Communion: We Are What We Eat

An early painting of Jesus shows him as a shepherd

When we share in communion, we share in the Body and Blood of Christ.  We consume the Sacrifice reflects who we are as a community even as our sharing of it shapes the community. 

When we commune together in this way, we are making a declaration to each other.  "We are the Body of Christ."  This is something Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 12:12-14.  All of us together, sharing communion are united in this Body.

This symbolism is powerful.  We consume the sacrifice.  At the same time, we are the Sacrifice resurrected. This imagery is pointed to throughout the New Testament, but is often lost on us. When we share the Sacrifice together we are declaring that together we are the Resurrected Body of Christ. Paul sees us as Christ's hands, feet and so on.  We're like Voltron or the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. We're a more powerful force for good when we're united. But the importance of the symbolism goes beyond unity to communal behavior.

In this act we are claiming to be Christ's Body. We must therefore ask whether or not our Body is doing the thing that Christ's Body did? This question leads us back to the original post in this series in which I suggested that Communion is time to reflect on more than just the death and resurrection of Jesus - we should also focus on the his life.

What did Jesus do with his body? He used it to feed the sick. He used it to heal people both physically and emotionally. He loved. He forgave. And he knew how to have a good time! Is that what our Body does? Are these the things that define our Body? And if not, what should be done to correct this? Communion is a good time to ask that question too.

Glen Bernie Church of Christ (Non-Institutional)

For years, I've wanted to attend a non-institutional Church of Christ.  I finally made the time.  This was different from visiting other religious groups, I knew what to expect more than I knew how to behave.  I wanted to ask honest questions without starting a debate.  Even now, I'm not sure if I succeeded.

As I pulled into the building I noticed a sign saying just "CHURCH of CHRIST."  Notably, it didn't say Glen Bernie Church of Christ.  I walked into a small foyer that wasn't exactly meant for socialization.  There was enough room for coat racks, entrances to restrooms and a few billboards, but it was clear that the building wasn't a social area.  I didn't see classrooms or a fellowship hall while I was there.  I don't think they have them, but I could be mistaken.

In the foyer, I noticed plenty of literature.  Most of it was what I would have typically expected in a Church of Christ.  There were pamphlets concerning the errors of other churches' doctrines.  There were some about instruments, others about Mary.  The literature generally carried this theme, "we're the right church because we believe the right things which we get only from the Bible."

The Churches of Christ distinguish themselves from other Christian denominations by claiming that they everything they do is sanctioned by the New Testament.  They claim that this isn't true of other churches.  Many of their members believe that the only way to be a true Christian is to organize their beliefs and practices around verses that come straight from the Bible.

They had pictures of their members - this is a common thing in the Churches of Christ.  I couldn't tell you where the tradition comes from.  They also had a missions board.  There was a time when missions boards were common in Churches of Christ.  I remember seeing them all the time as a child, but I hadn't seen one like this in years.  The church supported more than 15 missionaries around the globe.  They could afford to do this because their pulpit minister didn't take a salary, "he has enough money," one of their elders explained.  Another member told me that they preferred not to pay their ministers.  My guess is that both statements are true.

The service was like most Church of Christ services.  They sang acapella (without instruments).  The men led the service while the women sat quietly.  In most Churches of Christ, women aren't even allowed to pay offering plates or communion trays.  During the offering, they announced the visitors were not expected to donate.  During communion, which the Churches of Christ share weekly, they read a lot of scripture.  I'm not used to seeing this in mainstream Churches of Christ, but their message was similar to the one I'm used to, "Do this in Remembrance of me."

Throughout the service, I couldn't help but notice the diversity in the congregation.  The congregation was about 1/3 black and the black members of the church led the service as much as the white members.  I've never seen this in a Church of Christ; they are usually somewhat segregated owing mostly to history.

After a few more songs, there was a scripture reading.  The whole congregation read together.  This is the second time I've seen something like this in a congregation with a large number of black Christians.  Is this a part of their tradition?  Is this something one sees more frequently on this side of the country?  Or is it an odd coincidence?  I have no idea.

