The Future of Ministry: What Jesus Talked About More Than Anything Else

kog

(Over the last few months, I have been considering re-entering professional ministry. The following post is what that ministry will focus on.)

Previously:
You Aren’t a Piece of Dog $#!+
The Reason Everybody Loves Jesus

Now:

I have a theory that all of the records of Jesus’ words focus on just one thing – that there is really only one thing Jesus focused on while he was here on Earth.

Most congregations I have been a part of or have visited never mention this topic.

If any of them do, they seem to be talking about something very different from the thing Jesus describes.

They talk about it like it is somewhere else and later on, but Jesus talked about it like it is here and now.

The thing Jesus talked about most, maybe the only thing he talked about that we have any record of, is the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God is not heaven. It is not something we will be a part of only later. It is not something led by the rich and powerful and popular.

The Kingdom of God is here and now. It is something we can be a part of now. It is lived out by the poor and the weak and the outcast.

If I were to return to professional ministry, every message, every encouragement, every admonition would be about living in the Kingdom of God.

What’s most exciting is, I have found a group of people that are interested in that as well.

Beginning tomorrow, I will be joining with a fantastic congregation that is interested in living out the Kingdom of God. It is my sincere intention to be, not just “the minister,” but one of many ministers who focuses our vision on following Jesus’ teachings on the Kingdom of God.

I’m honored and privileged to use my abilities to encourage and empower a group of Jesus-followers who already live out Jesus’ radical acceptance and love.

So, for the foreseeable future, this blog will be reflections on living out Jesus’ teachings on the Kingdom of God, maybe with some inspiration from this inspirational congregation.

The Kingdom of God is among us. I’m excited to live it out with other people again.

The Future of Ministry: The Reason Everybody Loves Jesus

Jesus Loves Everyone

Previously:
You Aren’t a Piece of Dog $#!+

Now:

(I’m considering re-entering professional ministry. The following is what I hope that will look like.)

I’ve always been amazed at the people that loved hanging out with Jesus.

Prostitutes loved him.

Fishermen loved him.

Political traitors loved him.

People from other countries loved him.

People from other religions loved him.

People from his own religion loved him.

Even religious leaders loved him.

How? How?

Everybody loved his guy. They shared  meals together. They sat around and talked together. Jesus was a great guy to hang out with.

That has always made me wonder what our congregations are missing.

How come prostitutes don’t want to hang out with us?

How come fishermen don’t want to hang out with us?

How come people who differ from us politically or religiously don’t want to hang out with us?

Here’s what I think: Jesus practiced what he preached.

So what did he preach?

Well, above all, love your neighbor as yourself. And love your enemy.

I think the reason so many different people loved hanging out with Jesus was because he loved them.  He didn’t demand that they change before he would hang out with them. He didn’t demand that they see things his way before he would share a meal with them. He just loved them, whoever and wherever they were. Period.

And they loved him back.

Jesus said that when his followers saw him, they were seeing God. What he is telling them is that he does exactly what God does.

So, if my logic is correct:

Jesus loved everybody.

and

Jesus does what God does.

therefore,

God loves everybody.

Did you catch that? God loves everybody. God doesn’t demand that people change before he will hang out with them. He doesn’t demand that people see things his way before he’d share a meal with them. He just loves them, whoever and wherever they are. Period.

That’s the good news: God loves you.

That concept is repeated over and over again in the scriptures written by Jesus’ followers:

God loves the world
God loves Jews and Non-Jews
God loves us like we were his own children
God picked us and considers us holy and dearly loved
God loved us before we loved him

Over and over again we are called loved, and with no strings attached.

So, if I were to tell you only one thing about God, it would be what I have seen in Jesus: that God loves you, period.

Such love changes the world.

Jesus calls that love that changes the world the Kingdom of God.

More on that later.

The Future of Ministry: You Aren’t a Piece of Dog $#!+

Just a Dog

(I’m considering reentering professional ministry. The following ideas are what I hope that will look like.)

Many Christians have an identity problem.

To hear them speak on Sunday mornings and particularly in their public prayers, they make themselves seem like the most horrible people that ever walked the planet. They like to use words like “corrupt,” “terrible,” and “sinner.”

Now, during the week they don’t refer to themselves with these terms. Instead they might define themselves by their job, or their relationships, or their hobbies. Not on Sunday mornings, though. On Sundays they think of themselves as dog $#!+.

But Jesus never calls anyone dog $#!+. He does compare a large group of people to dogs in Mark 7:24-30. When a Gentile woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, Jesus says, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” Jesus pretty clearly compares the Jewish people to God’s children and non-Jews to dogs. Ouch, Jesus. However, the woman takes Jesus to task – she says, “Even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

And she’s right. And Jesus knows it.

But we don’t know it.

I have a dog. He is a dachshund, and his name is George.

I love George as much as a person can love a dog. I buy him treats, he sits on my lap, and, like the woman says in the story, he gets my table scraps. Not always, but enough that he knows what good food tastes like.

Also, George is the only being on the planet that is allowed to lick my face. How’s that for a place of honor?

This Gentile woman takes Jesus’ metaphor about non-Jews being dogs and explains what it really means – that even Gentiles have a special place in God’s heart.

I love my children. They get the best I can provide for them. I love them and listen to them and I would die for them. I do my best to ensure that they will grow into loving adults.

