Better Than Believing

churchspeak

In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell introduced to the world a fictional language that he called “Newspeak”. This imaginary language reflected Orwell’s view that English was developing pretentious diction and meaningless words that undermine logical thinking. In the novel, the political leaders exploit this tendency by using Newspeak to subjugate and control the general populace. 

Religious leaders in the real world may not be able to control their congregations by using distortions of language, but they can influence the behavior of the unwary by twisting words in ways that benefit themselves primarily. This self-serving rhetoric is generally known today as “Churchspeak”. Most websites that post translations of Churchspeak, however, treat this artificial language as a benign phenomenon—and well they might since most of them are maintained by religious organizations. They present Churchspeak as the rather amusing jargon used by insiders to establish their place in the institution. Typical of this light-hearted approach is the Web posting, Get your Apse out of my narthex! “A churchspeak for dummies”. 

A careful consideration of some Churchspeak suggests that perhaps not all this ecclesiastical rhetoric is as harmless as advertised. Many of the expressions have meanings quite different from standard English, and many metaphors are used in ways that are directly contrary to biblical usage. 

stewardship = giving your money to the church

In standard English, “property management” comes closest to the church’s usage of stewardship. While the term is no longer popular in the world of business and finance, conservationists often use it when discussing general responsibility for forests and wetlands. In neither case, however, do the stewards get to decide what portion of the income should be returned to the owner of the property. Even if they did, the analogy fails when we get to the question of the rightful owner of the church-goers’ property or the rightful recipient of their wages. The answer to the question of who has the financial rights is always “God”, but who gets the money is always the church.

In the Bible, the Greek word for steward is oikonomos, literally house manager. In  I Corinthians 4:1-2 , we read that the followers of Jesus are to be “stewards of God’s mysteries”.  With I Peter 4:10, we learn that they are “stewards of the manifold grace of God”. Titus 1:7-9 says that “a bishop, as God’s steward” is responsible for preaching “sound doctrine”. Stewards of mystery, grace, and doctrine, but nowhere do we find that Christians are stewards of money or property. It is also interesting to note that the Gospel according to Luke presents a rather dim view of an oikonomos in a parable attributed to Jesus. Perhaps because of the growing popularity of using “stewardship” in church fundraising, the NRSV, unlike the KJV, translates the Greek word in Luke 16:1-8 as dishonest “manager” instead of “steward”. 

tithe = giving one tenth of your income or produce to the church

Although few mainline Protestant or Catholic churches actually receive a tenth of their people’s income or produce, they continue to bring up this peculiar standard, perhaps to show the people in the pews what cheapskates they are. When the church introduced the tithe in Britain, it was not a standard for voluntary giving but a tax on those who farmed church lands. Evidence for the practice still exists in the many tithe barns that once held the church’s share of the grain. The biblical precedent for this practice is apparently the system reported in Numbers 18:24, which describes a tax to support the landless Levites who managed the rituals at cult sites throughout Israel and Judah. The only mention of the tithe in the specifically Christian parts of the Bible is a mockery of the practice in a diatribe against the Pharisees found in Matthew 23:23.

 

God called me = I want to be ordained.

discernment = Perhaps you misunderstood.

Theoretically, since ancient times the church has taught that it is God’s business to fill the ranks of the clergy. The people whom God has chosen are supposed to get the message and present themselves to the appropriate authorities. Fifty years ago, when clergy were in short supply, few candidates were asked about their “call” until the ritual of ordination. During the Vietnam war, when draft boards were breathing down the necks of college graduates, more people sought ordination than the church could accommodate, so the church authorities put in place elaborate screening systems. At every step in the process, committees and commissions quizzed aspirants about “the call”. Naturally, the more they had to defend their call, the more aspirants felt that they knew God’s will and the less open they were to the opinions of other people.