Eventually, one of the elders began to preach.  His preaching style was different from anything I've ever seen.  More than anything, he read scripture.  He must have read 3 or more chapters of scripture total during his sermon, commenting on a particular topic here and there.  He didn't jump around from one verse to another, which is what I'm used to seeing in Churches of Christ.  Instead, he read large swaths from each section he chose.  He was a good reader.  The overhead projector helped the audience follow along.

The service ended like most Churches that grew up in the 1800s revivalist traditions do.  There was a call for people who believed to be baptized.  The elder didn't threaten hell, but warned of the possibility of hell for those who left the building without being baptized.

I didn't get to socialize the way I normally do after a service.  I was in such a rush I forgot to get pictures.  I talked with the elder who'd spoken for a few minutes, but it wasn't the sort of engagement I usually experience at a church.  I couldn't tell you why.  Was it me?  Was it them?  Was it the structure of the building itself.  Architecture shapes the personality of a community.

One of the few things that really stuck out in the conversations that I did have was their pride in not having a pantry for the poor.  This particular issue came up several times when I asked them what was special about their church.  "We don't have a pantry."  It was explained that Christians were supposed to do good in the world, but that the Church's job was simply to preach the Gospel.  It's difficult for me to understand a theological position that allows for purchasing several projectors or flat screen TVs, but does not allow for a pantry for the poor.  I'm also uncertain how allowing members to collaborate by donating to a pantry is a bad thing.  I wouldn't even bother to mention it, but aside from being biblical based, it was the one thing that was mentioned to me at least three times during my few conversations.  They were proud of their lack of a pantry.  They were proud of the fact that, as a congregation, they are do not help the poor.  

How I became a Humanist #10: How to Read and Understand the Bible #2

Before studying theology, I think I read the Bible the way most Christians do.  If I read a section about Jesus healing a leper, I thought of it as history.  If I read a story about Jesus' geneology, I read it as history.  I looked at most the Bible as a sort of text book with stories that were more or less chronologically related.  It didn't occur to me that instead the stories might be theologically related, which is why the stories don't always occur in the same order in the various Gospels.  It's also why the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew differs from the one in Luke.  The two authors are making different points.  (I'll explain the difference between the theological difference between the genealogies if someone asks.)

Jesus Heals the Leper

One of the most common ways to see theology at play in the Bible is to observe how stories are placed alongside one another, that is, how they contrast and compare with one another (You don't need to know Greek to do this).  I'll use two examples.  Let's first start with the Gospel of Mark 1:40 - 3:6.  If you want to get the most out of this, read the text before continuing (If you can, read from a text that has no subtitles.)

Notice the following themes in several of the stories.

• Faith: 
• The leper demonstrates faith by saying, "if you will, you can make me clean."
• The friends of the paralytic man demonstrate faith by going out of their way to get to Jesus
• Mercy
• Jesus touches the leper before he heals him (this is technically against the law).  The man probably hasn't been touched by a clean person for years.  Jesus dignifies his humanity before he heals his body.
• Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic man before healing him (again, treating the soul).
• Jesus recruits a tax collector (who worked for the Romans - they were hated as traitors).  Jesus recognizes the outcast (same with the paralytic and the leper).
• Jesus chills with tax collectors and sinners.  He's ridiculed for this - these people haven't straightened out their lives yet.  They're not the picture of charity work that you would put on a poster.  They're sinners.  He dignifies their humanity before they get it right.  He spends time with them before he heals them. 
• Jesus heals on the Sabbath.  Again, he's breaking the law, kind of.  What he's saying is "this person's humanity is more important than protecting our most sacred laws, even the Sabbath."

Jesus Heals the Paralytic (By Jan Luyken)

• Jesus Power
  If you go back even further in the text to 1:21 you see a theme of Jesus' power permeate each story.
• Jesus has power over demons
• He has power over illness
• He has power to forgive
• He has power over the Sabbath
• He even has authority to interpret scripture that the scribes don't.

