Desperate Houseflies: The Magazine

Feel free to pull out your trusty fly swatter and comment on what is posted here, realizing that this odd collection of writers may prove as difficult to kill as houseflies and are presumably just as pesky. “Desperate Houseflies” is a magazine that intends to publish weekly articles on subjects such as politics, literature, history, sports, photography, religion, and no telling what else. We’ll see what happens.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Certainly Not

As a bit of an introduction, I have to poke a jab at DeJon who will likely gloat over finally getting me to write regularly for DH. I was requested by Al and DeJon, while I was in Iraq, to write the religious column. For numerous reasons, including the fact that the site (and all blogs) was restricted for us military types, I declined. As I read Sandi’s first post and saw some email traffic about her reservations, and I have similar ones of my own. It is not easy to write under your own name and put your thoughts out there every week for others to criticize—especially when it involves either politics or religion. People are very passionate about their beliefs on these subjects, stemming in part from the fact that they are deeply held and usually very important. They define and shape who we are as people, maybe even in some ways more than our occupations—unless we happen to work in politics or religion. I do have a concern that comments on my column (which I’m hoping will top Al’s 98 :) at some point) could get ugly and mean spirited. I have been thinking and reading and struggling with why this has happened in our group of believers we call Churches of Christ. Not that ours is the only group in which this has happened, but it certainly is a dominant part of our history. For a church started on the principal of unity, we have certainly had much division. As one who has grown up in the Churches of Christ, I must admit that I have had times when I wondered if it is worth staying. Yet I am still committed to the Churches of Christ if for no other reason than that we are truly a movement that emphasizes the importance of the Bible and I believe that if we will let it guide us, there is still hope. We also have enough freedom to be those who think for ourselves and that is extremely important in my opinion.

For introductions, yes I am a military chaplain, but what I say here does not in any way reflect the views of our armed services (there’s my disclaimer). I am also an ACU graduate, and I hope you don’t hold that against me either. My views do not reflect ACU’s opinion on anything either, though my graduate Bible education there has deeply influenced my belief system.

Having said that, let me start my weekly column by reflecting a bit about the struggle with why our movement is so divisive. Two books have influenced my thinking about this most recently, one by a person I hold in high esteem, Jack Reese, called The Body Broken: Embracing the Peace of Christ in a Fragmented Church. The other book, which I will actually quote here, is called Struggling with Scripture. It is co-authored by a scholar whose opinions have had a lasting effect on me, Walter Brueggemann, along with William C. Placher and Brian K. Blount.

Jack Reese pointed out in one of his chapters (sorry I don’t own the book but borrowed a friend’s copy and read it) our problem with our own certainty in our biblical interpretations. It is thinking and reflecting on that problem that really convinced me that he has hit the target dead on when it comes to why we are so divisive. You see, if we believe that any wandering idioteis (pronounced: I-DEE-OH-TAYS) can understand the Bible easily and would come to the same conclusions as us if s/he were just honest with Scripture, we develop a sort of certainty and trust that our own interpretation is correct. We think that anyone should believe as we do, they just need to stop succumbing to their own prejudices and preconceptions about various issues like baptism, Lord’s Supper, instrumental music, you name it, and we’d all be unified in identical beliefs. Sure we might not put it that way, but isn’t that what we think?

The logic goes this way: The Bible is easy to understand. Since it is easy to understand, everyone who picks it up should easily be able to come to the same conclusions (i.e. OUR conclusions). Since they have not, either they are do not value Scripture as a guide to their own beliefs, or they let their preconceptions get in the way so much that they cannot see the clear, plain meaning of Scripture as we do. If they would get over this, we could all be united. So it is our goal either to educate them on the clear, plain meaning of Scripture, or just go on to someone else who is not so obstinate. (I realize I am oversimplifying and generalizing this, but to make a point.)

Our certainty is in the fact that we believe we have restored the New Testament church in both belief and practice so that everyone who values the Bible and the faith of the first Christians should see everything the way we do. The problem is that it has not worked. Two or more well-intentioned, sincere Christians DO NOT come to the same conclusions when looking at the same text. But our sense of certainty does not allow for this. Someone must be right and the other person must be wrong. If you are wrong, you are not as sincere a Christian as I am and must repent of your error. And if you are wrong about one thing, there might be many more things about which you are wrong. Maybe your salvation is even at stake because you misunderstand something. So we developed a system of belief that centered on the five-step process by which one becomes saved and the way that saved person must practice worship (once again I am oversimplifying). After all, the only way to worship God properly is the way the New Testament church worshiped. (Sorry about the sarcasm, but that’s how we were taught, wasn’t it [for those who grew up in Churches of Christ]?) Being right became more important than showing the love of Christ. Our slogan at the beginning of our movement, “In essentials unity; in nonessentials liberty; in all things charity,” became warped. We categorized everything as essential and left no room for either liberty or charity.

