Obviously, it was an extraordinary entry. However, I think that I actually covered all of my philosophical and theological arguments for my arguement in the other entries on truth. So even though my deletion of this entry is likely because I wasn’t paying attention to what I was doing, I am going to take it as a sign. I have argued about the search for truth from a pretty analytical perspective over the past few weeks. Perhaps as I approach the most sensitive area regarding truth, that being where we as a Christian community primarily look for it, I should back away from analytics and share a little more openly about my perspective on scripture and how that has changed over the past 20 years.
When I was a young Christian being able to rely on the bible for providing all the answers was pretty important to me. I was insecure and many of my actions in life were motivated by fear. I wasn’t an exceptional student, athlete, musician, or really anything. I was then, as I am now, fairly average at a lot of things and pretty bad at a few other things. At this point in my life I am beginning to appreciate being average, but when I was a teenager and young adult the failure I felt in life at being average caused me a lot of distress. Having something out there that was more certain than my personal sense of place in this world was the only thing that was going to keep me from completely disengaging. My religious life was such a thing that I could hold on to. I was able to find community in youth group. I was able to experience safety in morality. And I was able to develop some sense of identity in believing that I was special. To ensure that this identity I found in my religious life (and I need to stress, as I have done earlier, that this wasn’t a spiritual life or enlightened life, just a religious life) was secure, I needed to be able to have hard answers to substantiate it. Luckily there were plenty of people to give me hard answers. Each one of these hard answers was justified by select verses. And obviously, the only way that I could ensure that the answers I needed to substantiate my identity in Christianity were reliable and valid was to ensure the bible was completely “true”. The only way that I and those who guided me could make certain the bible was true was to prove that it was factual. Seeing the bible as anything less that completely accurate and factual could collapse my entire identity. So, with great effort, my study of scripture took on the role of defending its accuracy. I was occasionally able to simply read scripture and allow God to speak to me through it, but even that was always dependent on the absolute inerrancy of it.
This caused a significant amount of spiritual stress for me. Since there is always someone out there who can disprove whatever you believe, I was constantly vulnerable to a collapse in my religious identity. And the doubt that I already had in God could only be dealt with by holding to stricter fundamental approaches to spiritual development. This led me to see many things with rigidity. There was “Right” and there was “Wrong”. There was “True” and there was “False”. There was “What I Believed” and “wrong and False”.
When I first began to think of scripture as something that wasn’t dependent on its inerrancy, but rather a truth that transcends facts, it caused a lot of inner turmoil. Experiencing my shift in thinking about scripture while living in west Texas with most of my friends still believing that the truth of scripture was dependent on its inerrancy made the transition more difficult. Since my paradigm shift I have not come to believe that scripture is inaccurate, but simply believe that the truth of scripture is far greater than its accuracy. I have come to see that the truth of scripture is often told in ways that are understandable. I would say now that I believe everything from Genesis to Abraham is metaphor, everything from Abraham to Deuteronomy as allegory, from there through the prophets as historical (while believing that the prophets had a dual role), and everything New Testament as relational.
I realize that many will disagree with me, including many of my friends. And that is okay because my interest is not in discussing the accuracy of scripture anymore. Hermeneutics, or the methodology of interpreting scripture, has moved away from the modern, western approach for me and is becoming more interdependent on how scripture relates to the entire story of God told throughout history in the lives and cultures of humanity. The uncertainty of this new paradigm often leaves me with more questions than answers and not has cured my doubt, but it has given me the freedom to trust that God is in the process of revealing His truth to me in the way and time that He desires.
With my new paradigm I also feel I am also able to experience greater revelation of God through the spiritual experiences of non-Christians. Many would see this as universalism. There was a time not too long ago that I would have been offended by this accusation. Not so much anymore. I still believe that Christ is the only son of God and that salvation comes through Him and Him alone and I still believe that the only way to perfection is through Christian faith. But I also believe that the Spirit of God moves beyond the confines of Christianity. God’s mercy and love can be seen everywhere. I believe that because of this God is active in the lives of many, even those who don’t know Christ. I believe that Christians have the closest to accurate depiction of God, but that we don’t have the only experiences with God. This would mean that other sacred texts can also have truths and spiritual insight. In fact, I would say that I now believe in many more things being sacred then when I held to a more rigid belief about scripture.