When we split the Bible up into memory verses and subsections with neat little headlines, we can miss these themes.  We also miss them because we haven't been taught to look for them.  The stories tie together and are generally told alongside one another to bring about a variety of nuanced theological points.

On account of the lengthy section of scripture, I'll continue this topic next week.

Judging Faith: Golden Plates and the Virgin Birth

"Don't judge unless you want to be judged, because the standard you use to judge others is going to be used to judge you." - Jesus of Nazareth

While being Mormon is more socially acceptable than it was a decade or two ago, Mormon beliefs are still looked down upon by Christians and non-Christians alike.  As an example, the Broadway show, The Book of Mormon, made fun of the religion in a way that would not have been acceptable if the show had been about Jews or most other religious minorities.

There are several reasons why both Christians and non-Christians have significant issues with the Latter Day Saints.  Christians have trouble accepting additions to their scriptures, Mormons have several additional books that they consider equal or superior to the Bible.  Religious skeptics are hard on  Mormonism because Joseph Smith was a known huckster before he became the prophet of Mormonism.  Other people are annoyed at their door-to-door evangelism.  There are any number of other issues that people tend to make fun of the Latter Day Saints - it all goes together hand-in-hand.  My biggest criticism of Mormonism is the poorly written scriptures that are supposed to have originally been written by different authors, but aside from those taken directly from Isaiah, all look to be written by the same author.  #LiteraryCriticism

Whatever the criticism, the level of ridicule hurled at Latter Day Saints seems unfair to me.  Are their beliefs so much stranger than those of others?  Never mind whatever beliefs comes to mind.  When discussing faith all ideas become relative.  It is just as impossible to prove a virgin birth as it is to prove golden plates.  And neither idea is more plausible than the other.  It only seems so because one is more familiar to us.

Growing up, I heard Church of Christ apologists bash the Latter Day Saints by stating that archaeology questioned their claims concerning Jews on the North American continent.  Those same apologists cast doubt on any archaeology, geology or any other form of science that questioned their own faith sometimes saying, "absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence" or something like that.  The irony of this was completely lost on them.

If we are honest people, we have two choices, we can resort to faith or not.  If we do it is dishonest to judge others who do the same.  Once we believe in a Virgin Birth, we have no right to ridicule those who believe impossible things with no evidence.

My Neighbor's Faith: Marriage and Family in the Mormon Faith (LDS Temple in DC)

Visitor's Center in Salt Lake

Several years ago, the Army sent me to Salt Lake City for training.  While there, I visited a Mormon ward that some of my relatives attend.  I also happened to stop by the Tabernacle and the Temple Visitor's Center.  It was beautiful and they had lots of historical artifacts pertaining to the faith.

My visits left no doubt in my mind that the Mormons strongly value family.  At almost every encounter someone would ask me, "Don't you want to live with your family forever?"  They seemed to think that this was an innate human desire.  One could see in all places that the Mormons marry young and that they're encouraged to have big families.  Even at the restaurants in Salt Lake, the tables are elongated to fit larger than average sized families.

LDS Temple in DC

Visitor's Center in DC

When I walked into the visitor's center, I was introduced two two sisters who showed me around and answered my questions.  One of the things they were proud to show me was a 3D printed model of the inside of a Mormon Temple.  Presently, there are only two of these models in the world, one in DC and the other in Salt Lake City.

The sisters explained several of the rooms in the temple.  They focused on the rooms for marriage ceremonies.  The Latter Day Saints temple marriage ceremonies seal a marriage for eternity.  They believe that if you marry in the temple, that you and your partner will be partners eternally.  You can do this with your children as well, and then you and your whole family will be together eternally.

3D Printed model of LDS Temple

The first thing that occurred to me when I heard this was, "Okay, but what if you decide at 40 that you don't want to live with this spouse for eternity?  What if a lifetime is long enough?  What if you divorce?"  I asked whether the Latter Day Saints encourage their young to put off temple marriage until they're certain that they've married the right person.  "We usually perform the wedding in the temple."  The first wedding is usually the temple wedding with state papers signed afterward.  This struck me as odd, especially since the Mormons tend to marry so young.  I wonder how they rate their marriages in surveys when compared to other groups.  I haven't bothered to look this up.