But as the woman in the story points out, I also love my dog in a special way. There is no other non-human being who has such a place in my life and heart.

And that is what I hope any future ministries I am involved in will be about – helping people see that they are not dog $#!+. Instead, the worst Jesus ever calls them is a dog, and what a place of honor it is to be the dog of God!

But while the lowest thing Jesus calls us is dog (with all of it’s benefits and honors), he says that the lowest person in the Kingdom of God (more on the Kingdom of God later) is greater than John the Baptizer, Jesus’ forerunner.

More on that in the next post.

Next:

The Reason Everybody Loves Jesus

4 Reasons I Might Return to Paid Ministry . . . Maybe

I have a confession that, if you know me, may come as a bit of a shock:

I’ve been considering returning to paid ministry.

Some of you are gasping. I know. I’m as surprised as you are – maybe more so. Six years ago I left paid, professional ministry for a number of reasons. Those reasons are still valid and important to me, so I should clarify.

Recently I was approached about taking a part-time position in conjunction with a local congregation. I was initially wary, but I heard the offer, and wasn’t immediately repulsed. The position was part-time, with modest but acceptable pay, and would be with a congregation that would be open to what my brother-in-law calls a “messy faith” – one that doesn’t have everything figured out and is welcoming of questions and doubts.

Long story short: the offer fell through.

I’m disappointed. That surprises me.

I’m surprised because I never expected to return to paid ministry, much less to be disappointed about not returning. I was looking forward to being part of an intentional group again and to helping my brothers and sisters minister to people they encounter in their lives.

I never thought I would return to paid ministry because of my objections about pay, the clergy/laity divide, how congregations often handle their funds, and how congregations separate themselves from others. Over the last few weeks, though, I’ve considered the conditions under which I would return to professional ministry. Here they are:

1) If my position was not as clergy ministering to people, but as an enabler of other peoples’ ministries.
I am still firmly against the class system within Christianity. A professional class that is separate and above the amateur class is completely unacceptable and inefficient. If I were to return to working with a congregation, it would need to be as a person who was paid not because of my ordination but because of my investment of time in helping other people minister wherever they find themselves. I am committed to the idea that the people are the Church, not the building or the service or the clergy. My mantra would be, “Be the Church.” I would encourage people to see themselves as ministers who occasionally gather for personal growth and connection. “Ministry” and “worship” happen everywhere, all the time, with everyone.

2) If my employment was about my expertise rather than about external control.
When I left paid ministry, I had an undergraduate degree from a non-regionally accredited Bible college. Six years later, I have earned a master’s degree from a nationally recognized, fully accredited university. Then, I had some good biblical knowledge; now I am an expert in religion with emphases in biblical studies and lived religion and a particular interest in the Spiritual but Not Religious. If people want to hire me because of that expertise, I would understand and be okay with that. If they want to pay me to try to exert control over me, that is still not going to work.

3) If the congregation was open to multiple opinions on divisive social issues.
Issues like economics, abortion, war, marriage rights, and many others are complex spiritually, politically, socially, and personally. Any congregation with which I would potentially work would need to be open to the complexity surrounding these concerns.

4) If, one day, when I am financially independent, the congregation would keep their money and use it for better things, like helping the poor.
That would be a great congregation to work with.

I guess all of this is to say that I won’t be returning to paid ministry soon, but I’ve found the door open and I’m not pushing it shut. I still believe the way we gather as congregations is ineffectual and even sometimes damaging, but I haven’t given up hope that a change is coming.

I’m ready for that change.

13 Tools to Build a Happy, Lasting Marriage

Marriage is tough.

No marriage is the same. How can they be since everyone is different, and marriage is a pairing of two different people?

Recently I’ve had the pleasure of seeing new marriages begin, and the sadness of seeing some marriages end. I often wonder what happened between two people who professed undying love for one another and yet their marriage didn’t make it. I wonder what I would have done in their situation.

I also wonder what people who make it in marriage do. What are their habits toward each other? How do they disagree? How do they handle differences in parenting, families of origin, interests, and personalities? What makes them last, where others don’t?

Today is Amy and my anniversary. We made it 13 years, and it seems to be getting easier. After many years of “discussions” (that’s what we call disagreements), differences in parenting style, and the challenges of life in general, I’ve been thinking about the tools I discovered and have used to try to make Amy’s marriage to me as painless as possible. Here they are, in no particular order:

Choosing the first time is important, but re-choosing is even more so.
Deciding to propose or accept a proposal is no frivolous task. It should be done with care and consideration. You should *know* it’s the right choice. However, marriage is about re-choosing. You will have to commit to that other person every day – commit to making it work, commit to loving them, commit to fixing problems.

You cannot change people, but people change.
Trying to change your spouse is a trust-killer. At the same time, it is important to recognize that your spouse will change. Amy and I are not the same people we were at 20 and 21, and that’s a good thing. If we expected the other to be the same, we would be sorely disappointed. And also crazy.

Love allows change.
While you cannot change your spouse and shouldn’t try, there is a tool that can promote positive change: loving acceptance without strings. There have been times I’ve been stubborn and difficult, and Amy’s acceptance of me allowed me to let go of my stubbornness. While she doesn’t try to change me, her love for me makes change safe and positive.