I have used the word post-evangelical a few times recently. I think I came up with this phrase. I use it not to partner my beliefs with postmodernism, but because I feel that it is the best word to capture what I believe about Christianity and scripture. I have never considered myself liberal, but because my views are so different than evangelicalism it seemed like that it what I had to be, simply by default. But I actually hold to more conservative, evangelical values than liberalism. For example, I believe in social justice, but that the liberal church has put too much focus on government to regulate morality. I believe that the real goal of the church is to spread the name of Christ. Ironically, I also believe that this focus has given the evangelical church more direction in social action. I have fairly conservative values about what is right and wrong, but I also feel that most issues are more layered than the evangelical church is willing to explore. And as for how post-evangelicalism relates to this entry, I believe in scripture, I just believe in the living word a little more.
I would love to read any feedback you might have, just don’t expect an argument.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: SCRIPTURE- Part 1
“NO!!!” (Me)
I write my entries in Word and then copy and paste them into my blog because they can be kind of long. I also do this because even though I have found some pleasure in sharing my thoughts with whomever runs across my little blog, my real reason for writing these things down is because it is cheaper than therapy. Anyway, I began working on this particular entry a few weeks ago, actually before I started working on any of the previous entries about truth. It is something that I wanted to write about from the very beginning, but knowing that what I would write would be disheartening to many who know me I have had to go through a lot of inner dialogue on the topic before I could formalize my thoughts. When I was preparing to proof the entry before uploading it to the blog I realized that I had deleted it. The whole thing. It was a good one too. I realize that it might have been a little edgy since it was about scripture, but I felt that I had built a strong defense for where I am with scripture today. So to the best of my ability I will attempt to briefly re-craft my argument.
1. Realizing that most who take the time to read this blog have already shaped their opinion on the inerrancy of scripture, my entry purposefully avoided the topic of how accurate scripture is and rather focused on something that I feel is much more important when considering the truth of scripture. It doesn’t matter what your beliefs are regarding the accuracy of scripture, all that matters is that you allow scripture to speak to you. In other words, scripture is about more than its historical accuracy and was never intended by the authors to be used to explain the history of the humanity. The authors’ original intent was to share the story of God.
Depending on where people land on the continuum of scripture as “the exact word of God written by human vessels” to “the writings of people trying to explain their worlds” this is going to have individual consequences, but regardless, the purpose is about more than the modern understanding of explanation.
I argued that the truth of scripture isn’t in its accuracy, but in its meaning. The institutional reading of scripture is manipulative and controlling while the modern reading of scripture is fundamental. These approaches, while meeting obvious personal and institutional needs, doesn’t reflect the purpose of holy texts.
2. Throughout the book of Acts Paul uses the word “defense” as he discusses his faith. The implication being that we should have a defense for our faith in Christ as well.
I argued that a defense for our faith is one that is built on experiences as well as understanding. I Corinthians 2:5 tells us that our faith should not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Our faith should be shaped as a partnership between our understanding and how Christ works in our lives.
Western Christianity, however, has been so shaped by its historical context that it is unable to use both to complement each other the way scripture intends. It typically does one or the other: either defending our faith from a pure apologetics perspective or pure sensationalism.
Likewise, scripture must also have a dynamic component that relies on both more than just human understanding, but the infusion of Christ.
3. I then argued that despite what we want to believe, our understanding of what scripture even says has changed significantly since it was first compiled. These changes in interpretation have a greater impact than deep theological constructs, they shape the way we understand who God is, our relation to Him, and how we engage the world.
4. I also looked at 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.”
The validity of something resides in its ability to measures or point to that which it is intended to measure or point to. My argument was that the validity of scripture is not in its ability to prove itself, but to validate what it purports to do. The bible’s validity is validated by its ability to point to God. Scripture meets the 2 Timothy standard of validity because it directs us in holiness, not because it is necessarily factual.