The reason Latter Day Saints value family so much, even in the afterlife, has to do with their view of God.  As mentioned in a previous post, they believe that God was once a man like us.  He is still a man today.  At some point during our discussion my jaw dropped.  "Wait a minute," I said.  "You believe that God has a wife!" I was excited to have figured this out for myself.  "We do," I was told.  "It's not something we like to talk about.  God loves his wife so much and doesn't want people taking her name in vane or treating her rudely."

The Book of Mormon: the Primary LDS revelation

Whatever one thinks of this, it coheres theologically with the rest of LDS beliefs.  God wants them to have sealed families just like He did.  He also wants them to be fruitful and multiply, just like He did.  This is what beings made in the Image of God are supposed to do.  And like Him, if they do things right, they mature to be like Him.

As I thought about their theology, I couldn't help but wonder what life is like in the typical Mormon home.  How are their families better off compared with non-Mormon families?  How are they worse off?  I expect that with bigger families, there's a better ability to create intra-family self-reliance.  This might explain the libertarian streak among Latter Day Saints.  As the same time, there has to be a lot of pressure on women to have children.  What about the women who don't want to be mothers?  What about the women who aren't able?

The Problem with Failed Seals

The other thing I noticed was this.  Sealing your family members is supposed to mean that you are together forever.  However, if your family members fall away from the faith or are less than decent Mormons, they may find themselves on a different level of heaven than the rest of the family.  This seemed contradictory to me.  After all, if you're on the same level of heaven then you're already together and sealing should be irrelevant.  On the other hand, if different levels of heaven can divide families then the seal isn't very effective. I write this less as a criticism than in hopes that someone can clear it up for me.  Any LDS folks out there reading this?  Feel free to chime in.

Even if it can't be cleared up.  I don't see this as a reason for serious criticism.  Most beliefs are coherent until one starts applying questions from the outside.

How I Became a Humanist #6: Emanuel's House: How a Good Church Experience Ruins All Others

Between the year 2000 and 2003, I learned and experienced many things that challenged both my faith in Church of Christ doctrine, and led to me questioning Christianity as a whole.  The next several posts in this series are dedicated to those years.  Attending Emanuel's House was one of the key experiences.

Emanuel's House was by far the best church I have ever had.  Although the church no longer exists, I still consider myself a member; I'm not alone in this.  Emanuel's House (Ehouse) grew out of a prayer group that was started in Luke's house in the fall of 1999.  The group grew and formed a church the following spring.

It was a small church led and attended mostly by college students.  We met in the afternoons, which allowed me to lead a retirement home ministry with my friend Mal and to visit different kinds of churches.  Our members came from a variety of different Christian theological traditions.  The diversity within the group was fertile ground for my curious mind.

This wasn't the only thing that was unique about Ehouse.  Several of us were ministry or theology students.  The role of preaching and teaching was shared between a handful of talented and thoughtful people.  We often discussed the message as a group after the sermon was over, finding life application, adding nuance and sometimes even debating.  The exercise created community, inspired tolerance and taught critical thinking.

A Typical Emanuel's House Fellowship, well, kind of

After service, we went to someone's house for fellowship.  We'd play games, worship or do some kind of service together.  Often all three things would be going on at once.  We became part of each other's daily lives.  If one of us was in the hospital, members showed up in droves.  We got each other jobs, paid each other's bills and helped each other move.  We were family.  Many of us still are.

For me, Ehouse was something of a playground.  We had several theologians.  Among them, I was the one always pressing the envelop in some form or fashion.  I've always been both something of a zealot and a moving target.  I latch onto big ideas, dice them up, and synthesize them with what I already know before moving onto something else.  This gives me both multi-perspectival depth on a wide range of issues.  It's also a bit taxing to the people around me.  (Thought slightly less zealous, I can't say that I've changed #ENTP).