No one is perfect, and we can fix problems.
You might be delusional at the beginning of your relationship and think your amazing mate is perfect, or, perhaps more delusionally, that *you* are perfect. Time will disprove that, and give you the opportunity to see something else: you can fix problems. They aren’t permanent, or personal attacks, or conspiracies to ruin your life. People make mistakes. I do. You do. We can fix it.

Apologize quickly for whatever you can.
The faster you apologize, the easier it is. Also, in a disagreement, there is always something you can apologize for. Maybe you hurt the other person’s feelings. Apologize for that. Maybe you didn’t think of their feelings. Apologize for that. Even if the other person is clearly more to blame, there is something you can apologize for, too.

Apologizing shifts a disagreement from focusing on hurt feelings to fixing the problem.
Apologizing lets the other person know you did not intent to injure them, and that you want to fix the problem and heal the relationship. I can’t overstate how important apologizing can be to having a healthy relationship. Do it often and quickly.

Find hobbies you enjoy together.
Marriage is not all about disagreeing well. When you exist together free from conflict, enjoying stuff together can be a great marriage builder. Cook lavish meals together. Go on walks or bike rides. Plant a garden. Find something you both like to do and enjoy each other enjoying it. Smile together. Smile at each other.

Find hobbies you enjoy apart.
It is patently unhealthy and lame to try to interact with someone who has no interests of their own. Read different books. Watch different movies. Pick up archery or guitar or writing. Do something on your own. It will give you something to talk about when you are together.

Hold hands.
It’s romantic. It’s free. It’s a silent, intimate language that can be spoken anywhere, in any crowd, or without a crowd. It’s a habit that can be rekindled if it has been lost. It can last a lifetime.

Kiss.
Kiss quickly. Kiss slowly. Kiss in front of the kids. Kiss in front of strangers. Kiss when you’re alone together. It’s free. It’s romantic. It’s trusting and trust building.

Speak their language.
Amy likes notes. I don’t know why. I’d rather just hang out together and spend time together. For some reason, though, notes are particularly meaningful to my spouse. So I text her, or leave a post-it for her, or buy her the occasional card. Maybe your spouse likes gifts, or hugs, or kind words. Speak your love in a way they can hear it.

Don’t need them.
I imagine many people are so wrapped up in the other person that they cease to be a healthy person on their own. Please understand me when I say, I don’t need Amy – I want Amy. I am a whole, emotionally and mentally healthy person all on my own. However, I want to share my life with Amy. I want to grow old with her, to spend my weekends with her, and to relish every single day that I get to share life with her. But I don’t need her. I’m not sure I could be a good husband to her if I did need her. Such a relationship would be filled with too much expectation, too much drain on her. I am a better husband to her because I want her without needing her.

Be loyal.
There are other people in the world. I choose to choose Amy though, every day. Our relationship would not work if we didn’t choose to invest our time, our love, and our emotions in making us work. Loyalty, always, even when it is difficult, is vital.

I know there are some situations that cause marriage to be painful to one or both parties, and I realize that one person cannot hold a marriage together if the other person is not interested. However, I’m old-fashioned, and believe marriage is a blessing worth fighting for. Maybe some of these tools can help you build a happy, lasting marriage, too. If so, you’ll find a gift that cannot be bought and a security that transcends daily difficulties.

Happy marriage to you and yours!

The Many Messages of Frozen

People are freaking out about the messages they are seeing in the movie Frozen.

Some see it as the most Christian Disney movie to date. Some see it as a movie about coming out. For others it’s hyper-sexual, empowering to women, a promotion of teenage angst, propaganda to normalize the gay agenda, or a satanic attempt to turn kids gay (which I find most strange since the people who made the movie mostly seem to believe you can’t “turn” gay or straight. But I digress).

So, what do we need in all of this jumble of mixed messages about Frozen?

Why, another blog post about it’s messages, of course. That’s where I come in.

I decided to watch the movie for the first time last weekend and see what all of the fuss was about. I didn’t like the movie when I saw the first teaser trailer a year or so ago. I really didn’t like the movie when it came out and everybody talked about how great it was. So, I saw the movie with the expectation I would hate it.

The only thing I hated about it was how much I loved it.

It was musically well done. The characters were (mostly) believable. It was chock full of meaning.

My kids are now old enough to watch movies I am interested in, including superhero movies like Spider-man and Man of Steel. To help them process these movies, we discuss the meanings embedded within them. After watching a movie, we discuss the themes and meanings that the movie expresses. They have taken to the process, and now always want to talk about the meanings of the movies they watch. They’re learning that some movies are pretty terrible, with no coherent themes or meanings. Some movies, like Frozen, are full of meaning, and lead us to hours (or, more realistically, minutes) of discussion about a range of important topics. Such a discussion happened after we watched Frozen. We both picked up on a number of important themes, and they agree this movie is pretty great.

I thought I’d examine the many messages of Frozen in a way that hasn’t been done before: with the expectation that there are many meanings in the movie, and that those meanings are revealed in the relationships between the main characters. This movie isn’t about just one thing, but about many things. There is one overarching theme that is expressed in the resolution of the film, but we’ll get to that later.

I’m starting the movie again now, and we’ll progress through the messages as they are presented in the movie. Feel free to watch along with me as they are presented.