Over its history, the church has made an idol of scripture. The book itself is revered as if it has supernatural powers. This is not to argue that the bible should lose its value as a holy text, but that the actual book is no more supernatural than any other book.
5. Finally, John 1 teaches us that Christ is the Word and that in the beginning was the Word, we are not called into knowing verses, but using the verses to show us Christ.
I argued that because of this, Christ reveals himself in many ways and that limiting our understanding of God to solely one book is rooted in a fear of lose of stability and control in our spiritual lives.
I write my entries in Word and then copy and paste them into my blog because they can be kind of long. I also do this because even though I have found some pleasure in sharing my thoughts with whomever runs across my little blog, my real reason for writing these things down is because it is cheaper than therapy. Anyway, I began working on this particular entry a few weeks ago, actually before I started working on any of the previous entries about truth. It is something that I wanted to write about from the very beginning, but knowing that what I would write would be disheartening to many who know me I have had to go through a lot of inner dialogue on the topic before I could formalize my thoughts. When I was preparing to proof the entry before uploading it to the blog I realized that I had deleted it. The whole thing. It was a good one too. I realize that it might have been a little edgy since it was about scripture, but I felt that I had built a strong defense for where I am with scripture today. So to the best of my ability I will attempt to briefly re-craft my argument.
1. Realizing that most who take the time to read this blog have already shaped their opinion on the inerrancy of scripture, my entry purposefully avoided the topic of how accurate scripture is and rather focused on something that I feel is much more important when considering the truth of scripture. It doesn’t matter what your beliefs are regarding the accuracy of scripture, all that matters is that you allow scripture to speak to you. In other words, scripture is about more than its historical accuracy and was never intended by the authors to be used to explain the history of the humanity. The authors’ original intent was to share the story of God.
Depending on where people land on the continuum of scripture as “the exact word of God written by human vessels” to “the writings of people trying to explain their worlds” this is going to have individual consequences, but regardless, the purpose is about more than the modern understanding of explanation.
I argued that the truth of scripture isn’t in its accuracy, but in its meaning. The institutional reading of scripture is manipulative and controlling while the modern reading of scripture is fundamental. These approaches, while meeting obvious personal and institutional needs, doesn’t reflect the purpose of holy texts.
2. Throughout the book of Acts Paul uses the word “defense” as he discusses his faith. The implication being that we should have a defense for our faith in Christ as well.
I argued that a defense for our faith is one that is built on experiences as well as understanding. I Corinthians 2:5 tells us that our faith should not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Our faith should be shaped as a partnership between our understanding and how Christ works in our lives.
Western Christianity, however, has been so shaped by its historical context that it is unable to use both to complement each other the way scripture intends. It typically does one or the other: either defending our faith from a pure apologetics perspective or pure sensationalism.
Likewise, scripture must also have a dynamic component that relies on both more than just human understanding, but the infusion of Christ.
3. I then argued that despite what we want to believe, our understanding of what scripture even says has changed significantly since it was first compiled. These changes in interpretation have a greater impact than deep theological constructs, they shape the way we understand who God is, our relation to Him, and how we engage the world.
4. I also looked at 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.”
The validity of something resides in its ability to measures or point to that which it is intended to measure or point to. My argument was that the validity of scripture is not in its ability to prove itself, but to validate what it purports to do. The bible’s validity is validated by its ability to point to God. Scripture meets the 2 Timothy standard of validity because it directs us in holiness, not because it is necessarily factual.
Over its history, the church has made an idol of scripture. The book itself is revered as if it has supernatural powers. This is not to argue that the bible should lose its value as a holy text, but that the actual book is no more supernatural than any other book.
5. Finally, John 1 teaches us that Christ is the Word and that in the beginning was the Word, we are not called into knowing verses, but using the verses to show us Christ.