Often, when the church turned them down, the aspirants became enraged or depressed or both. In order to soften the blow, church authorities began to substitute the word “discernment” for “screening”. That was a curious choice, inasmuch as in the Christian tradition discernment was “perception in the absence of judgment with a view to obtaining spiritual direction and understanding” (The New Oxford American Dictionary; emphasis mine). Because the various interviewers had responsibility for evaluating the aspirants’ qualifications to prepare for ordination, calling the process “discernment” is clearly a case of the church authorities making judgments but trying to avoid responsibility for upsetting the people they reject. 

formation instead of education

While education is highly regarded in this country, formation has primarily negative connotations when it comes to human beings. While education connotes active participation, formation is passive, requiring no involvement on the part of that which is being formed. The New Oxford American Dictionary gives four examples of formation: the Great Rift Valley, clouds, the formal arrangement of military aircraft or troops, and an assemblage of rocks.  “Formation” suggests that the church intends to press people into molds so that they will more closely resemble what the church wants them to be.

The growing popularity of the term formation among Christians runs counter to our culture. The promise of education beckons us. It reminds us that, according to the gospels, the first followers of Jesus referred to him primarily as their teacher, didaskolos or rabbi. They referred to themselves as disciples, mathetai—literally those who learn. If church leaders genuinely mean by “formation” what the church used to call “education”, at least in this instance, they should abandon Churchspeak in favor of standard English.

WHAT IS BETTER THAN BELIEVING?

Some people who cannot accept church doctrines and dogmas have found other things in Christian congregations that may be better than believing:

 

• Being part of an extended family with "brothers and sisters" who care about you.

• Participating in the life of a community where your concerns make a difference.

• Locating companions with whom you can work to help bring to the world a greater measure of social, economic, and environmental justice.

• Finding your roots in the rituals and traditions of a people with a history.

• Growing in awareness of your personal values and your potential as a human being.

• Increasing your capacity for open and honest relationships with other people.

• Approaching God directly through disciplined meditation and prayer.

• Having a place to celebrate the joys of birth, marriage, and success as well as to find support in the tragedies of death, divorce, and failure.
  
  

The first version of this list appeared in a 1974 flier circulated by St. Mark's Episcopal Church on Washington, DC's Capitol Hill, the congregation I served as rector 1966-1996.

Theologians Under Hitler

Vital Visions is a project put together by a small band of southerners fighting to stem the rising tide of nationalism in the U.S.  One of the most interesting resources they have put together is an hour-long video "Theologians Under Hitler: Why Religion and Politics Matter".  Three important Protestant professors of theology -- Gerhard Kittel, Emanuel Hirsch, and Paul Althaus -- supported Hitler during the years of the Third Reich. Their scholarship and Christian devotion is unquestioned, yet their political choices set them solidly on the wrong side of history.

This workshop can be structured in several different ways ranging from an evening event to a three-day workshop in a retreat setting.  You can contact the Vital Visions staff to discuss an appropriate format for your organization.

The goal of Vital Visions is to reach evangelical churches, but I doubt that many of them would like to see the movie. Suggesting that they compare themselves with the exuberant Christians who backed Hitler will only make them angry. Although I think that the parallels between Germany in the 30s and the US today are chilling, nothing is particularly unusual about religion being used to promote nationalism. As Jared Diamond pointed out in Guns, Germs and Steel, religion was invented to convince young men to be suicidal in the defense of those with most of the money and all of the power. Although some of us like to think that in the U.S. we have separated church and state, I am sad to say that the truth is otherwise. As long as I can remember, churches in this country have joined in the celebration of military holidays: 4th of July, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day. We provide chaplains for the armed forces. Our clergy offer prayers at political events. We send our sons and daughters off to war with the blessing of the church.

