Stanley Hauerwas — US is More Secular than Britain

Image by Jordon via Flickr

 Stanley Hauerwas has an article in The Guardian this weekend where he addresses the professed atheism of Ed Millband, the leader of the Labour Party in Britain.  Some hold this up as an example of how much more secular Britain is than the US.  After all, people in the US can’t imagine what it would look like to have a professed atheist running for office over here.  It’s assumed that all of our leaders must be Christian or we’ll end up going to hell in a handbasket. 

But, is that really true?  Because England has a atheist party leader does that make them more secular?  Perhaps a lot of that depends on how we view the faith one finds in the US.

Here’s what Stanley Hauerwas has to say:

I am not convinced that the US is more religious than Britain. Even if more people go to church in America, I think the US is a much more secular country than Britain. In Britain, when someone says they do not believe in God, they stop going to church. In the US, many who may have doubts about Christian orthodoxy may continue to go to church. They do so because they assume that a vague god vaguely prayed to is the god that is needed to support family and nation.

Americans do not have to believe in God, because they believe that it is a good thing simply to believe: all they need is a general belief in belief.

And, I would argue, for our leaders, the more vague their belief, the better…

"We Messed Up" — A Letter to Those Disenfranchised by the Christian Church

Image by churl via Flickr

My friend, Dave Beckett, who happens to be my Superintendent in the Alaska United Methodist Conference, has written a wonderful letter over at his blog, “Dave’s Dibble.”  It’s a confession that, in the name of doctrinal purity, we have failed to show love to this world of ours and have failed to listen to the unchurched in our midst.

It begins this way:

We got it wrong.  For quite some time now the Church has made crucial mistakes.  We have assumed that Church as we have known it will continue without the major changes you have wanted to see.  We have focused more on doctrinal purity than the needs of the poor.  We have tried to start new churches based on our vision rather than your needs.  We have convinced ourselves that we have been loving you but more often than not you have not received our actions as genuine love.  We have held fast to worship practices that keep us entrenched and unable to conceive of the changes necessary to reach your heart with the glory of God.  We have caused division in the Church and the world with our beliefs about who is living in sin.  We have insisted that you accept certain forms of prayer and non-essential beliefs before we accept you into the Church.  

I hope you’ll read the whole thing over here.

"The Trouble With Born-Again Christians…"

Image by megpi via Flickr

The trouble with born-again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain the second time around. — Herb Cain

This is a post over at Ragamuffin Soul, a blog by Carlos Whittaker that inspires and challenges me.

And, this quote…, well, it inspires and challenges me.

First off, it’s entirely out of context.  I have to admit this. As I read this I have no idea what it is that brought Mr. Cain to this conclusion.  Could he have been made to feel “unchristian” because he brought up questions of faith or because he expressed doubts?  Maybe he had just come back from a retreat with some “SuperChristians” and others doubted his own way of expressing his faith?  Perhaps he just got off the plane after sitting next to someone who spent the entire flight trying to convert him?  Or, quite possibly, this was spoken or written after years of trying to find a church that would welcome him because he’s divorced?  Or or a minority?  Or Goth?  Or….

Secondly, even though I am a born-again Christian and have been rescued from my sin by the grace of Christ (Thank God!), I have had my struggles with some of my “born again” brothers and sisters in Christ.  I have felt excluded.  I have had my faith questioned.  I have had my interpretation of Scripture belittled.  I have even had the way I pray — which can be quite colloquial — criticized.  Some of my issues have been semantics…just the language we’re all comfortable or uncomfortable with.

Third, there are a whole lot of really awesome “born again Christians” out there.  I’m friends with a lot of them (which sounds pretty meaningless as I write this).  I find many of them to be challenging and accepting, loving and respectful, and really not pains at all.  The notion that they are all “pains” is a cultural generalization that is merely a stereotype.  This is not to say that there aren’t “pains” among them.  It just means that the generalization is a generalization.  This is a cultural stereotype that, even though it is not entirely true, has some basis in truth based on the experiences of many.

Fourth, and last, Mr. Cain could very well have said this about me at times.  I sometimes wear my Christianity like a badge…giving me the authority of the “faith police” in my environment.  I have bouts of self-righteousness and I can, I know, sometimes struggle with the fact that other Christians aren’t more like me and my own understanding of the faith.  I recognize that as sin.  I recognize it as pride. I recognize that as Pharisaic. And I see that sin in myself.  At times, I’m part of the problem.  I merely hope and pray that my actions, my words, my expression of Christ in this world won’t lead to all Christians being defined by the same broad stroke Herb Cain uses here.

My Faith Can Beat Up Your Faith

Image via Wikipedia

The following is by Adam Ellis in his review of Rachel Held Evans’ Evolving in Monkey Town.  I think he defines well the problem of Christian polarization in America and then sees Evans’ book as a practical theology in how we deal with this polarization. 

This truly resonates with a lot that I have going on internally.  I struggle with the fences that we put up, the barriers between ourselves and those who think or act or behave differently.  We seem to define ourselves as Christians–what we are–by what we are not.  We’re sure that, whatever we believe, it’s not what that other person or group believes.  I just don’t think that this is helpful and I really don’t think that it’s how Jesus was defined…primarily.

Anyway, the quote is below.  It’s a good one.

The problem with polarized arguments is that both sides end up arguing for something stupid…against something equally stupid…with no way forward.  One of the major problems with Christianity in our day is that, in many ways we have begun to let polarized arguments define us.  We are in love with labels, and with categories of “us” versus “them”.  We proudly identify ourselves as “conservative” or “liberal” in terms of politics and theology and claim that if you don’t apply the same label to yourself, you must be one of “them”, and thus not a “true Christian”, like us.  We ratchet our categories ever tighter, to the point that if you even question any point of our collective unspoken creeds, we question your faithfulness and intentions.

This phenomenon has become particularly obvious in the dominant approach to Christian apologetics in America.  Having “faith” has come to mean having certainty about a particular set of beliefs.  It’s a sad situation in desperate need of a fresh perspective that dares to imagine a way forward.