Where is the Hypocrisy?

For several decades, I have stood as a conscious observer of the decline of what used to called the Mainline Church. I read all the books. I listened to all the complaints. I watched the conservative backlash to the culture's evolution, as some tried, in vain, to pull the culture back into the church's past. I have seen the fear of middle judicatory and denominational leaders, as they have wrestled with the real impact of fewer people and greatly diminishing financial support. I have talked with those who have been dissatisfied with churches, those who have become part of the ever-expanding church alumni association. I have listened to the Gen-Xers and their generational successors, and I have agreed with them, by and large, about the Church's hypocrisy.

For years, I had been told that the reason for the decline in churches in America - we lost more than 50% of our membership between the years of 1968 and 2010 - was that the culture had become painfully aware of a disconnect in the Church between what the Church was intended to be and what it had become.

The Church, I was repeatedly told, was intended to be a place that reflected the ministry and mission of its founder, Jesus Christ. It was to be a source of hope for the poor and disengaged, the rejected and the forlorn. It was to be succor for the suffering and aid for the struggling. Its ministry was to be directed to "the least of these." The Church was to be a place of sacrificial service, where ministers, evangelists and apostles are trained to go out, in humility, to reach out to those in need. It was to associate with the lepers of its age, the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the disheartened, the hopeless and the helpless.

I agreed with this assessment. The Church of Jesus Christ is called to engage with Christ in his work with all people, starting with the most needful.

The culture has called it hypocrisy that the Church had become a place of arrogant orthodoxy and rejection, limiting its services to those who are "right and good." The culture has called the Church an outmoded and irrelevant institution of religious selective blindness, one that refuses to see advances in science and cultural diversity. The Church was seen as an institution that stands over and against practical and social advances, against equality, justice and peace.

Again, I agreed with those who were quick to point out the Church's hypocrisy. It was not as intended. Through the ages, it had become a self-serving means to eternal salvation, a religious totem through which adherents had much to gain if they would just follow the rules and regulations. The Church of Jesus Christ had diminished, and was diminishing, because it had fled far from its intended purpose and value.

I used to agree with the mass of practical agnostics, who called the Church to accountability for the disconnect between its intended purpose and its reality.

I no longer agree with the charge of hypocrisy. Here is why. I serve a congregation, and know of others, whose entire ministry and mission is focused on meeting the needs of those who struggle and suffer. Many of our congregations are faithful to the intended purpose to which the church alumni association has called us and from which the functional agnostics have fled. I can claim with absolute certainty that there are congregations, like Shiloh Church, which are doing precisely that to which God has called them and for which God has empowered and equipped them.

The hypocrisy of the Church of Jesus Christ has diminished as we have narrowed the gap between intended purpose and practical reality. We are doing that to which we are called!

The hypocrisy now rests with those who have called the Church to make the changes necessary to narrowing the gap, but refuse to be a part of the service that makes the difference. The church alumni association and the practical agnostics can now take a fresh look at the congregations of which I am aware. They will see a new Church of Jesus Christ. The problem is that they refuse to look. They continue to stand apart and criticize. The hypocrisy is now theirs.  

Discriminatory Laws and Bigotry

I am embroiled in what many may consider to be the most dangerous and most interesting of online discussions. Actually, to be fair, I stuck my nose into a conversation between two boyhood friends, one of whom is active in the establishment and maintenance of universal civil rights and the other an elected official.
The arena is Indiana State politics. The topic is equal marriage rights for same-gender couples.

In the Indiana House, two recent bills have sparked considerable controversy. The first was a potential law that defined marriage exclusively, as being between one man and one woman. This supposed "Biblical Model" was supported by a minority of congressional representatives and failed. The second bill was an attempt to legalize an inclusive definition of marriage, one that codifies the marriage of same-gender couples. That bill also lacked majority support. It failed.

My political friend and my civil rights friend were on different sides of both the aisle and the fence. They promoted opposing views. (It is not perhaps incidental that one is gay and the other straight.) Frankly, I saw only one side of the argument being promoted through my social media account. My "friends" tended to discuss the issue from a single perspective.

Unfortunately, in the course of the discussion, those who opposed the inclusive definition of marriage, who voted for the initial bill and against the latter, were called "bigots." One of my old friends asked the other if all who oppose same-gender marriage rights are bigots. Is the word "bigot" a fair descriptor of all who stand for the traditional definition of marriage?

Again unfortunately, the answer was "yes." All who oppose an inclusive definition of marriage are practicing the same king of bigotry that America has seen in racial and gender civil rights movements. Opposition to equal rights for any segment of the society is bigotry. According to my office copy of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, bigotry is: "...obstinate and unreasoning attachment to one's own belief and opinions with intolerance of beliefs opposed to them or the behavior or beliefs ensuing from such a condition."

Is it bigotry to cling to traditional, exclusive definitions of marriage and marriage rights? Perhaps. But my issue here, and the reason that I stuck my nose into the discussion, is that it is not particularly helpful to call persons with opposing views any name, especially a pejorative one, like "bigot." I suggested, instead, that we might learn to understand the tendency to cling to discriminatory laws as discriminatory practice. We can all agree, I think, that discrimination against any segment of the culture is wrong and that laws that promote such discrimination should be changed. If we learn to free ourselves from the need to call names, I firmly believe that we can achieve, to a higher degree, change and progress. We can evolve, culturally and spiritually.

