Yikes! Part 7, A Real Doozy

A Gem on the Virgin Birth
 One last time, patient reader, I inflict upon you an excerpt from Getting Christianity Right! by Robert Sessions, iUniversity Press, New York, 2007, p. 128.  This is a gem, I promise, albeit of the outrageous sort.

In our time, if a man takes advantage of a woman who is unconscious or drunk or asleep, and causes her to become pregnant without her knowledge or consent, we call that act rape. But when the early Christian church tells the story of how its male God made Mary pregnant with Jesus, without her prior consent, the male-dominated church called that a “virgin birth.”

According to the writer of Luke, an angel of God appeared to Mary and told her that the baby from her pregnancy was from God. “Don’t be afraid, Mary. What God has done to you is for your own good and the good of the world.” … Apparently the moral question of God doing this to Mary did not occur to Matthew or Luke, for in their society women had less value and fewer rights than men.

Okay, so there are several troubling aspects of this excerpt, such as the assumption that "we" are more moral (and more intelligent!) than the early Christians.   But what troubles me most is that every Christian school child knows what Dr. Sessions has written here is wrong.   This is not at all the story the Christian Church tells, or ever did tell!  Instead, the Archangel Gabriel speaks to Mary in the future tense: “You shall conceive…” etc. And Mary’s beautiful, prior consent is emphasized and widely extolled as a model, the model, of Christian virtue.  “Behold the handmaiden of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.”

There’s no way Dr. Sessions has simply erred; he is too learned and the story (Luke 1:26-38) is too well known. There is but one conclusion: he has lied. 

Now the unfortunate fate of a liar, once found out, is never to be believed even if he should happen, sometimes, to be telling the truth.  That's another way of saying the book belongs in the trash can. But ironically, this one insight (that a biblical scholar deliberately, outright lies) would be enough, all by itself, to make the whole book worth reading!

This discovery has also reinforced my impression of these radic-lib writers; in my experience with them, they do have agendas other than simple truth, and their agenda, as you've noticed in this instance, is usually related to gender or sexuality.  

P.S.)  Conservative religious writers sometimes tell lies, too.   Especially about Holy Orthodoxy.  A lie being to state something one already knows is not true.

Yikes! Part 6

Here's another excerpt from Getting Christianity Right! by Robert Sessions.

Two Myths Accompany the Death of Traditional Christianity
…


Myth #1: “Any Religion Is Good”


…Contrary to the strong belief of many, “faith,” including religious faith, is not necessarily a good thing. Faith may be too strong or too weak. A person may have faith in the wrong thing – such as money ore power – or in an undependable person – as a deceitful pastor, or in a shallow type of a “personal” God. Or he or she may have a mistaken kind of faith in himself or herself.


Religion, including Christianity, is not necessarily to be treasured. “Tom got religion last night.” What kind of religion? Did Tom go out and burn a cross on the lawn of someone of another color to express his newfound “religion?” There are praiseworthy religions, even exciting ones. But there also are false religions, corrupt religions, boring religions, even deadly ones. Did a misguided Christian shoot and kill a nurse outside an abortion clinic because the killer’s priest told her the nurse was “a murderer?” Sometimes the best religions will have elements of good and bad, of truth, half-truth, and untruth.


I have met many Christians whose religion I appreciated greatly. But I have known others whose “brand” of Christianity was, to me, repulsive. On the other hand, I have admired non-Christians whose sense of the eternal plays out effectively in their daily lives.


A person’s true religion, regardless of what she or he professes, is whatever is most important and central in her or his life. Your religion is “where your treasure is.” The center of a man’s or woman’s trust, admiration, and aspiration is that person’s religion. This true religion determines a woman’s or man’s values, choices, and actions.

 I don't know about you, but for once, here, I find myself in agreement.  Well, that's provided we use a loose definition of "Christianity." of course.

Yikes! Part 5 or, Intelligent People Agree with Me

Here is yet another excerpt from Getting Christianity Right! by Robert Sessions.

Among the Christians who see their religion as dead or dying, two groups are especially noteworthy.


(1) One category is a multitude of thoughtful persons, among both the economically disadvantaged and advantaged, who witness most of Christianity ignoring or even supporting the continuation of poverty in their own localities and among millions of the world’s starving people.

. . .