Even though I deplore the use of religion in promoting patriotism, I don't think that the parallels between religion in Nazi Germany and Christianism in the U.S. are as clear as they seemed at my first viewing of the video. Germany was a fairly homogeneous society in 1933. America in 2005 is incredibly diverse. Germany had had only a brief experience of democracy when Hitler rose to power. We have been governing ourselves for over two centuries. The Christianists are dangerous, and people of faith must expose and oppose them, but I don't think that comparing them to the exuberant Christians of Nazi Germany will help.

What is Better than Believing?

Some people who cannot accept church doctrines and dogmas have found other things in Christian congregations that may be better than believing:

• Being part of an extended family with "brothers and sisters" who care about you.
• Participating in the life of a community where your concerns make a difference.
• Locating companions with whom you can work to help bring to the world a greater measure of social, economic, and environmental justice.
• Finding your roots in the rituals and traditions of a people with a history.
• Growing in awareness of your personal values and your potential as a human being.
• Increasing your capacity for open and honest relationships with other people.
• Approaching God directly through disciplined meditation and prayer.
• Having a place to celebrate the joys of birth, marriage, and success as well as to find support in the tragedies of death, divorce, and failure.

The first version of this list appeared in a 1974 flier circulated by St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on Washington, DC’s Capitol Hill, the congregation I served as rector 1966 - 1996.

—

Jim Adams

The Deplorable Legacy of John Paul II

From . . the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and his detestable enormities, Good Lord, deliver us. (The Great Litany, 1544)

Now that John Paul II is safely in his tomb, perhaps we can relax a little from the old standard, "Speak no ill of the dead." The international fuss made over the death of the pope strikes me as truly inappropriate in the light of his behavior, and I think that it is time for progressive Christians to be forthright in their denunciation of his legacy.

He worked consistently against the right of women to control their own bodies and their own destinies. He was rigidly opposed to both birth control and abortion, and he would not even permit an open discussion about the possibility of ordaining women for ministry.

He revived the animosity of his church toward gay and lesbian people, insisting that they have no right to form partnerships let alone to marry.

He worked to deprive all people of the right to end the artificial prolonging of life even when the personality was long dead.

He encouraged an alliance in this country between his church and the protestant fundamentalists in attempting to give their joint religious views the force of law. These age-old antagonists finally realized that they were both cast in the same mold. They differ only on their views about the death penalty, but I have not yet heard of any bishops threatening to excommunicate politicians who advocate executing criminal offenders, a tactic they have employed with the abortion issue.

He attempted to remove from Catholic colleges and universities all teachers who failed to follow the party line or even to raise questions about the doctrine or practices of the church.

He has concentrated authority in the Vatican at the expense of the national and local manifestations of the church. He clearly mistrusted democracy as far as the Catholic church is concerned.

He refused to take seriously the abuse of children by his clergy, preferring to condemn the media for sensationalizing the issue. He promoted known pedophiles and rewarded bishops who tried to cover up the scandal.

Although he is being praised for his openness to other faiths, especially Judaism, he showed his true colors early in the year 2000 when speaking to the cardinals, bishops, and theologians who make up the Congregation of Faith. He warned the group: "In recent years a mentality has emerged in theological and ecclesial circles which tends to relativize Christ’s revelation and his unique and universal mediation in the order of salvation." He declared that the Roman Catholic Church is the "royal road" to salvation, unlike the incomplete religions of other Christians and non-Christians. He did not seem to understand that it is this exclusive and arrogant attitude that makes anti-Semitism possible.

In the light of John Paul’s destructive legacy, I think it is fair to ask if anything good might be the result of his reign. To that question, I think we can say that the good he produced was the unintended consequence of his attempt to return his church to its pre-Vatican II ways of doing things. The primary good I see is the mobilization of the Catholic laity. In Africa, Catholics are finding ways to worship that are not authorized or are even forbidden by the hierarchy. In Massachusetts, Catholics have taken over some of the parishes that their archbishop attempted to close. In Latin America, Catholics are continuing the tradition of liberation theology in spite opposition by their bishops. Catholics nearly everywhere are practicing birth control and resorting to abortion. Many Catholics have exercised their newly-found self confidence by choosing to worship in other traditions. On this last point, I must say that I consider the migration of Roman Catholics to main line churches to be a fine thing.