I argued that because of this, Christ reveals himself in many ways and that limiting our understanding of God to solely one book is rooted in a fear of lose of stability and control in our spiritual lives.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: CAPITALISM- Part 4
The direct consequences of a market driven society have interpersonal and intrapersonal implications. Interpersonally, the person can become frustrated by the stress of defining oneself by the “things” he or she can acquire. The financial burden is also problematic. But most significantly, the individual blocks the flow of productive human and spiritual development as they lock him or herself into an immature development stage. Intrapersonally, the individual is inhibited in his or her ability to relate to diverse populations and have empathy for those who are lacking. It also can create community and communication that is superficial. For adolescents this is less significant of a problem because the goal at 15 years old is to simply learn to communicate, not to necessarily develop strong and appropriate interpersonal relationships, but by the time those teens become adults who have been shaped and so strongly influenced by these values it makes it difficult to form intimacy. It also has the financial implications of inhibiting social justice as money and resources go to maintain individual identity development rather than promote social responsibility. But the real problem with this goes far beyond the direct consequences of a market driven society. The real affects of this situation is that the values of society are directed by trivial issues rather than meaningful goals and values.
Technology offers a good example of how the market place is negatively affecting society. There is no doubt that advances in technology have been prolific. Improved health care, scientific discovery, and even interpersonal communication are but just a few of the ways that technology has advanced society. And that, in fact, is the goal of technology: to improve society. But with all the advances that technology has brought it has simultaneously hindered cultural progress. The iPhone gives an individual the opportunity to manage a vast amount of information and entertainment in a convenient, pocket sized devise. However, the “app” mentality causes people to demand information and entertainment immediately. The phone and texting capacity give us the illusion we are interacting with others. And the digital music isolates us from the world. Technology such as the iPhone and cell phone might connect us to the world, but it also separates us from our environment. I love technology. But the purpose of it is to make our lives better, not to replace our lives with a digital version of culture. The threat is that it becomes a substitute for the things that it is supposed to enhance.
The church is also susceptible to the influences of a market shaping society. As churches, in their attempt to remain relevant to whatever demographic they typically serve, spend money on church growth products the available income for socially minded ventures is limited. But it isn’t just social programs that suffer. The individual church member is inundated with technology, speakers, studies, trips, and on and on. The church is pouring thousands of dollars of Christian culture into each individual member. This eventually can lead to members measuring their commitment to the church as a monetary value per member. The real philosophical problem then appears as believers then rate their commitment to God on the same basis. There may be lessons from the pulpit about simplicity, charity, and sacrifice, but the actions of the church contradict these values as they attempt to pour as many resources into the congregation as possible. The bigger the church the greater the resources are per person. The ruling church has the greatest potential to increase their revenue because they have the greatest resources to spend.
This is not a call to any specific economic system. I no more advocate for socialism than capitalism. In fact, I believe capitalism provides the greatest potential for societal development. However, it is a warning against any church culture being shaped by the American economic system. Values must be shaped by virtues. And culture must be shaped by those values. This simply isn’t because we have a social responsibility to take care of those without, even though we do, but because our identity is far too fragile to be shaped by anything that can manipulate and exploit us. As I deconstruct my modern world view I am becoming increasingly aware of how I have been shaped by media, technology, and what is fashionable. The postmodern world allows the opportunity to embrace a more authentic identity based on more meaningful insight and diverse perspectives. Our theology no longer needs to be subject to what is consumable, but what is true.
Technology offers a good example of how the market place is negatively affecting society. There is no doubt that advances in technology have been prolific. Improved health care, scientific discovery, and even interpersonal communication are but just a few of the ways that technology has advanced society. And that, in fact, is the goal of technology: to improve society. But with all the advances that technology has brought it has simultaneously hindered cultural progress. The iPhone gives an individual the opportunity to manage a vast amount of information and entertainment in a convenient, pocket sized devise. However, the “app” mentality causes people to demand information and entertainment immediately. The phone and texting capacity give us the illusion we are interacting with others. And the digital music isolates us from the world. Technology such as the iPhone and cell phone might connect us to the world, but it also separates us from our environment. I love technology. But the purpose of it is to make our lives better, not to replace our lives with a digital version of culture. The threat is that it becomes a substitute for the things that it is supposed to enhance.