Interesting, though, isn't it that much of this discussion has taken place in the context of celebration of black history? There are some interesting parallels to be drawn, I think. Someday, maybe, we will learn.  

The Allegory of the Evolution/Creation Caves

The famous philosopher, Plato, may have argued, in The Republic, that the natural state of humankind is located, as it were, deep within the darkness of a cave, facing the rear wall, where there is scant information with which to deal and where life is simple to control. In such a state, the human experience is reduced to dim reflections that barely glow off the back wall of the cave. Humanity begins to notice, however, that those reflections are not likely things in themselves, but incomplete echoes of another things that exists elsewhere.

Curiosity leads humans to turn away from the incomplete information that is refracted from the back wall of the cave toward more complete information about the world. In that moment, the world becomes exponentially more complex. While the information is more complete, so is the complexity of  managing new ways of thinking and believing. As humans feed their need for more and better information, the world becomes increasingly difficult to manage and control. Simplicity is lost. Control can no longer be claimed or maintained.

I thought of Plato's Allegory of the Cave last week, as I watched the "debate" between Bill Nye, The Science Guy, and the founder of the "Creation Museum." Unfortunately, neither side participated in the debate in order to find any common ground for discussion. Each side wanted only to prove the other wrong, to demonstrate their own side's correctness. They each rejected the premises under which the other side presented and thought through their argument. The discussion disintegrated into "because the Bible says..." verses "Scientific knowledge teaches that..."

Both sides of the discussion were stuck with their own assumptions about how to arrive at the truth of the universe. The creationist argued theologically. The scientist argued theoretical process. Neither was truly able to demonstrate a single thing to the other side because both exercised under preconceived notions of limited understanding.

If we are ever to achieve a balance between the spiritual and spacial worlds in which we live, I suggest that the conversation must begin with a search for commonality. We can see the differences easily enough. They are reflected off the back wall of the experiential cave to which we have grown comfortable. Until we turn together in an effort to link the spacial and the spiritual, the theological and the theoretical, information about the world in which we live will be sacrificed at the altar of control and simplicity.

While modern Physics may be finding ways to shine brighter light into the depths of our chosen caves, it is still up to us whether or not we turn and learn, coping with the complexity of Higgs boson particles or with something as simple as defining life as both spacial and spiritual. Until that conversation begins, I am afraid that we are likely to remain either "Creationists" or "Evolutionists," but never fully becoming spiritual rationalists.

Let the conversation begin!  

Black History Month

Shiloh Church is celebrating Black History month.

The congregation is engaging the opportunity in three distinct ways. Firstly, since the Gospel readings for the month of February come from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, we are utilizing Jesus' message of social and cultural impact (particularly how it calls us to diverge from traditional, ritualized, ortho-doxological practices in order to focus on practical, public applications of the message of Christ) to relate to the contributions of black Americans. This past Sunday, Shiloh combined the Beatitudes with the images of Rosa Parks as a way to help us understand how we might be the "blessing" to those who hunger, thirst, or mourn by changing the ways things work. Direct action changes the world. Direct application of the message of Christ to the ways that we live can forever alter human history.

Secondly, the congregation's Bible @ Boston's program will resume each Wednesday. We will gather at Boston's Bistro and Pub, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., to remember and celebrate the many contributions of our brothers and sisters to the fabric of American culture. Each session is free and open to the public. Come early for the best seats in the house! The list pf speakers and topics are listed here:

February 5: Karen Brame: An Overview of Black Histo
February 12: Idotha "Bootsie" Neal: Wright Brothers/Paul Laurence Dunbar Project and Walk of Fame
February 19: Terrence Grimes: Celebrating Black American Music
February 26: Margaret Peters: African-Americans who have helped establish Dayton's history.

Thirdly, on the first weekend in March, Shiloh will offer to the public a series of displays that highlight contributions of Black Americans to corporate American identity and culture. The displays will be open on Sunday, March 2, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The 10:25 worship service will feature special ethnic music, dance performance, and speaker Rev. Robert Jones. The service will be followed by a special carry-in ethnic meal. Recipes can be located on the circular table that is located in the Information Gallery. Sign-ups are available on the Green Table, located in the Narthex/Lobby. The meal will conclude with a discussion of the book, "Remember As You Pass Me By," written by L. King Perez, who will be in attendance and who will take part in the conversation. You may obtain a copy of the book from Marilyn Jones or from Amazon.

Another feature of Shiloh's program will take place on Monday, March 3. Children from several local school districts will travel to Shiloh to tour the exhibits, have lunch, and offer a program in the sanctuary. The planning group anticipates up to 300 children, who will offer songs, dances, readings and even artwork, to commemorate the event.

If you want to help with any of these activities, see Carl Robinson, Terry Ogletree, or sign up on the sheets that are available on the Green Table. You may also call the Church Office for more information. I hope to see you all there!