Ehouse gave me a fair amount of leeway when it came to trying new things.  Sometimes they worked; sometimes they didn't.

It also gave me plenty of people with whom I could work out new ideas: people who challenged me, fed me new information and experiences, and people who teased out different ideas through intense and ongoing conversations.

The bad thing about Ehouse is that after leaving, I never was able to find anything like it again.  I sometimes had the opportunity to work with amazing people, but the sort of community and openness to new ideas was something I was unable to find.  

The Zoroastrians (Part 1): Who are the Zoroastrians?!?!

One of the first questions I was asked when I walked into the Zoroastrian's building was, "How did you find out about us?"  It was a fair question.  At one time, Zoroastrianism was the largest organized religion in the world.  Today, the ancient religion has less than 200,000 adherents.  Not surprisingly, most people have never heard of the Zoroastrians.

Except that they have.  Almost everyone in the world, regardless of whether or not they are Christian, is familiar with the birth narrative of Jesus.  Most of us have heard of the three wise men.  These men, called Magi in literal translations of the Bible, came from the East, which here means Persia.  So, what is a Magi?  Magi were Zoroastrian clergy.  Zoroastrianism was the religion of the Persian Empire.

The Three Magi (Wise Men) depicted on their way to visit Jesus

Like the Jews, the Zoroastrians were monotheists who believed in a Savior to be born of a virgin.  This seems to be why Matthew took the time to tell this story.  If that's correct, Matthew seems to think that the birth of Jesus fulfills a prophesy shared by both religions.  He doesn't say this explicitly.

Zoroastrians show up elsewhere in the Christian scriptures too.  People who have read their Old Testament will recall that after the Persians conquered Babylon, they not only freed the Jews from oppression.  They helped Jews resettle in Judea and even gave money to rebuild the Temple.  It wasn't uncommon for the Persians to treat their subjects kindly, but they may have been especially kind to the Jews on account of their shared monotheism.  The Jews, in turn, seemed to have a positive view of Persia, especially when compared with their view of the Greeks and Romans.

The bird icon above the door is the Zoroastrian symbol for God's Holy Spirit.

For at least the last century, there has been an ongoing debate among scholars concerning the degree to which Zoroastrianism influenced second temple Judaism and Christianity.  Like Christians, Zoroastrians believe that God has a Holy Spirit who at times takes the shape of a bird.  They believe in an afterlife, in angels and demons and so much more.

I learned about the Zoroastrians during a Western Civilization class I took at Rochester College.  At the time, I was disturbed to learn that the Persians were also monotheists and that shared many views with Christians that aren't found in the Torah.  It raised a serious question for me.  Was religion simply an artifact of history or does God work through history.  The facts forced me to believe the either one or the other was true.

In any case, understanding Zoroastrianism is important for understanding the history of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  The four religions have directly influenced each other in a variety of ways.  Now you know a little bit about who the Zoroastrians are.  I'll post about my visit with them in a few days.

Noble Seeker Blog: Update 1

I started writing a month ago at the encouragement of several friends.  I decided to write about religion because politics is too contentious for people to listen to one another right now and I'm not sure how to go about explaining my thoughts in the intersection between technology, geopolitics and economics.

The first time I had the idea to do a blog like this was in 2014, which I visited Chapel Hill UMC in San Antonio, TX

I knew I wanted to tell the story about how I became a Humanist and possibly where my thoughts have led me since.  I also knew that in telling that story, I'd want to talk about some of the churches and other religious organizations I visited that had opened my mind.  I saw an opportunity to return to a practice I had maintained during the years I went to Emanuel's House, that of visiting religious communities with the hope of learning something new.  So, I did that too.

I didn't expect the response I've gotten over the last month.  So many of you have thanked me personally since I started writing.  You've shared my work.  I'm surprised to find more and more people reading and returning to the site every week.  Google Analytics suggests that several people were using my communion thoughts in church last Sunday (at exactly 11:30 am).  I would never would have imagined.