The church is also susceptible to the influences of a market shaping society. As churches, in their attempt to remain relevant to whatever demographic they typically serve, spend money on church growth products the available income for socially minded ventures is limited. But it isn’t just social programs that suffer. The individual church member is inundated with technology, speakers, studies, trips, and on and on. The church is pouring thousands of dollars of Christian culture into each individual member. This eventually can lead to members measuring their commitment to the church as a monetary value per member. The real philosophical problem then appears as believers then rate their commitment to God on the same basis. There may be lessons from the pulpit about simplicity, charity, and sacrifice, but the actions of the church contradict these values as they attempt to pour as many resources into the congregation as possible. The bigger the church the greater the resources are per person. The ruling church has the greatest potential to increase their revenue because they have the greatest resources to spend.
This is not a call to any specific economic system. I no more advocate for socialism than capitalism. In fact, I believe capitalism provides the greatest potential for societal development. However, it is a warning against any church culture being shaped by the American economic system. Values must be shaped by virtues. And culture must be shaped by those values. This simply isn’t because we have a social responsibility to take care of those without, even though we do, but because our identity is far too fragile to be shaped by anything that can manipulate and exploit us. As I deconstruct my modern world view I am becoming increasingly aware of how I have been shaped by media, technology, and what is fashionable. The postmodern world allows the opportunity to embrace a more authentic identity based on more meaningful insight and diverse perspectives. Our theology no longer needs to be subject to what is consumable, but what is true.
Monday, July 19, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: CAPITALISM- Part 3
(3) I may have had some support comparing church growth models with the first two components of capitalism, but when it comes to the third component, profit motive, I may lose a few of you. So what then is the profit for churches? I think that has to be dismantled some. But before I do, let me clarify that I think taking pride in the ministry your church offers is completely reasonable and beneficial. Okay that stated, there are two entities in the organizational church: general population and church leadership. The general population has many levels of involvement and investment of the church and will likely, at times, to take on the role of leadership, but I am differentiating the two by the executive leadership and the rest. The general population has a lot to gain by church growth. What they gain, however, is typically a greater sense of pride and more opportunities. There are many potentially negative gains the general population can experience, but there are just as many, if not more, positives. The one notable negative is that church growth becomes the primary strategy for sharing ones faith. The teaching is given that getting people to church is somehow the same thing as investing in someone’s life. That is not always the case, but assimilating becomes the goal of evangelism for many. However, the second group, leadership, has a lot to profit in church growth. From a capitalistic perspective this makes sense. The workers may benefit from business growth, but the goal is to profit the primary stakeholders. So what does church leadership profit? It would vary from church to church obviously, but there are a few that stand out. The most obvious and least dangerous is a sense of pride. Now obviously this can turn to arrogance, but taking pride in one’s church is hard to criticize. However there are two other profits that are dangerous. Even within the same organization, many in leadership use church growth strategies to create their ideal organization. This is linked, obviously, to the pride issue before, but it goes a step further takes the form of creating a territory. The other profit for church leadership can be financial. This isn’t the case for all and is occasionally an unintentional result that is enjoyed, but there is no doubt that many churches see church growth as an opportunity to raise more money. How churches use this money shapes its profit, but there are some churches that see significant raises in salaries and facilities as a result of church growth. Finally, there are a few insidious profits that take each of these to the next level with fame, empires, and great wealth, but I believe those are rare cases even if there are a number of pastors out there who secretly desire those things and have yet to make it happen.
(4) The final component of capitalism is private ownership. I will make this one short because it is linked with the previous component. Church growth strategies don’t necessarily require churches that have centralized leadership, but are often utilized by these types of churches. There is typically no private ownership in the church, but there is a hierarchy. Even if I believe that if the Reformation taught us anything it was that hierarchies are dangerous, it is not my point here to challenge centralized leadership. I simply want to note that centralized leadership is similar to private ownership and has intrinsic danger.