[Obviously, what follows contains spoilers. So, if you are the last person on the planet who hasn’t seen Frozen, be ye warned.]

Here we go:

Elsa/King and Queen of Arendelle
Key quote: “Conceal it. Don’t feel it. Don’t let it show.”

While she is still young, Elsa accidentally hurts her sister Anna with her magic. Their father and mother take them to see the trolls for healing and advice. Anna is healed, but not without removing the memory of Elsa’s magic from her mind. The trolls give the advice that Elsa should learn to control her magic abilities. The head troll says, “You must learn to control it. Fear will be your enemy.” How right he turns out to be! From this time on, Elsa fears her powers and tries to hide them with her parents’ help.

[Aside: Elsa is “born” with the powers, not “cursed,” “and they’re getting stronger.” Elsa’s character represents people who are born different from others. She is advised to “conceal, don’t feel, don’t let them know.” While Elsa could represent anyone who is different from others, I believe she most clearly represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people. [Aside within an aside: Like other writers, I agree that the song “Let it Go” is Elsa’s coming out song. I will not analyze this song for two reasons: 1) I’m not qualified to speak about what it is like to come out, and 2) I’m not analyzing characters in this post, but relationships. End aside within aside.] While Elsa represents LGBTQ people, the movie is not about trying to get your kids to be LGBTQ. It is about the reality of their existence, and what both they and we are going to do about it. The King and Queen choose to try to hide it, which turns out to be bad advice. End aside.]

Until Elsa can learn to control her powers, he father shuts her away from everyone, to “keep her powers hidden.” This hiding becomes her modus operandi for the most of the rest of the film, and becomes the major source of conflict between Elsa and the other main characters.

Message: Some well-meaning folk will tell you to hide who you are. While they mean well, their advice is ultimately harmful.

Anna/Elsa
Key quote: “Do you want to build a snowman?” “Go away, Anna.” (From the song “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?”

Anna is confused that Elsa is suddenly withdrawn and unavailable. She wants to return to her happy relationship with her sister and doesn’t understand how or why the change occurred. Anna still loves her sister Elsa, but Elsa is afraid of what might happen if she “opens up the door.”

Even after the death of Elsa and Anna’s parents, Elsa remains withdrawn. Her coronation as Queen is the first time she opens up the gates to the castle. For Anna, this is a happy event, filled with possibility and promise (see the song, “For the First Time in Forever”). But for Elsa, this is the first time she will have to test her years of training in hiding who she is. For Elsa, the event is terrifying, and her worst fears are realized when everyone learns of her icy powers.

Message: Shutting people out because of fear only damages and prevents relationships. Revealing yourself is scary, but it is the only way to gain real, lasting relationships.

Anna/Hans
Key quote: “Can I say something crazy? Will you marry me?” “Can I say something even crazier? YES!” (From the song “Love is an Open Door”)

On coronation day, Anna is hoping, and maybe expecting, to fall in love. She sees a man does just that, and by the end of the day she is engaged to Hans, a prince from a neighboring nation.

Anna and Hans request Elsa’s blessing. Elsa refuses, thinking Anna’s decision to marry someone she just met is unwise.

Later, Kristoff joins in the critique, saying, “Hang on. You mean to tell me you got engaged to someone you just met that day?!?” Kristoff tells Anna to her face that he questions her judgement, saying, “Who marries a man she just met?”

It turns out that Elsa and Kristoff’s concerns are justified. Hans reveals he is only using Anna to gain a throne, as he is 13th in line for the throne of his own kingdom. Hans betrays Anna, leaving her to die when she needs him most. If Anna would have slowed down and gotten to know Hans a bit more before committing to marry him, this heartache and betrayal might have been avoided.

Message: Romantic love can be unreliable. It is wise to get to know a person before you commit your life and heart to them.

Elsa/Anna
Key quotes: “None of this would have happened if she’d just told me her secret,” “Elsa, we were so close. We can be like that again,” and “For the first time in forever, I finally understand. For the first time in forever, we can fix this hand-in-hand. We can head down this mountain together. You don’t have to live in fear. ‘Cause for the first time in forever, I will be right here” (from the reprise of “For the First Time in Forever”).

After Elsa accidentally reveals her powers to the world, she runs away to hide (and sings the most popular song in the movie). Anna comes after her. Anna now understands her sister’s strange behavior, and comes to apologize for the misunderstanding, lamenting that, if she’d known, there would have been no problems.

Anna arrives at Elsa’s ice castle, and tries to reconcile with Elsa. Elsa is still afraid, though, and turns away from Anna again, an in the process accidentally freezes Anna’s heart. Anna is now destined to freeze to death, unless saved by, as the chief troll puts it, “an act of true love.” Anna and some of the less-wise trolls believe this refers to true love’s kiss, and Anna takes off for Arendelle to find Hans. Hans at this time betrays Anna, revealing his true intentions. A kiss from Hans is not to be, so Anna leaves to find Kristoff, who might be her true love and might warm her frozen heart.

Message: Hiding who you are can deeply injure those who love you. Reveal yourself – there are people who will love you no matter who you are.

The last four relationships epitomize the main theme of the movie: self-sacrificial love. In the relationships between Kristoff and Anna, Olaf and Anna, Sven and Kristoff, and finally Anna and Elsa, the theme of true love crystallizes in the last half of the movie.