There are several places where I believe we have gone wrong, and here is where I will pick up some quotes from the book, Struggling with Scripture.

First, as Brueggemann states, “There is no interpretation of Scripture (or interpretation of anything else, for that matter) that is unaffected by the passions, convictions, and perceptions of the interpreter.” (p. 20) Our perceptions of the clear, plain meaning of Scripture and of the need for restoration of the 1st-century church (as if that church itself were uniform—more fodder for a different article) were part of the historical milieu out of which we began. Yet one of our core beliefs was that we are the restored church of the first century and so we became historyless. There are still many churches that will etch on part of their buildings “founded in 33 A.D.” We were above critique as THE New Testament church restored, all the while happy with the delusion that we were free from preconception, prejudice, passion or conviction.

Second, there is a fundamental misconception that the Bible is easy to understand. Once again, as Brueggemann says (p. 13), “The Bible…is not self-evident and self-interpreting….Rather, the Bible requires and insists upon human interpretation that is inescapably subjective, necessarily provisional, and, as you are living witnesses, inevitably disputatious.” The fact that stems out of this is that, as Brueggemann also says (p. 13), “Nobody makes the final read; nobody’s read is final or inerrant, precisely because the Key Character in the book who creates, redeems, and consummates is always beyond us in holy hiddenness.” From my time of study at ACU and elsewhere, I have seen this to be true.

If you have been following with these two ideas, that blows our sense of certainty out of the water and leads us to a sense of humility before the text, not a sense of arrogance. We will start to move away from the idolatry of holding our own interpretation of the text up as the text itself, what Bruggemann calls ideology. He says (p. 20), “Ideology is the self-deceiving practice of taking a part for the whole, of taking “my truth” for the truth, of running truth through a prism of the particular and palming off the particular as a universal.” If we then lose the sense of arrogance, perhaps there will be more room for the charity and liberty that was a foundational part of our beginnings as a church. This is my hope.

Sorry for all the quotes, but it seemed like a way to communicate more clearly this time. Tell me what you think.

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duane,
I, for one, am glad Al & DeJon talked you into writing the religion column. I have been impressed with your previous comments and posts, so have been looking forward to this column. (Not to take anything away from Al, I always enjoy his columns, as well.)

One thing you address is the perceived simplicity of the scripture. I agree with you that it is not an "easy" book to understand. Committed study and analysis is necessary for all of us. At the same time, we so often come across Bible "scholars" who present themselves as the only ones who have studied and read enough to truly interpret what God is saying to us. Sometimes these people get so caught up in their own "understanding" it leads to the exact arrogance you describe. There becomes no room for difference...only deference to human interpretation. We have to be vigilant to keep away from either extreme.

You say:
If we then lose the sense of arrogance, perhaps there will be more room for the charity and liberty that was a foundational part of our beginnings as a church.

I have seen less of this arrogance and more of Christ's love shown in recent years in the Churches I have attended (yes, that was Al). It is refreshing to see a move away from the "hell, fire, & damnation" attitude and toward one of love and compassion. We still have to be careful, however, to not jump to accepting the sin with the sinner. It is a hard middle ground to find, isn't it? To show love and acceptance to everyone while helping them understand that Christians are expected to make an active attempt to turn away from the sinful behaviors that can enslave us. I think sometimes people are afraid to say, "Look, that is a sinful lifestyle," for fear of driving someone away.

How do you handle this without arrogance, with charity and liberty intact? I think it sounds much easier to do than it actually is.

I'm rambling now...thanks for the article. The quotes were just fine & I look forward to reading more from you.

4:59 PM  
Blogger DeJon Redd said...

Duane, just to continue our perpetual conversation I'll try to succinctly confess my source of frustration with my church heritage.

(I,too, over simplify for affect.)

We either overtly or internally believe with "certainty" we are "the one true church." Yet we have so far to go to love our neighbors as our selves.

You've said we show a willingness to forgive an adulterer, alcoholic (you name it) but the guy that commits the sin of hanging out with the Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans or (worst-case scenario!) the Catholics has committed the unforgiveable sin.

I am sad to say I sometimes wonder if our church heritage is still worth fighting for.