When western society gave the power of shaping society over to young consumers with the greatest degree of disposable income in the middle of the 20th century it opened the door a poststructuralist and identity development driven society. Adolescents and young adults define themselves by the clothing they wear, the music they listen to, and the food they eat. In a rapid and competitive market, young people are constantly pushing boundaries of their own beliefs and those who imposed beliefs on them. So the elements of their identity are shaped by the rapidly changing market. With the market place being driven so strongly by younger consumers, poststructuralism permeates society. Ultimately creating a society where we are:
· Defined by the products we produce and consume
· Unable to create intrinsic meaning
(4) The final component of capitalism is private ownership. I will make this one short because it is linked with the previous component. Church growth strategies don’t necessarily require churches that have centralized leadership, but are often utilized by these types of churches. There is typically no private ownership in the church, but there is a hierarchy. Even if I believe that if the Reformation taught us anything it was that hierarchies are dangerous, it is not my point here to challenge centralized leadership. I simply want to note that centralized leadership is similar to private ownership and has intrinsic danger.
When western society gave the power of shaping society over to young consumers with the greatest degree of disposable income in the middle of the 20th century it opened the door a poststructuralist and identity development driven society. Adolescents and young adults define themselves by the clothing they wear, the music they listen to, and the food they eat. In a rapid and competitive market, young people are constantly pushing boundaries of their own beliefs and those who imposed beliefs on them. So the elements of their identity are shaped by the rapidly changing market. With the market place being driven so strongly by younger consumers, poststructuralism permeates society. Ultimately creating a society where we are:
· Defined by the products we produce and consume
· Unable to create intrinsic meaning
Thursday, July 15, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: CAPITALISM- Part 2
The Four Components of Capitalism:
(1) The first is it requires a free market. A free market is defined by the exchange of goods and services. When I was working in the church there was a clear expectation that my ministry needed a strong “program”. Sounds reasonable. This meant that I needed to have top quality “programs” that would be appealing to the population I was responsible for. The mindset being that my program (the goods and services) would increase participation (exchange). It was a logical, yet business friendly, approach to ministry. My goal in this model is to put my full energy into creating a product. The goal in this model is neither quality nor outcomes, but marketability. From a pure capitalistic perspective, quality would naturally increase or else people wouldn’t participate, however, quality is defined in this model as satisfaction, not spiritual development. Now I support the notion of program development and I understand the value of increasing participation, but what makes this model capitalistic, even beyond the desired outcomes, is that it becomes a reciprocal relationship between the organization and the participants, making the organization separate from the participants. Being a church is the desired outcome, but the church only exists in this model to the extent that the exchange of goods and services is occurring. I appreciate that many churches are attempting to be less program driven. I believe this is a really good move by churches. The intent is to back away from the “busy-ness” of church life and put more energy into intimate fellowships and worship. There are, however, two dangers in this approach: (1) the existing programs would have an even greater need to a marketable product and (2) that programs are eliminated without providing ways for people to continue to learn, grow, and serve. I do feel that this approach is very beneficial, however, the concept of churches creating a product continues to drive most church growth models.
(2) The second component of capitalism is open competition. I am not sure if I have shared this story previously, but there is no better example of open competition in church growth models than the preparation for Easter Sunday. In the last church I worked in the couple of months leading to Easter Sunday was “go time”. Staff meetings consistently focused on discussing how to capitalize on the large numbers of people who would inevitably be in church on Easter. The point of the conversations was to see how we, as an organization, could make the visitors and members who only occasionally came feel so welcome and enjoy the experience so much that they would want to join or become more active. Providing shuttle service and potentially parking services were discussed. Having an open brunch in the “Christian Life Center” was prepared. Obviously there were discussions on how to outdo ourselves in the worship itself. Very little discussion occurred regarding what Easter meant to us as a church or how we could take advantage of the large population to share Christ beyond how those values could ensure that people would return the next week. There is new evidence that traditional local churches are closing while large mega-churches and home fellowships are increasing. The overall number of churches is actually increasing, but the number of people who are active in church is decreasing. So if there is a significant shift in which churches are growing and shrinking while religious participation is decreasing that means that people in church either quit going to church or are moving around from church to church. The point being that despite all the work that is being done by church growth models, churches are (for the most part) not growing because their ministry is reaching new people, but because their church is more appealing to church people than the church that person was previously going to. I completely understand that if a person is in a church that isn’t “meeting their needs” that they would begin to “look around”, but churches are using church growth models to attract these people and are perpetuating the competitive mentality and developing churches that are simply more appealing to people who would be in church anyway.