Kristoff/Anna
Key quote: Anna, to Kristoff: “Are you going to be okay?” Kristoff: “Don’t worry about me.” Kristoff to attendants: “Make sure she’s safe!”

After nearly half of the movie spent together, and after acts of kindness (Anna buying carrots for Sven), surviving trials together (like escaping the snow golem), and even meeting Kristoff’s family, Kristoff develops feelings for Anna. Anna, however, is convinced that Hans is her true love.

When the trolls reveal Anna’s fate of death by freezing and the only cure as an act of true love, Kristoff takes Anna to Hans, in spite of how he feels about her. Kristoff leaves Anna with the person  she wants to be with because her happiness more important to him than his own.

Message: True love (as opposed to romantic love) cares more about the needs of others than the needs of the self.

Olaf/Anna
Key quote: “Love is putting someone else’s needs before yours,” and “Olaf, you’re melting!” “Some people are worth melting for.”

Olaf finds Anna on the brink of death, abandoned by Hans and left to freeze. He builds a fire for her and helps her over to it in an attempt to save her life. The fire is a bad idea for Olaf, being a snowman, who begins to melt. He delivers his memorable line, solidifying the theme of selfless love that Kristoff initiated.

Olaf doesn’t melt, but instead goes to the window and sees Kristoff and Sven racing to find Anna. It is Olaf who tells Anna that Kristoff truly loves her.

Message: Some people are worth sacrificing oneself for. Self-sacrifice is the picture of love.

Sven/Kristoff
Key quote: “Sven!” Sigh of relief as Sven climbs out of the water. “Good boy.”

As Kristoff is racing to find Anna, Sven carries Kristoff with all haste across the frozen harbor. The ice begins to crack, however, and a safe way forward is impossible for both Sven and Kristoff.

Sven jumps one last time onto an small island of ice and catapults Kristoff safely to the other side of the frozen water. The action, however, also sends Sven into the ice-cold water.

The first time I saw the film, I though Sven falling into the water was an accident, and I expected him to die. After consideration and a second viewing, I thought that such a death would only detract from the true climax of the movie (still ahead), and that Sven’s action was intentional. He bears discomfort for one he loves.

Message: Those who love will sacrifice their own comfort for the needs of the ones they love.

Anna/Elsa
Key quote: Elsa: “You sacrificed yourself for me?” Anna: “I love you.” Elsa: “Love will thaw. Love. Of course!”

As Anna is left with only moments to live, she is faced with a choice: run toward Kristoff and save her own life, or run toward Elsa and sacrifice herself to save Elsa from Hans’ sword.

She chooses to sacrifice herself for her sister.

This is the act of true love that resolves the conflict in the movie and unfreezes Anna’s frozen heart. Elsa learns that love can unfreeze the world she has accidentally frozen, and the movie ends with a celebration of Elsa’s powers.

Message: No one has greater love than this, that she lay down her life for others.

Conclusion
Frozen is all about love. In particular, it is about the reality of LGBTQ people living among us, and what they and we are going to do about it.

We can tell them to hide it away, which will ultimately cause harm and separation.

They can run away and be who they are, but that life of isolation is only slightly better than hiding who they are.

Ultimately, the only “solution” to the “problem” is for us to love them and even sacrifice ourselves for them.

This theme of sacrificial love is juxtaposed against romantic love, but ultimately lasting love of any kind will only come with self-sacrifice and acceptance.

Regardless of your opinion of or religious or spiritual beliefs about homosexuality, the solution to the conflict in our culture is self-sacrificial love.

I am happy that an increasing number of people, be they conservative or liberal, religious or spiritual or neither, are affirming LGBTQ people and expressing their willingness to sacrifice themselves on their behalf. For this theme, I am proud to recommend the movie Frozen and to talk to my kids about how we treat people who are different. Kudos, Disney, for offering up such a valuable allegory for learning to understand and love people who are different than us.

Disney dreams of a world where “them” and “us” simply become “we.” May that day come quickly.

The Teachings of Jesus: 11 Warnings about Religion

Adi Nes, Untitled (Christ), 2009, found at
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/37762/cross-pollination

The Teachings of Jesus: The Dangers of Religion[1]

Watch out, and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines. They abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition. They have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep their tradition!
Beware, you false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! Hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! Hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.’ How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! Hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.
How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! Hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: “This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but God knows your hearts; for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God.
I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.[2]
Jesus doesn’t mince words on the dangers of religion. The quotes above give 11 blunt warnings about the dangers of religion:
  1. Religious corruption is insidious, infecting the world like yeast spreads through bread. It spreads like a cancer, and like a cancer, it is dangerous and harmful.
  2. Keeping tradition pales in comparison to practicing the teachings of God.
  3. People who promote tradition over the way of God are liars.
  4. Such people not only do not follow the way of God, they keep others from doing so.
  5. It is not buildings or objects or even offerings that are inherently sacred, but the God behind such things.
  6. Justice, mercy, and faith are the essential aspects of the way of God. It is only while living out justice, mercy, and faith that keeping other commands has any meaning.
  7. Faith is impossible for those who seek the approval of such religious hypocrites.
  8. Just like their ancestors, people who value tradition over the way of God persecute those who live out justice, mercy, faith over the keeping of traditions.
  9. Those who keep only traditions and do not follow the way of God talk a good game, but their hearts are far from God.
  10. The kingdom of heaven will include many who seem to be outsiders, while those who seem like they are part of it are excluded.
  11. Righteousness consists not of keeping the traditions of people but in following the way of God.

