Are we Christians really monotheistic? Part 2

The previous post just briefly pointed out that when one thinks there are other gods in the world then monotheism is called into question.  Additionally, it was pointed out, that many of us live as though we do think there are other gods in the world (such as the god of pride or the god the money), and as such perhaps many of us Christians operate not out of montheism but out of henotheism or monolatry.

When we orient our lives around the idea that there are other gods in the world, then we can quickly judge these different gods as either good or bad.

The god of love - good.
The god of  hate - bad.
The god of pride - bad.
The god of peace - good.

Once we have judged for ourselves that which is good and that which is bad, we then desire to live our lives out of desiring the good while avoiding the bad.

The little hiccup in our plan however is that as a Christian we understand that God made all things and called them good.  So how then can we go though life calling bad what God called good?

Even Jesus did not like being called good when he was identified as a "good teacher".

When we go through life judging for ourselves what is good and what is bad we can find ourselves building a bubble around our lives, insulating us from reality.

We begin to see some people as good and others as bad.  We begin to see some ideas as good and some as bad.

When we create a good/bad world (dualism) then we can find ourselves no longer able or willing to help transform the world.

Why would I want to hang out with the "bad" people or read about the "bad" ideas or practice "bad" habits?

When we live in a world which we proclaim good and bad on things which God has called Good, then we live in a world which is not oriented toward monotheism.

The next post if the final of this installment and will (hopefully) be the answer to the question, "so what?"

Are we Christians really monotheistic? Part 1

There are a number of debates to this question.  Some say yes because of the "one God" thing while others point to the Trinity as less monotheistic and more polytheistic.

Frankly I do not really care about that too much.  I will leave that debate to others who are more philosophical and smarter than me to hash out.  (see the elaborate chart to the right for more confusion on the "is the trinity really monotheism" debate. It just blew your mind.)

Rather this is the first post in regards to the Exodus 32, in which Aaron makes for the people a golden calf which they go on to ascribe deity status to and worship it.  This is the original "idol" in the Biblical narrative and the one that gets the most play when we talk about idolatry.

Most of the time, we Christians act like there is one God.  Most Christians that I know, do not speak of multiple gods running around in the heavens above us as in Greek mythology.  And yet, many nominally Christian people I encounter do not orient their lives around monotheism - the belief in one and only one God.

Many Christians orient their lives around the idea that there is one God (the God of/in Christ Jesus) but also do not deny there are other gods or other powers in the world that are god-like.  To take a simple example, many Christians talk about dealing with the temptation of the 'god of wealth' or the 'god of pride'.  On a lighter note, football fans speak of the 'football gods' when their team cannot catch a break.

Silly as it sounds, many Christians speak as though these 'gods' do exist on some level - even a metaphorical one.  And when we do not personally deny the existence of a god but choose to worship one God in particular then we are not really orientated to monotheism.  Rather we are talking about either henotheism or monoaltry.

Henotheism is the idea that other gods exist, and they in fact may be worthy of praise, but one chooses to worship a particular God.

Monoaltry is the idea that other gods exist, and they are not worthy of praise, and so one chooses to worship a God that is worthy of praise.

Hold those thoughts, the next post will explore how henotheism and monoaltry directly affect how we move and interact with the world.

"You can sit and watch it"

"You can sit and watch it."

This is what my 3 year old son said in response to the question we asked him about what I am to do when he plays "church".


"You can sit and watch it."

My son attends worship regularly, and while only being 3 years old, I think that he has and understanding of worship that is similar to what many people might consider worship to be.  If is something that one can sit and watch.  

 Currently, I am reading "Preaching in the Inventive Age" in which Pagitt addresses that the sermon is, which is dominated by monologue delivery, is something that contributes to the understanding that church is that place where you can "sit and watch".  

Pagitt argues for a "progressional dialogue" with clergy and laity in the preaching moment.  I cannot tell you how great this book is.  If you preach, you ought to consider Pagitt's book.  

Here is a link to all my highlights so far.  And for those of you who are like me and would just like a sampling, here you go!

• "This dependence on preaching as speech making has become a form of communication I call "speaching""
• "Speaching is not defined by the style of the presentation but by the relationship of the presenter to both the listeners and the content: the pastor uses a lecture-like format, often standing while the listeners are sitting. The speacher decides the content ahead of time, usually in a removed setting, and then offers it in such a way that the speacher is in control of the content, speed, and conclusion of the presentation"
• "Preaching has so uniformly been equated with speech making that any other means of sermonizing is thought to be trivial and less authoritative."
• "There are those who assume that if more people are allowed to share their understanding of teaching, theology, and faith, then there's a greater risk of the church losing truth. But the history of heresy shows that it's most often the abuse of power-not an openness of power-that creates environments ripe with heresy. The church is at a greater risk of losing its message when we limit those who can tell the story rather than invite the community to know and refine it"
• "I have come to believe that there's a kind of dehumanizing effect when, week after week, competent people aren't allowed to share their ideas and understanding; when, week after week, one person is set apart from the rest as the only one who is allowed to speak about God; when, week after week, people willingly, or by some sort of social or spiritual pressure, just sit and take it; when, week after week, they're taught that the only way to be good learners is to be better listeners."
• "It's simply untrue that people need their information in small, bite-sized or even "pre-chewed" pieces. The issue may not be that we have too much information or that we aren't presenting it in compelling ways but, perhaps, the information we've chosen is not all that interesting. New methods and exciting delivery will do little to solve that problem. A better or more tech-savvy speach is still a speach."
• "What I know to be true is not negated by others knowing more or other things. Truth is progressive, not regressive or zero sum. When someone knows something to be true, it doesn't remove the legitimacy of other truths but adds to it. We may not agree with the conclusions people draw, but we're better when we're moved to additional ways of seeing the world."

Worshiping worship - Part 1

Among many of the leaders of the area of the UMC which I am located in, there is a premium placed upon worship.  Worship is often described as the most important thing that we do as a Church.

A previous post touched on this idea which you can read if you would like.  

It is not clear to me that there is one thing in the Church that ought to be the most important thing.  To say such a thing seems more of a reflection of the priorities of the person saying it than of the reflection of God's priorities for the Church.

Can we really think that corporate worship is more important than working to eradicate slavery in our back yard?  Or that teaching about the message of Jesus is more important than prayer and meditation?  

How can one hold one aspect of the Church above another?  Did not Paul speak of the Church being a body that is made of different parts and no one part is greater than the whole?  Can the hands of service tell the heart of worship that they do not need it?  Of course not.  

When we elevate worship above the other aspects of Church I would submit that we are in danger of moving toward an idolatry of worship.  We worship worship.  

From the infamous golden calf to elevating sacrifice above mercy to worshiping Cesar, the Bible shares of of many stories of humanity struggling with idolatry.  

The Church also seems to struggle with idolatry in that different parts of the Church elevate one expression of God over the others.  Mainline Church elevates God, Evangelicals elevate Jesus, and Pentecostals elevate the Holy Spirit.  Try talking about the 'Holy Spirit' in the mainline and you will find it to be more uncomfortable than talking about 'God'.  

The Trinity is a teaching about the nature of God which says, of many other things, that no one aspect of God is greater than another.  Yet, our Churches fall into the idea that there are aspects of being Church that is greater than others - namely worship is the "most important" thing we do.  

What if we were to take the idea of the Trinity and apply it to the Church?  

The next post will explore this a bit more...