Perhaps another unintended positive legacy of John Paul II is the proof he offered that to build loyalty and enthusiasm, the church must use all the public relations techniques employed by those who market anything from pills to politicians. His appearances on television were as good as Ronald Reagan, often seen as the undisputed master of that medium. Like Reagan, on the small screen John Paul came across as the stern father with the kindly demeanor. It will be interesting to see if the cardinals pick another telegenic personalty to lead the church. Other churches to be successful will have to learn John Paul’s techniques.

As I look at the evidence, I think it is a great mistake for Christians of other persuasions to talk about John Paul II as if he were a saint in the universal church. I think that the early Protestants in England were wise to keep reminding themselves to keep aloof from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his destructive tendencies.

Fundamentalism and the Decline of Christianity

The cover story in The New York Times Magazine for March 27, 2005, featured an Assembly of God megachurch in Surprise, Arizona, about 45 minutes northwest of downtown Phoenix. The pastor, Lee McFarland, founded Radiant Church in 1996, and now weekend attendance has now reached 5,000 people. Impressive? Yes, until you stop to think what the impact of this kind of Christianity has been on the Christian enterprise as a whole. Many people have failed to realize that the success of fundamentalism in this country has been gained at a terrible price, the loss of respect for Christianity among people who want to think for themselves.

The story of Surprise, Arizona, is a good example of what has been happening around the country. The author of the Times story, Jonathan Mahler, notes that Surprise, a town of 80,000 people, has 27 other churches, but he dismisses them with the observation that "none of them are growing at anything that approaches the pace of Radiant." He does not supply statistics – maybe they are not available – but we can make some guesses based on national averages. Half of the churches in the United States have fewer than 100 members, and only 10% have more than 400 members, which puts them in the class of "large churches". Let us give those 27 churches the benefit of the doubt and assume that on the average they are large churches with a membership of 500, for a total of 13,500. If you add in Radiant’s 5,000 members, you will see that 18,500 church members are the most you are likely to find in Surprise. On the basis of my informed guesses, at least 73% of the Surprise citizens have no church connection at all.

Would other churches in town have better luck if Radiant were not giving Christianity a reputation for being anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-gay, and anti-choice in medical decisions such as the end of life and the termination of pregnancy? No one can say for sure, but the statistics collected by the National Council of Churches and various polling agencies suggest that while groups such as the Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptists grew rapidly in the latter half of the 20th century, church membership as a whole declined. The so-called main line churches suffered serious losses, but the most significant trend may have been among those who claim no religious affiliation. In 1952, only 2% of the people polled claimed no connection with organized religion. By 1990, the figure had climbed to 10%. According to a survey conducted by the City University of New York, by 2001, 19% of the people in this county did not identify themselves with any particular religion. According to this survey, during the same period, 1990 to 2001, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Christians declined from 86% to 77%.

From my college course in logic, I am aware of the weakness in any argument based on post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this therefore because of this, so I will admit that I cannot prove the decline in American Christianity as a whole is entirely the result of fundamentalism’s success in winning converts. I do think, however, that in the minds of most people who read newspapers and magazines the word "Christian" has become identified with extreme conservatism. Only a generation ago, according to most dictionaries, you could call someone a Christian and mean a decent, respectable human being. Today, if you identify someone as a Christian, most of the people I know will assume that you mean a narrow-minded, self-righteous bigot.

The negative connotation has made considering Christianity as an option unlikely for many well-informed people. To get their attention, churches reaching out to them can never use the word "Christian" without a qualifying adjective, such as progressive. Even when we do, we have a hard time convincing the skeptical that we are different from the politically influential right-wing Christians they read about in the news. Is it any wonder that a shrinking number of people in America are willing to call themselves Christians?