Jesus’ teachings on the dangers of religion raise some questions:
What traditions does religion promote that have nothing to do with living out justice, mercy, and faith?
If dangerous religion consists of keeping traditions, what would healthy religion look like?
Who or what do Jesus’ warnings remind you of?
What will you do because of these teachings?
Have you had a good or bad experience with religion? Have you seen the effects of the dangers Jesus warns about? I’d love to hear about your experiences, good or bad, in the comments below.
>>>Like Church Without Boundaries on Facebook and follow @ChurchWOBounds on Twitter to catch the rest of the series!<<<


[1] I find I am increasingly disinterested in Christianity and continually enthralled by Jesus. This series is an attempt to focus on the teachings of Jesus on various subjects, inspired by The Words of Jesustranslated by Robert Lee Cantelon (New Haven: New Haven Press, 1995).
[2] All quotes adopted and adapted from the New Revised Standard Version. See Matthew 16:6; Mark 8:18; 7:7-9; Matthew 7:15; John 8:44; Matthew 23:13-28; John 5:44; Matthew 23:29-34; 15:7-8; Luke 16:15; Matthew 8:11-12; 5:20.

Theories of Religion: Julia Kristeva, Language, and Identity Creation

Julia Kristeva
1941-Present
French Post-Structuralist
Born in Bulgaria.
Paris for doctoral research under supervision of top French intellectuals.
Influenced by Freud and Psychoanalysis.
Currently holds three professorships in France, Toronto, and New York.
“I usually call myself an adopted-American Frenchwoman of Bulgarian origin with a European citizenship.” –JK
26+ works of writing ranging from essays to novels between 1969-2011:
            Politics and Science of Language – 1970s
            Psychoanalytics – 1980s
Novels – 1990s
Monographs – 2000s
Class Notes:
Speaking subject – the subject gains subjectivity perhaps by speaking. “The self” suggests something fixed and self-contained.

Subjectivity is a process developed over time and is influenced by own’s culture, language, etc. Subjectivity deals with a sense of one’s self, a subject who can think and act of one’s own accord. Subjectivity is not a given for post-structuralists. Thus, identity/subjectivity is not a fixed phenomenon, but is always changing and being fashioned by outside forces.

Language is part of the process of becoming a subject. It is not a tool that a subject uses, but rather it is integral to the formation of a subject. Beings become self-aware through the use of language. Language is what marks and reinforces the separation between a child and her or his mother. The two components of language are Semiotic and Symbolic.
Key Terms:
Semiotic (feminine, rhythmic, tonal, extra-verbal way that energy and emotion enters into language, unconscious drives and desires, not dictated by linear logic, associated with dance, music, poetry, and infancy)
Symbolic (masculine, uses signs to represent ideas, exemplified by the language used in law and science, a mode of signifying with as little ambiguity as possible. masks unconscious drives and desires).
These two modes of language are both essential. They are intertwined in the process of making meaning. Meaning is often found in words accompanied by feeling, tone, pitch of the voice, etc.
Chora – psychic space of the infant; state of plenitude and satisfying oneness with the caregiver; pre-symbolic.
Use of language to identify other objects is the threshold of subjectivity. It is with language and the identifying of other people and things that an infant begins to recognize herself or himself. Abjection is the means of carrying out identity creation.
Abjection – rejection of what is other to oneself in order to maintain the tenuous boundaries of one’s self; bridge between plentitude and individuation. Includes the bodily repulsion of substances, including food loathing. Such substances are said to blur the lines of the symbolic and the symbiotic, between subject and object, making it both horrifying and interesting. In the world of religious terminology, abjection is captured in the word “sin.” This is also found in infancy, termed the “maternal abjection,” when an infant begins to see the mother as something other than her or his self.
The Mother also desires the Other (agape). This love for the Other gives the infant space to recognize the difference between her or his self and the Mother. The Mother’s love for the Other triggers abjection in the infant. Kristeva then introduces the concept that, for the infant, “God” becomes the replacement for the Mother.
Theory of Religion:
What most defines religion for Kristeva is religion’s ability to purify the abject. Religion maps out the boundaries of the self and protects it from that which is abject. Religion attempts to identify and repel that with which one should not associate. Religion offers a system for establishing identity by abjecting that which is revolting to or threatens the identity of the self.
Critiques:

Kristeva has been criticized by some who say she defines complete subjectivity in terms of motherhood.
Sources:
Stephen Berkwitz, class lecture and discussion, Missouri State University, November 19 and 21, 2013.

Julia Kristeva, “Approaching Abjection and Semiotics of Biblical Abomination,” “Credence-Credit and Credo,” “Stabat Mater,” “Psychoanalysis – a Counterdepressant and Holbein’s Dead Christ,” “The Chosen People and the Choice of Foreignness,” and “Reading the Bible” in French Feminists on Religion: A Readered. by Morny Joy, Kathleen O’Grady, and Judith L. Poxon (New York: Routledge, 2002), 83-171.