(1) The first is it requires a free market. A free market is defined by the exchange of goods and services. When I was working in the church there was a clear expectation that my ministry needed a strong “program”. Sounds reasonable. This meant that I needed to have top quality “programs” that would be appealing to the population I was responsible for. The mindset being that my program (the goods and services) would increase participation (exchange). It was a logical, yet business friendly, approach to ministry. My goal in this model is to put my full energy into creating a product. The goal in this model is neither quality nor outcomes, but marketability. From a pure capitalistic perspective, quality would naturally increase or else people wouldn’t participate, however, quality is defined in this model as satisfaction, not spiritual development. Now I support the notion of program development and I understand the value of increasing participation, but what makes this model capitalistic, even beyond the desired outcomes, is that it becomes a reciprocal relationship between the organization and the participants, making the organization separate from the participants. Being a church is the desired outcome, but the church only exists in this model to the extent that the exchange of goods and services is occurring. I appreciate that many churches are attempting to be less program driven. I believe this is a really good move by churches. The intent is to back away from the “busy-ness” of church life and put more energy into intimate fellowships and worship. There are, however, two dangers in this approach: (1) the existing programs would have an even greater need to a marketable product and (2) that programs are eliminated without providing ways for people to continue to learn, grow, and serve. I do feel that this approach is very beneficial, however, the concept of churches creating a product continues to drive most church growth models.
(2) The second component of capitalism is open competition. I am not sure if I have shared this story previously, but there is no better example of open competition in church growth models than the preparation for Easter Sunday. In the last church I worked in the couple of months leading to Easter Sunday was “go time”. Staff meetings consistently focused on discussing how to capitalize on the large numbers of people who would inevitably be in church on Easter. The point of the conversations was to see how we, as an organization, could make the visitors and members who only occasionally came feel so welcome and enjoy the experience so much that they would want to join or become more active. Providing shuttle service and potentially parking services were discussed. Having an open brunch in the “Christian Life Center” was prepared. Obviously there were discussions on how to outdo ourselves in the worship itself. Very little discussion occurred regarding what Easter meant to us as a church or how we could take advantage of the large population to share Christ beyond how those values could ensure that people would return the next week. There is new evidence that traditional local churches are closing while large mega-churches and home fellowships are increasing. The overall number of churches is actually increasing, but the number of people who are active in church is decreasing. So if there is a significant shift in which churches are growing and shrinking while religious participation is decreasing that means that people in church either quit going to church or are moving around from church to church. The point being that despite all the work that is being done by church growth models, churches are (for the most part) not growing because their ministry is reaching new people, but because their church is more appealing to church people than the church that person was previously going to. I completely understand that if a person is in a church that isn’t “meeting their needs” that they would begin to “look around”, but churches are using church growth models to attract these people and are perpetuating the competitive mentality and developing churches that are simply more appealing to people who would be in church anyway.
Monday, July 12, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: CAPITALISM- Part 1
“Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class” (Al Capone)
No one is going to confuse me for an economist or political scientist so if at any point when reading this post you say to yourself, “Craig has no idea what he is talking about” then you are absolutely right. However, my thoughts regarding capitalism don’t come from an economic or political perspective. They come from a perspective that is more concerned about how capitalism has seeped into my theology. I acknowledge that my emerging post-evangelistic views are not shaped by bible study alone. Rather they are shaped by a prolific array of points that shape how I see who I am in light of my relationship with Christ. Since I am an American I must realize that the American ideal has played a significant role in my spiritual development.
No healthy society, Christian sub-culture included, can be defined by its economic structure alone. When values are determined by the way a society shapes its economic framework than it is vulnerable to not only the obvious consumerism and corporate manipulation, but also shaped by those who value such things. This is not to say that a society can’t be defined by the way it “spends” its money. In fact, I think that the way a culture spends its money is a significant variable in its identity. Rather, I am referring to the infusion of the economic system into theology. Nor am I saying that capitalism is un-Christian. Capitalism has shown itself to be one of the great stabilizers in politics and has help promote quality and ingenuity in every sector. So in fact, this entry is not about capitalism as an economic issue, but capitalism as a philosophical issue.