Me around the time I became a Humanist (2006)

I intend to keep writing for the foreseeable future.  Life may get in the way of me posting as frequently as I currently do.  If I could, I would do this for a living.  In an ideal world, I'd turn this project into something much larger.  I'd create interfaith dialogues and interfaith service projects.  The dialogues would be panel discussions followed by fellowship rather than events where people get up and give a speech representing their faith's values.  These events would be accessible to lay people.  I'd work to create healthier conversations between theological liberals and evangelicals too; and also between religious and non-religious people.  So often, these labels divide us more than they should.

Today, these goals are a long way off.  I don't know if I can achieve them.  For now, I'll keep writing.

From my visit to Holy Land Franciscan Monastery in DC (2/9/2017)

Little Lessons: Communion Part 1: Do This in Remembrance of Me

*The little lessons series contains short lessons of applied theology or philosophy.  This particular lesson concerns a ritual that has always been dear to my heart, even during those years when I was unwilling to share in it.*

Every Sunday, Christians around the world gather to worship and fellowship with one another.  While together, they share songs, prayers, instruction and usually partake in a ritual meal.  This meal is called Communion, the Eucharist, or The Lord's Supper depending on the particular Christian tradition in question.

Christians often think of this time as a memorial.  They take a moment to reflect on the death and resurrection of Jesus recalling the last supper that he shared with his disciples during which he commanded them to "Do this in remembrance of me," whenever they shared bread and wine.  

Front and center is a typical Church of Christ Lord's Supper table.  Behind is the stage on which I gave my grandfather's eulogy

Consider for a moment the last funeral you went to.  I attended my grandfather's funeral in early December.  At both the viewing and the funeral, people shared stories about my grandfather's life.  When my uncle and I got up to speak during the service, we talked about his life too.  We talked about what he did, how he interacted with people and what inspiration we can all get from the life he lived.  We did this because that's what you do at a memorial.  It would have been strange if we had spent the whole time focused on his death. For Christians, Jesus' death on the cross is the culminating act in the story of his life, but it shouldn't be the only story that gets remembered around the communion table.

The earliest paintings of Jesus rarely showed him on the cross.  He is often depicted like this, as a shepherd (notice the sheep on his shoulders).  This suggests that the earliest Christians tended to focus on Jesus' life more than on his death.  

Instead,  Christians should also recall the time that Jesus healed the leper, or that he hung out with prostitutes and sinners.  They should consider what he taught.  Those are the things that give his life, death and even resurrection meaning to the Christian faith.  Christian theology would be different if Jesus had only spent time with the righteous or those who were well-to-do.  It would be different if he had taught us to hate, rather than to love.

Communion is more than a solemn moment in a worship service.  It is a ritual that signifies much of what is important to the Christian faith, which is why early Christians shared the ritual together weekly.  It is a ritual beautiful in its complexity.  I encourage my Christians friends to cherish all the beauty this ritual has to offer.

Faith Friday: Sikh

A couple of years ago, I visited the Sikh Center in San Antonio after having watched a Sikh speak an an inter-religious dialogue meeting.  You can read about my experience by clicking the link above.  Below, you can learn a little bit about Sikh dress and read some a small portion of their scriptures.  Let me know what you think in the comments below.

The Sikh Articles of Faith

The Sikh Articles of Faith link above explains the different articles of clothing that Sikhs wear and what they reflect about Sikh faith.  This wasn't what I was expecting when I originally clicked on the link myself.  Sikhs wear their hair and garments as reminders of their commitments.

Sikh Scriptures Concerning What God Wants from Humanity

When I look at the texts below, I can't help but compare them to the words of Jesus and the 8th century prophets of Judaism.  There is a strong emphasis on putting action above ritual and dogma.  

You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure. You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word? O Qazi, the One Lord is within you, but you do not think or contemplate on Him. You do not care for others, you are mad about religion, this is why your life is wasting away (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 483). 

Priest from both Hinduism and Islam got together and began discussing religion. A great fantasy has been created and no one could understand its mystery. They asked Guru Nanak to open and search in his scripture whether Hindu is greater or the Muslim. Guru replied that without good deeds both will have to weep and wail. Only by being a Hindu or a Muslim one cannot get accepted in the kingdom of God. As the color of safflower is impermanent and is washed away in water, likewise the colors of religiosity are also temporary (The Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji, 1).