(2) Another growing group asking whether their religion is dead or dying is made up of some of the most intelligent and best-educated Christians, who are questioning many of the beliefs and practices of traditional Christianity. Bible scholarship has undermined the notion that the Bible is “The Word of God, from cover to cover.” Scientific discoveries have made many long-held beliefs untenable. Questions of the theology and practices of traditional Christianity are rising not only from science labs or scholars’ studies, but also from insightful journalists, a few “thinkers” in pulpits and, increasingly, from the pews.

. . .


Jesus was a brilliant thinker and understood many things, but he was as much a seeker of truth as a proclaimer. One of his most characteristic traits was asking questions of himself, of his disciples of the crowds, and even, perhaps especially, of God. He found many significant answers, but often they led to more profound questions, probably even on the cross. He wanted his followers to be learners, too, and he wanted them, even, in some ways, to think beyond him.


pp. 4-5

Do you find the presumption here as breathtaking as I do?

Yikes! Part 4

Here is another excerpt from Getting Christianity Right! by Robert Sessions (iUniversity Press, New York, 2007, pp. 43-44.) In this section, Dr. Sessions is trying to make the point that we should not take the Bible literally.

Father Ken Baker of All Saints Anglican Church in Mission, British Columbia, shared an e-mail in which he gave a fitting response to a radio personality who had supported a viewpoint by taking literally a passage from the Old Testament. Father Baker’s message, in part:

“When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them…

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mind claims that this applies to Mexicans but not to Americans. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?...

Eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10)…can you settle this?

Leviticus 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?”

To Ponder:

1.) Always check the biblical references people give you and read the context, too,the whole section. Far too often, you find the passages misrepresented. This case is no exception. (That last citation is wrong, though; it should be Leviticus 21:20, not 20:20.)

2.) With whom did God make the covenant containing all these commandments, laws, and ordinances?

3.) Which covenant is operative today? To whom does this covenant pertain?

4.) To ”fulfill” something, as for example the Law and the Prophets, is to give that something its highest, truest, best meaning. Thus, fulfilling the Law doesn’t mean simply obeying it. Christ does that, but when we say He fulfilled the Law, we mean something deeper; namely, that He is that to which the Law was always pointing; He makes possible what the Law could only legislate, but never accomplish. Christ reveals and IS the Love that the Law could only crudely mimick. Christ fulfills the prophets not simply by making some of their predictions come true, but by embodying everything they were ever talking about, by being the summary of all their hopes and vindicating all their faith. This is how Jesus, by fulfilling the Law (Matthew 5:17) also superceded it (Hebrews 8:13). (In fact, that's a tautology; to say He fulfilled something IS already to say He superceded it.)

Yikes! Part 3

Another excerpt from Getting Christianity Right! by Dr. Robert Sessions.

I am not against emotion in religion. In fact, religion and worship can be deadly without it. Our need for a thinking Christianity does not mean seeking a non-feeling faith. Thinking can be an escape from, a substitute for, emotion, just as feeling can be a substitute for, coveted in place of, significant thought. Some Christians want an intellectually interesting religion without emotional involvement. Many others want an intelllectually shallow, “feel-good” religion.

Thinking and feeling, in the best forms of worship, can support and enrich each other. Scientists tell us that among living creatures, capacity for feeling increases with intelligence. Most dogs have more intricate systems of feelings than does an ant. Don’t tell Ginger, our golden retriever, this, but a human can know broader and greater depths of emotions than a dog. The finest Christinaity will be the one that finds expression in mind and heart, intelligence and emotions.

Christians who choose a religion of feeling without thought, and those who prefer a faith of the intellect without emotions, are kept from the best by the second best. John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, described a better way:

“Let us unite the two so long divided –
Knowledge and vital piety.”

p. 10

* * *
To Ponder

Is worship primarily emotional, primarily intellectual, or primarily something else? How about primarily spiritual?

Is intellectual shallowness the main objection to feel-good religion? One of my major problems with feel-good religion is that it tends to give its adherents the strength to continue with their dysfunctional lives. Instead of facing and fixing them, I mean. Has a sort of enabling role, to use an AA term.

Is worship supposed to be a consumer experience, that is, about US, or is it supposed to be about God? Or is there some of both, given that Christianity is all about relationships?

Yikes! Part 2

Here's an excerpt from the book I'm currently reading, Getting Christianity Right! by Robert Sessions (iUniversity Press, New York, 2007).