9:04 AM  
Blogger DeJon Redd said...

Here's two reasons I won't give up ... Read these guys
Mike Cope's Blog & Larry James' Urban Daily

Larry James (whom I know only through his blog) writes loudly and with no hesitancy the things I need to hear. In my opinion, what really matters.

9:11 AM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Thanks so much, Duane. I've been out of town all weekend, and after a brief foray to the office today, I'll be gone again for the rest of the week. I'd love to be a part of the many comments that this article "should" generate. Instead, I'll just make mine and skip town. Hopefully, however, I'll be able to check in on the comments at the hotel.

I appreciate so much what you have to say. I believe in what you say so strongly that it has become difficult for me to even see things differently (better put, like I used to...).

Nonetheless, it seems that part of the CofC story (since the Civil War) is that our mounting exclusiveness grew to the point that we don't even "know" anyone else. The list of enemies grew to include so many people, that we practically couldn't truly get to know people on a level where we could consider them as valid human beings who just might have a point worth considering.

I, for one, was too stupid to keep up this front. I didn't know any better and approached folks in my hometown to begin a Habitat for Humanity affiliate and - instead of enemies - found lots of people interested in the same basic thing I was interested in: serving people in the name of Jesus. Before long, if you aren't careful, you'll find out that honest God-loving people don't share the same conclusions you do!!! At least I did. I found people that approached Scripture differently than I did, but that did so honestly. And I found that many of my arguments were TOO simple, and that others had some good arguments, too.

Humility, as you point out, is the key. Practicing the Golden Rule, not from a "how can I get you to see what I know to be better" perspective, but truly putting yourself into life as that person, seeing how they see things. If you truly do that... well, at least I found it hard to condemn honest people.

Whitney brings up a couple of concepts I want to address, however:

One, the "scholars" comment: This one is an important one, and quite interesting if we remember that the CofC movement was, if you will, a bit of an "anti-intellectual" movement. That sounds harsh, but I don't mean it that way. We studied the Bible a lot mind you, but we were also mostly rural, frontier folks who fell in LOVE with the concept of the simplicity of the Gospel, in part because it debunked all those rich know-it-all religionists. Walter Scott's five-finger approach was popular for several reasons, including its simplicity.

The danger with our tendency to dismiss "scholars" who disagree with our understanding, however, is that we may tend to dismiss them w/o a hearing of what they have to say.

I know Whitney wasn't saying this, but I just wanted to point out that we often tie humility and simplicity together, AND arrogance and (denominational) scholars together, too. We live 2000 messy years away from the Man we claim to follow, and we not only need CofC Bible teachers - we need ALL scholars who can shed the least bit of light on what we purport to do. We need Lewis and Chesterton, Buechner and Tozer, Brueggeman and Peterson, Luke Timothy Johnson and N.T. Wright, Yoder and Nouwen - and a million more to come!!! Humility does not have to be simple in its thinking.

The second thing Whitney brought up is how to practice love/acceptance/tolerance - while at the same time attempting to turn people away from sin. Wow, what a great discussion that should go on for several generations at least... :-)

I identify "sinful" as not living like Jesus lived. So, from a fundamental starting point, I'm at the head of the class needing people to love, accept, and tolerate my attempts. Doing this "in the church" SHOULD be most obvious, but our checkered history betrays that we've been a little misguided along the way.

So if you accept my definition of "sinful" behavior, how do we deal with folks who haven't chosen to follow Jesus? I'd suggest that first of all we don't find it so strange that they don't live like Jesus. Then secondly, I'd suggest we treat them like Jesus treated "outsiders" - with love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, etc. Jesus never chased around the Romans or prostitutes or people who took their babies outside the city to die (abortion, 1st Century style) to point out their sinful lifestyles. The only things like this he pointed out were to "insiders" (church folks) who weren't living like God. They blasphemed the name of God by claiming otherwise.

So to me, the church becomes...

* People trying to live like Jesus, approaching each other honestly and humbly since none of us are very good at it - decrying most passionately intolerance, lack of love of outsiders, arrogance, etc.

* People who don't chase around outsiders pointing out their faults as we see them: instead, truly loving them, and thus showing them Jesus.

And finally, to DeJon's comment...

I'd offer that "people" are worth fighting for, in whichever form or setting they're found. As long as I can do that in the setting in which we find ourselves, I'd say its worth the effort. When it becomes impossible to love like Jesus there, that will be my cue to leave. :-)

12:58 PM  
Blogger Soren said...