Sikh Golden Temple in India

Faith Friday: The Quakers (The Society of Friends)

I met with the Quakers last Sunday.  Like all Christians, they focus on some scriptures more than on others.  I messaged QuakerSpeak, a group that shares information about the Friends, and asked which scriptures they think Quakers focus on most.  They sent me this video.

When I considered their history, I couldn't help but want to add the following verse to the list.  How often it comes up among them, I can't say, but it does reflect one of their defining characteristics.  "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

The following is a quote from George Fox's The Great Mystery.  Fox is considered the founder of Quakerism.

And the scriptures, which signify writings, outward writings, with paper and ink, are not, as you say, infallible, nor are they divine, but human, and men get a human knowledge from them; and so writings with paper and ink are not infallible, nor is the scripture the ground of faith, but Christ [is the ground], who was before the scripture was written; this the scripture tells you, and that God is divine; and the scriptures are the words of God, which Christ, the [W]ord, ends, who is the author of the faith. (SOURCE)

How "The Word of God" Shapes Doctrine

The question "What is the Word of God?" is the primary question that divides theological conservatives and theological liberals.  One's answer to this question will affect how he or she interprets the Bible.  If Jesus is the Word of God, perhaps the Bible needs to be taken seriously only insofar as it sheds like on Him.  If however, the Bible is the Word of God, then perhaps it should be taken literally.  The two faith claims aren't mutually exclusive, but theological liberals generally reject the idea that the Bible is the Word of God.  Similarly, where theological conservatives might refer to the Bible as the revelation, theological liberals usually use this word to refer to Jesus.

Understanding this is important not only for theological liberals and conservatives who don't understand each other.  It's also important for Humanists who might not understand the differences between Episcopalians and Southern Baptists.  Consider the issue of gay marriage.  An Episcopalian looking at the issue is likely to say, "knowing what we know today, what is a Jesus-like attitude towards gay marriage?"  A Southern Baptist, on the other hand will ask "What does the Bible say about homosexuality?"  Both questions are theologically coherent from their respective perspectives.

Comparing Baha'i with Christianity

When I visited the Baha'i Center in DC two weeks ago, I found myself comparing the Baha'i faith with Christianity.  I suppose this is only natural.  As I did this, I found several similarities.  This is especially true if one views Christianity through the lens of the early church.  Here are just a few observations.

• The Baha'i meet in houses, just like the earliest Christians
• They often have central houses for larger Sunday meetings, but not always
• During the week they meet in each other's houses for meals
• The main house is used for community events during the week (like AA meetings or yoga).
• They emphasize charitable work
• Early Christians stayed behind during plagues to care for the sick
• They paid for burial for the poor and took in orphans
• The Baha'i actively work on justice issues in their neighborhoods
• Like early Christians, they strongly encourage adoption
• They emphasize fellowship
• Early Christian worship usually involved a communal meal that culminated in the Eucharist
• The Baha'i Center is built for fellowship.
• The Baha'i meet in each other's homes for a meal during the week.  They call these Fireside chats.

Even their claim that Baha'i is a successor to previous revelations is a Christian theological move. From the beginning Christians have claimed that their religion was a natural successor to Judiasm, and that their savior fulfilled Jewish prophesy.  The Baha'is claim that Baha'ullah is the return of Jesus, because Jesus comes again and again to different cultures with different names.  They claim that Baha'i is the fulfillment of the prophesy that Jesus would come again.  And just like Christians see the Old Testament as instructive, but not binding because it's part of an older covenant, the Baha'is see older scriptures as instructive, but not binding because they are part of earlier revelations for earlier time periods.

While Christians didn't adopt non-Jewish scriptures, their early apologists sometimes claimed that Jesus was the fulfillment of pagan religions hopes or even prophesies.