I do understand why some of you have said you would rather do other things with your time, and normally I'd probably agree, but I'm reading this for my friend Vada. Well, plus I do also like to keep track, loosely, of how Lib Prots think. They're taking over, after all, in the mainline Protestant denominations.

Faced with stagnant or even declining numbers on membership rolls, many traditional churches have opted to cling harder to some of the more informal, emotional, worship ways of the past. Although often called “contemporary services,” most of these forms of worship, in reality, are a throwback to earlier Pentecostal types of services, or to still earlier Methodist and Baptist, including frontier, churches. On the frontier, most churches did not have hymnbooks. Many had no pianos. So they sang words they could repeat over and over – “one liners.” Whoever led the service would do what they called, “line it out.” He or she would sing a line and the congregation would repeat it. Like many present-day services, they were primarily emotional, arm-waving, “Praise the Lord” experiences.

Today, although many contemporary services may use the latest electronic instruments and pull-down projection screens, most of them offer a faith that does not run deep or explore questions. They assume the Bible as the perfect word of God. They see charity in terms of boxes of food at Thanksgiving, rather than in realities such as equality and justice in race and gender, and in economic and education systems. They appeal primarily to persons who would rather feel than think, and they seldom raise questions about either God or social justice.

If these old-time services in what some call “modern” dress were truly contemporary, they would help worshipers understand the finest, up-to-date bible scholarship. They would seek the meaning for religion of the work of modern science. They would explore with today’s Christians such social problems a worldwide hunger, child labor, lack of medical care, the need for universal education, and the destruction of the earth’s resources. pp. 8-9

To Ponder:

Is charity more about “equality and justice in race and gender, and in economic and education systems” than about giving food at Thanksgiving (and other times)? Is it naïve to think Christians can much influence the world concerning the former?

Is it true that attendees of “contemporary services” are less interested in thinking than in feeling?

“…worldwide hunger, child labor, lack of medical care, the need for universal education, and the destruction of the earth’s resources.’’ Are these what a worship service is supposed to be about? Isn't it interesting how the author assumes "social justice" ought to be a main theme of worship services?

If you don't think (as I don't) that's what a worship service is supposed to be about, how should the Church address these issues?

If a person considers the Bible as the Word of God, does that really mean his/her faith “does not run deep”? What does the author mean here by "deep"?

Yikes!

Some years ago, I had the great joy of introducing my friend Vada to my friend Anita, and of watching the friendship between the two of them blossom.

Vada is a seeker. The daughter of a very strict Presbyterian minister, she was totally turned off by his kind of religion and has spent her long life (She's 91.) trying to figure out what to believe. It has to be scientific, of course.

Anita, raised Catholic, concluded that "the Catholic Church lies to you" and has been Episcopalian for most of her adult life.

So another of Anita's best friends is Julia, who lives next door, and Julia's husband gave Vada a copy of his book, Getting Christianity Right. Vada read it and has passed it to me, hoping I'll read and comment.

Yes, I will!

This author is an ordained United Methodist minister and has been a college professor of religion and a participant in the World Council of Churches. He is a follower of Paul Tillich and Bishop Spong and - don't let your jaw drop too far - he goes beyond them both. His premise is that Christianity (as he knows it) is dying and he wants to prevent that by overhauling it drastically. "Will Christianity change wisely?" he askes, "and in time?" He wants to take the religion "beyond Jesus, with his blessing."

Dr. Sessions emphasizes intellectuality; his writing is heavily laced with words such as: intelligent, thinking, thoughtful, perceptive, thinkers, scholars. In the Preface, he says of himself:

I have lived in a world of ideas, emotions, and words, a wonderful world of books, lectures, sermons, and one-on-one and large group discussions, retreats, conferences, and panels. Much of my life has been spent in classrooms - first as a student in public schools and in undergradualte and seminary classes at Brown, Dartmouth, and Southern Methodist University. After seminary came a doctorate at Boston University, with elective classes at Harvard Divinity School and Andover Newton Theological Seminary.

Okay, so here is a chance to see what makes some of our Liberal Protestant friends tick. I'm devouring the book, halfway through already.

And I think, along the way, I'll share several tid-bits with you.

Hey, it's not all bad, either! Sometimes he nails it. Other times he screws it up. See what you think.