey risk looking endlessly, trying to remember every twist and turn they have made. Most will not even manage that; they will be paralyzed by uncertainty and doubt until, at last, they collapse from weariness.

A Religion Is More Than Its Holy Books, Part 2

Recently at Friendly Atheist, someone wrote in with a question: should she convert to Orthodox Judaism to please her fiance's family? And one commenter's answer struck me:

I have a question. Even if you are an atheist, why is it socially acceptable to willingly identify yourself as a cultural Jew? The old testament portrays the ancient Jews and their god as evil genocidal maniacs. Keep in mind I’m talking about someone who self identifies with Judaism, not just someone who comes from a family that is labeled as Jewish.

What if there were someone who thought that what the Nazis did was horrible and that Hitler was a bad person, but still considered himself a cultural Nazi? Although he doesn’t agree with with the Nazis, he still wears a swastika, celebrates Nazi victories, appreciates Nazi art, and makes a holiday of Hitler’s birthday. Obviously, there would be a stigma with this kind of association.

Ignoring the Godwin, let us consider the central point. The god of the First Testament* is a horrific character. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible notes three hundred ninety instances of cruelty and violence in the Torah alone. Not all can be attributed directly to YHWH, of course, but most are either his actions or the condoned--even commended--acts of his servants.

And that ignores the genocides of Joshua, the massacres of Judges, and YHWH's condemnation and destruction of Israel and Judah. All in all, the First Testament is a bloody, bloody book.

So why would anyone associate with it? Why aren't the Jews ashamed to be connected to such atrocities? It comes back to my earlier point: a religion is more than its holy books. The Torah may be the core of Judaism, but it does not stand alone; the Torah is viewed in light of the Talmud and rabbinic commentaries, in light of history and of changing understandings of God.

The fact is, barring a few extremists, most Jews do not feel bound by the Torah's commandments of genocide, do not believe the punishment a huge number of sins should be stoning. They see these in the light of a tradition that has grown beyond such things. Not being intimately connected to Orthodox Judaism, I do not know exactly how they view them, but I know that hardly any are a revelatory experience away from going on a murder spree.

And the god of the First Testament isn't as cruel as our society has come to see him. He commands that the alien in the land should be well-treated; that the poor not be oppressed (Deuteronomy 24:14-15), to take care when building houses so that they are safe (Deuteronomy 22:8); and repeated injunctions to care for the poor, needy, and oppressed. When Jesus commands to love thy neighbor, he is basing this on solid Torah ground. When Jesus says to help the poor, he is relying on the Torah. All the good stuff of the New Testament is linked to the Old.

So, when Jews identify as Jews, when gentiles convert to Judaism, they are not identifying just with the Torah, but with a history. A history that includes the Torah but is more than the Torah. Just as I identify as an American without liking everything about my country, a Jew can identify with Judaism without liking everything their religion.

The analogy isn't perfect, of course, as I have no choice but to be a member of a country, whereas a Jew (or Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) can chose not to identify with any religion. But religion is so intricately wound up with culture that saying people should not identify with one is like saying people shouldn't have a culture.

So, I don't think there's a problem with identifying with a religion with a history steeped in blood. Religion is a deeply personal thing, and there's no way of knowing from the outside why someone chooses their religion. So I say don't judge and save belligerence for times when religious people act like atheists are less than human, or invite debate.

*A term I have been advised is more culturally sensitive than "Old Testament" when discussing Judaism.

Conceptions of God: Pantheism

As I understand it, pantheism posits that the universe is God; the physical matter and energy of the universe is properly considered divine. The idea that God is a world-soul is a similar idea called panentheism. I may write a separate post on panentheism in the future.

If the universe is God, that has certain implications. The first, I think, is that God is neither omnibenevolent nor malevolent. The universe can be a cold and heartless place. A world where smallpox is part of God is not one where God is perfectly good. This doesn't mean that God is not good at all, though. I believe many pantheists relate to God as a very good being. This isn't unjustified. The universe is a glorious place, filled with awe and splendor. Looking upon the universe, it is easy to feel a sense of connection to the divine. But at the same time, the terrors and horrors of the universe should not be ignored.

The second implication is one of holiness. In a universe that is God, all things are holy, all are sacred. I have difficulty with this, as I the concept of holiness I am most familiar with is the Hebrew one: קדושה or kedushah which connotates separateness. How can anything be separate in a world where everything is God? I think, if the concept can be salvaged at all, it is that we should remember the presence of God in all things, that all things should be special to us. I am not at all sure that this works though.

The third implication is that all things are connected. If the universe is God than every atom is a part of a far greater whole, everything you encounter is a reflection of another aspect of yourself. For if the universe is God, then we are, in some sense, aspects of God. Divisions are all ultimately false.

In terms of accepting this conception of God, it is both hard and easy. Easy because it requires very little in terms of faith or belief. Hard because, given that, there seems little reason to bother. The main difference between calling the universe "the universe" instead of "God" is one of connotation, perhaps a greater sense of connection or relationship.

What does it mean to pray in a pantheistic universe? Prayer becomes the part speaking the whole, but can the whole respond? If the universe is as governed by natural laws as it seems to be, probably not. So is prayer useful? Probably primarily for the prayer rather than the prayee (I am inclined to believe this is always the case, which I may discuss in a future post).

What does it mean to have a relationship with God? I think it means having a greater sense of connection to others, and to nature. To embrace fully living in the world and making an effort to deserve being part of something as glorious as the divine. It requires living not just a moral life, but an exemplary life, one worthy of an aspect of God.

Ultimately, is this conception one I can embrace? Perhaps. It certainly has its advantages from a purely practical standpoint, although the metaphysical grounding is, I think, a bit shaky. But it might be a wise way to think about the universe and my place in it.

Conceptions of God: Introduction

I have decided to write a series of posts about different conceptions of the divine and my ability to relate to them. This will be a deeply personal, and rather paradoxical, undertaking. Until recently, I identified as an atheist. Now, I'm not so sure. I have come to feel that questions like "Does God* exist?" are the wrong sort of question. That they don't accurately assess the nature and reality of God. I will explore this further in this series.