• Paul claims that his God is the unknown God that pagans are worshiping Act 17:23
• Zoroastrian Magi visit Jesus in Matthew 2
• The Zoroastrians had a prophesy that the Savior would be born of a virgin
• They also believed in a Holy Spirit through which goodness is revealed - the ideas are not identical.
• Matthew doesn't directly say that Jesus is the fulfillment of Zoroastrian prophesy, but this is probably the only logical conclusion to draw.  

The place that I found the traditions most aligned, however, was in the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven.  When talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus preaches a certain kind of moral life.  It's one where the peacemakers, rather than the war hawks, are honored.  It's one where his followers don't judge, because the standard they use will be used against them.  It's one where they love their neighbors and their enemies.  Jesus' Kingdom of Heaven is a new social order his followers bring to earth through faith, love and action.

Baha'is also use the term "Kingdom of Heaven."  I'm not sure if they mean the same thing, but the idea of God's servants bringing peace and justice to the world through love, action and faith is a dominant Baha'i theme.

The two religions fail to see eye-to-eye in several respects.  Most Christians see Jesus as God, but Baha'i see his as a divine man/being who continually returns to humanity to reveal God's will.  Christians are not likely to accept the idea of Jesus returning as a teacher, rather than a divine being calling them up into the sky.
Baha'is don't seem to think that Jesus died for the removal of their sins.  I didn't ask.  The topic never came up.  Evangelicals in particular are unlikely to agree with the Baha'i understanding of Heaven and Hell.  Most Evangelicals believe that Jesus (as defined by Christianity) is the only way to Heaven.  Several even believe that their particular sect of Christianity is the only sure guarantee.  Baha'is, on the other hand, think that one's spiritual development on earth will continue along the same path in the afterlife, regardless of dogma.

Certainly other comparisons and contrasts could be made, but I know too little to say more.

If you enjoyed reading this, please like, subscribe and share.
Thank you!

If you have a religious tradition you'd like to learn more about, let me know in the comments below and I'll try to visit and write about it.

Human Behavior versus Faith in God

 20Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister. 
1 John 4:20-21 

Human behavior was a recurring theme in my struggle with faith. It's wasn't just that Christians hurt or disappointed me; it was that I often found non-Christians morally impressive by comparison. While many of my Christian friends claim that this shouldn't cast doubt on Christianity, I've never been convinced.

A Common Internet Meme on the Subject

 One of the main reasons for this comes from Christian scripture.  Paul claims that the fruits of the Spirit are moral in nature.  Jesus claims that "you will know them by their fruits," and "they will know you are my disciples by the love you have for one another."  Christianity claims that it's adherents will be more moral than non-Christians through their faith and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Reason supports this too.  Christianity is an ethical religion, one that claims to help make you a more moral person.  Therefore, if Christians do not tend to be more moral than their non-Christian counterparts, the religion is suspect.  How can a religion's claims about God or the afterlife be trusted if the present appear to be false?

My point is not necessarily that Christians are less moral than non-Christians.  How would one even quantify the variables necessary to prove such a statement?  What does one mean by Christian?  Should we take our meaning from the Gospel of John or from the Gospel of Luke?  Should we defer to Walter Rauschenbusch or Billy Graham?  The Latter Day Saints or the Greek Orthodox?  Is Christianity about following Jesus, or is it a set of beliefs?  If you identify as Christian, you'll have to determine these things for yourself.

Billy Graham: American Evangelist

My point is this.  Your behavior testifies about the value of your way of life, whatever that way of life is.  It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Pastafarian.  If the way of life you claim isn't producing the results it claims to, then your philosophy will be scrutinized.  Of course, others will do some of that scrutinizing.  But we should be doing this ourselves.  We should be testing our ways of life to ensure that we are either getting what we want from them, or becoming who we want to be.  We should be asking the following questions.

• Does my philosophy of life give me the things it promises? 
• On average, do I have these things/attributes more than people who follow a different way of life?  
• If not, why not?
  
  This reflection is based on my series How I Became a Humanist Part 3
  
  
  (All Christian Scriptures taken from the NIV)