Theories of Religion:

Theories of Religion: Luce Irigaray, Subjectivity, and Religion

Luce Irigaray
1930-Present
Feminist, Philosopher, Linguist, Psychoanalyst, Sociologist, and Cultural Theorist
Two Doctorates: Philosophy and Linguistics.
Active participant in women’s movements in France and Italy.
Influenced by Derrida, Freud, Heidegger, and Lacan.
Primarily concerned with philosophy and psychoanalysis.
3 Phases of Work: 1) demonstrate the masculine perspective that as dominated Western discourse, 2) sketch possibilities for the construction of a feminine subject, and 3) aim to develop the social, legal, and ethical conditions necessary for relationship between two differently sexed subjects.
Class Notes:
Feminism – “Feminism refers to all those who seek to end female subordination.” Alison Jaggar. Women do not need to be subordinate to men, but they generally are.
Sex/Gender – Sex is biological; gender is social. Gender refers to norms of thoughts and behaviors that are [often] attributed to one’s sex. Irigaray doesn’t discuss sex and gender, but instead discusses “sexual difference” or the elaboration of the social aspects of gender.
“Liberal Feminism” is the most dominant kind heard about in the U.S. It seeks to achieve equality of women with men in society. It seeks to remove the barriers that block the access of women to every area of society.
“Radical Feminism” is less common in the U.S. Radical Feminism disavows the goal of equality because it implies that women must become like men, that they need to conform to the values and models that men present in society. It acknowledges that patriarchy is a given, and thus women are subjected to male control in the areas of culture, politics, language, and religion. The goal of Radical Feminism is not equality but the overturning of patriarchy. Instead of equality, Radical Feminists seek some form of autonomy over who they are and how they are.
Irigaray appears more like a Radical Feminist in her critique of society.
Religion is important to Irigaray because religion has a profound effect on peoples’ lives. Irigaray has discussed religion particularly as it relates to sexual difference.
Sexual Difference is something deeper and more influential than Sex or Gender. Sexual Difference consists of the meanings and symbolic associations given to what it means to be male and what it means to be female. These are cultural differences that effect how people “inhabit their own skin.” Religion plays a crucial role in encoding sexual difference.  Religion can thus be a source of patriarchal domination or a transformation into a divine being. For Irigaray, religions tend to put taboos on women, and thus function to sustain patriarchy and dominate and control women. Irigaray thinks we much critique religion in order to develop new modes of thought.
Maleness, according to Irigaray, is autonomous, and seen as the default. Femaleness is seen in relation to men, dependent and subordinate. Because women are seen as the “other,” they lack the basis for their own subjectivity and are disempowered. Without a positive recognition of sexual difference, women lack a means of being recognized who they are, as they are.
Phallologocentrism is the understanding of the world on masculine terms (third person plural as masculine, etc.). Under phallologocentrism, the basis for understanding “truth” is fundamentally masculine. Masculine ideals are taken as normative. From such a perspective, women cannot be anything but the “other,” subordinated, secondary, imperfect.
Irigaray’s goal is to move away from a single model of the One to a dual model, the Two, where women are subjects and men are subjects, where there is difference and difference is good.
When the Ideals are only male, there is no space for sexual difference.
Quotes from Divine Women:
“If women have no God, they are unable either to communicate or commune with one another. They need, we need, an infinite if they are to share a little.”
“Woman has no mirror wherewith to become a woman. Having a God and becoming one’s gender go hand in hand.”
“Women, not having recourse to a divinized feminine, have had their identities dictated to them by the rule of man, God as other/Other…as virgin mother, or as property of the male, women have played a part in the proceedings, but have not been able to claim a fully autonomous identity or subjectivity.”
Theory of Religion:
Before theorizing about religion, we must question and rethink femininity, masculinity, the Divine, and the relationships between them, as well as our conceptual understandings of ideals, gender, and embodiment.
Religion is a tool that men and women can use to define themselves and find autonomy.
Religion is a force within society by which ideas about the Ideal and the goal of a person’s life are expressed and maintained. Religion confers subjectivity upon individuals. It is a means by which people come to understand who they are.
Critiques:

Irigaray has been criticized for casting sexual difference in an overly essentialist manner.
Irigaray has been criticized for overemphasizing sexual difference as otherness, instead of also including race, gender/sexual orientation, etc, and for focusing exclusively on heterosexuality.
Sources:
Stephen Berkwitz, class lecture and discussion, Missouri State University, November 12 and 14, 2013.

Luce Irigaray, Plato’s Hystera,” “La Mysterique,” “Divine Women,” “When the Gods are Born,” “Sexual Difference,” “The Forgotten Mystery of Female Ancestry,” “Practical Teachings: Love – Between Passion and Civility” in French Feminists on Religion: A Reader ed. by Morny Joy, Kathleen O’Grady, and Judith L. Poxon (New York: Routledge, 2002), 13-81.