Duane,

I appreciated your post. I have struggled with some of these questions for years. btw, I'm an Idependent Christian Church guy -- but we have the same heritage, and the "conservative wing" of my tribe (the circles in which I usually travel) must face some of these difficult questions.

I'm looking forward to more of your articles.

2:17 PM  
Blogger Duane said...

Whitney,

Thanks for the compliments and your thoughtful words.

One of the things I really like about Brueggemann is that he does not seem to me to be the arrogant type of scholar, though with all of his study in particular on the Old Testament, he could have been this way. That is a turn off to me too.

I also see more love and compassion in Churches of Christ today than in the past, but there is still quite a large group that seems to be close in type to the straw man/woman that I have set up for illustration. That does concern me especially when I see it in the younger generations.

As far as loving the sinner and hating the sin, at the risk of sounding naive or heretical, I see more of Jesus loving the sinner than giving them a lecture on changing their lifestyles. He saved the lectures for the self-righteous (see Matthew 23 for example). I guess I'm thinking of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11. He spent a lot of time defending her and condemning the self-righteous who wanted both to trap him and stone her. He showed mercy and compassion. I realize he told her "go and sin no more," but he also said that he did not condemn her. I think we'd do far better to show mercy and compassion at the risk of seeming to condone the sin, but that, of course, is my opinion.

8:51 PM  
Blogger Duane said...

Al,

I think your comment says it all. I just realized before reading your comment a second time that I said some of the same things you did.

One of the things I fear is that I/we who see the wrongs in our past will be just as convinced about our "rightness" (I know it is not a word) as the ones before us. I pray this will not be the case.

I say this as one who sincerely needs to be more humble and Christ-like.

8:57 PM  
Blogger Duane said...

Soren,

I appreciate the struggle within the Independent Christian Churches and hope that it will be a struggle for being more loving as I hope the same for CofC. I'd also be more interested to hear your perspective as a fellow Christian out of the Restoration Movement. I see how things are beginning a slow change in CofC and I also see efforts at unity among our three groups in meetings like the Restoration Forum. I hope such efforts at love and unity prevail over sectarianism and bitterness.

9:01 PM  
Blogger Duane said...

Greg,

I do know you and remember the basic progress group. Are you still doing the website? I think that is what I remember you doing. Anyway, it is great to reconnect, even if it is online.

I'm not sure of ACU advising people to stay away from instrumental music, but wonder if you have in mind the newest CofC attempt to solidfy its beliefs called The Chrisitian Affirmation. To view it, go to http://www.christianaffirmation.org. I have joined the discussion group for it and might include some thoughts about it in my column here. I know many of the signers and am still not sure what to think of it. I asked one of them in particular, one I consider to be a good friend and mentor, and I do believe their reasons for signing are sincere enough. I just don't know what effect it will have or what effect it is intended to have. I've now spent too much time talking about it, but would be curious to see if anyone else knows about it or has read it and their thoughts.

Thanks for the comment and I look forward to hearing more of your opinion on my columns.

9:12 PM  
Blogger Duane said...

Joe,

For the sake of unity, I agree that we should be cautious about trying to remove what some people believe to be essentials. It will only create more division. Thanks for your thoughts.

9:13 PM  
Blogger Duane said...

DeJon,

You know I agree with you!

I would advise everyone to look at the blogs DeJon mentions, even if you don't agree with them.

I would also push us to read blogs like the one by one of my mentors and professors:
http://professorwillis.blogspot.com

Sorry, I don't remember how to tag the html stuff so it links directly to the page. Some help, Greg?

BTW, I won't always respond to everyone who posts a comment, but that is one way to up the amount of comments on your column, right Al?

9:16 PM  
Blogger Duane said...

Greg,

Thanks for both the link information and your comments on the Christian Affirmation. I might have to go ahead and write something about the document itself and what I think about it.

The discussion group for it has been interesting, but it is open only to elders, ministers and teachers in CofC. Part of the agreement when you sign up for the group is you can't quote or share anyone else's thoughts in the discussion, and I respect that and its intents.

I wish more people in CofC understood it as a tradition, too.

BTW, there is also a response to Christian Affirmation by a Restoration historian called Leroy Garrett. It is called Response to A Christian Affirmation 2005. Then there is a response to his response, called, A Reply to Leroy Garrett.

This has generated discussion in CofC, but I'm sure not all of it is for the good. We'll see how it turns out.

Thanks again for your gracious words!

As you can see, I know how to put links in now.

3:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page