Theories of Religion:

Theories of Religion: Catherine Bell, Ritual, and Body

Catherine Bell
1953-2008
Theorist of Ritual, Power, and Body
Trained in Chinese Religions and earned Ph.D. at University of Chicago.
Ritual Theory, Ritual Bodyis Bell’s revised dissertation project.
Basic Understandings:
Ritualization as a strategic social activity embedded in particular social contexts.
Indeed, ritualization is the strategic manipulation of ‘context’ in the very act of reproducing it…ritualization cannot be understood apart from the immediate situation, which is being reproduced in a misrecognized and transformed way through the production of ritualized agents…even the exact repetition of an age-old ritual precedent is a strategicact with which to define the present, then no ritual style is autonomous.[1]
People do not take a social problem to ritual for a solution. People generate a ritualized environment that acts to shift the very status and nature of the problem into terms that are endlessly retranslated in strings of deferred schemes. The multiplication and orchestration of such schemes do not produce a resolution; rather they afford a translation of immediate concerns into the dominant terms of the ritual. The orchestration of schemes implies a resolution without ever defining one.[2]
The body is of great significance in Bell’s theory.
It appears we are now reappropriating the image of the body: no longer the mere physical instrument of the mind, it now denotes a more complex and irreducible phenomenon, namely, the social person.[3]
Social practices structure the body, thereby constructing “social beings” via the internalization of basic schemes and values.[4]
Bourdieu explores the mediation of the body via a “dialectic of objectification and embodiment” that makes it the locusfor the coordination of all levels of bodily, social, and cosmological experience.[5]
The molding of the body within a highly structured environment does not simply express inner states. Rather, it primarily acts to restructure bodies in the very doing of the acts themselves. Hence, required kneeling does not merely communicate subordination to the kneeler. For all intents and purposes, kneeling produces a subordinated kneeler in and through the act itself.[6]
Ritual Mastery is the adaptation of ritual into the wider social context.
The specific strategies of ritualization come together in the production of a ritualized social body, a body with the ability to deploy in the wider social context the schemes internalized in the ritualized environment…Ritual mastery implies that ritual can exist only in the specific cultural schemes and strategies for ritualization…embodied and accepted by persons of specific cultural communities.[7]
Misrecognition is seeing the actions performed in ritual, and why they are done, but not the implications of performing the actions.
According to our Althusserian model, ritual practices are produced with an intent to order, rectify, or transform a particular situation. Ritualized agents would see these purposes. They would not see what they actually do in ritually ordering, rectifying, or transforming the situation. Foucault implies a similar principle when he notes that people know what they do and they knew why they do what they do, but that do not know what what they are doing does.[8]
What does ritualization see? It is a way of acting that sees itself as responding to a place, event, force, problem, or tradition. It tends to see itself as the natural or appropriate thing to do in the circumstances. Ritualization does not see how it actively creates place, force, event, and tradition, how it redefines or generates the circumstances to which it is responding. It does not see how its own actions reorder and reinterpret the circumstances so as to afford the sense of a fit among the main spheres of experience – body, community, and cosmos.[9]
Ritualization is a strategy for constructing power relationships.
Ritualization is first and foremost a strategy for the construction of certain types of power relationships effective within particular social organizations.[10]
For Foucault, power is contingent, local, imprecise, relational, and organizational…For Foucault, power does not exist as a substantive entity that can be possessed or wielded, nor is it some ‘thing’ that exists in historical forms and causal effects. Since these qualities are all implied in a ‘theory’ of power, Foucault is determined to avoid theories in favor of an “analytics of power.” Only by staying free of the substantive approach, he implies, can one truly analyze power in terms of human relations. He chooses a different language to interpret power as a matter of techniques and discursive practices that comprise the micropolitics of everyday life.[11]
Foucault consistently chooses the nomenclature of ‘ritual’ to evoke the mechanisms and dynamics of power.[12]
It is in ritual…that we can see a fundamental strategy of power. In ritualization, power is not external to its workings; it exists only insofar as it is constituted with and through he lived body, which is both the body of society and the social body. Ritualization is a strategic play of power, of domination and resistance, with the arena of the social body.[13]
Power relations are a part of any society, both from the top down and the bottom up.
Power relations are deeply embedded in the network of social relations and basic, therefore, to any society…Foucault argues that relations of power are not simply engendered from the top down, but from the bottom up as well.[14]
Public school graduation exercises, congressional hearings, and AA meetings – all ritualize to a strategic degree. As a way of acting that can be put to different purposes, ritualization will sometimes be used to the point of creating certain impressions, but then stop short of provoking a controversy about its appropriateness.[15]
Resistance to ritualization is inherent in Bell’s theory
It is crucial to demonstrate that the efficacy of ritualization as a power/strategy lies not only in the domination it affords, but in the resistance as well.[16]
Catholicism is a consent to papal power and a resistance to it at the same time.[17]
Theory of Religion:
“Rituals” are social practices that structure the body and redefine space and time. Rituals create structure to reality in which problems find meaning and explanation.
Critiques:

Belief really has no place or treatment in Bell’s theory. Belief is important enough to deserve comment when discussing ritual, power, and the body.
Sources:
Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 94-117, 197-223.
Harrison King, class lecture and discussion, Missouri State University, November 5 and 7, 2013.

Theories of Religion:

[1] Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 100-101.
[2] Bell, 106.
[3] Bell, 96.
[4] Bell, 97.
[5] Bell, 97.
[6] Bell, 100.
[7] Bell, 107.
[8] Bell, 108.
[9] Bell, 109.
[10] Bell, 197.
[11] Bell, 199.
[12] Bell, 201.
[13] Bell, 204.
[14] Bell, 200.
[15] Bell, 206.
[16] Bell, 215.
[17] Bell, 214.

Being the Church Everywhere, All the Time, with Everyone