Capitalism, as an economic term, has four components: (1) free market, (2) open competition, (3) profit motive, and (4) private ownership. These values have found their way into western psyche and the Christian evangelical mindset. Specifically I am considering church growth. I have avoided discussing church growth because I have feared that it would sound as though I am against churches growing or considering how to grow, at least numerically. Church growth, however, should be the result of something other than church growth strategies. At times a church will experience large growth for factors neither related to the work of God nor church growth strategies. A particular church could experience growth due to the unintentional charisma of leadership of worship or something as simple as geographic population growth. But when the value of the ministry of the organization is measured simply on head count and satisfaction than the church has become institutional in nature. This is not to say that the church and especially that God are unable to work in an institutional church. I believe that God has proven His mercy repeatedly throughout the history of Christianity. There is no doubt that the churches of the middle ages were some of the most unhealthy church models ever, but somehow people continued to experience the presence of Christ during those times. As an assessment professional I have to balance business growth with attainment of desired outcomes. Likewise, church growth must balance numeric and spiritual growth. The attainment of spiritual growth, however, cannot be limited to the appearance of growth for it to be a true measurement though. In fact, often the appearance of spiritual growth is only valuable for numeric growth. The church will come to rely on the illusion of spiritual growth to fuel numeric growth. This is a difficult message to convey because a mega-church can create powerful worship experiences for an individual and small home-church can create powerful intimate experiences for individuals but neither is necessarily producing spiritual growth. Likewise, a church can appear dead and stagnant and actually be producing significant growth for the individuals. Growth should be the result of a tension between numeric and spiritual growth. Church growth strategies, however, help the church appear to be spiritually vibrant for the sake of numeric growth. The outcome, for those with innocent motives, being that simply have more people will give way to deeper spiritual vitality. This is likely not to happen if the foundation of the growth strategy is an illusion of spiritual vitality. However, for many, the outcomes are far less innocent. For most, the desire to grow is motivated by capitalism.
No one is going to confuse me for an economist or political scientist so if at any point when reading this post you say to yourself, “Craig has no idea what he is talking about” then you are absolutely right. However, my thoughts regarding capitalism don’t come from an economic or political perspective. They come from a perspective that is more concerned about how capitalism has seeped into my theology. I acknowledge that my emerging post-evangelistic views are not shaped by bible study alone. Rather they are shaped by a prolific array of points that shape how I see who I am in light of my relationship with Christ. Since I am an American I must realize that the American ideal has played a significant role in my spiritual development.
No healthy society, Christian sub-culture included, can be defined by its economic structure alone. When values are determined by the way a society shapes its economic framework than it is vulnerable to not only the obvious consumerism and corporate manipulation, but also shaped by those who value such things. This is not to say that a society can’t be defined by the way it “spends” its money. In fact, I think that the way a culture spends its money is a significant variable in its identity. Rather, I am referring to the infusion of the economic system into theology. Nor am I saying that capitalism is un-Christian. Capitalism has shown itself to be one of the great stabilizers in politics and has help promote quality and ingenuity in every sector. So in fact, this entry is not about capitalism as an economic issue, but capitalism as a philosophical issue.
Capitalism, as an economic term, has four components: (1) free market, (2) open competition, (3) profit motive, and (4) private ownership. These values have found their way into western psyche and the Christian evangelical mindset. Specifically I am considering church growth. I have avoided discussing church growth because I have feared that it would sound as though I am against churches growing or considering how to grow, at least numerically. Church growth, however, should be the result of something other than church growth strategies. At times a church will experience large growth for factors neither related to the work of God nor church growth strategies. A particular church could experience growth due to the unintentional charisma of leadership of worship or something as simple as geographic population growth. But when the value of the ministry of the organization is measured simply on head count and satisfaction than the church has become institutional in nature. This is not to say that the church and especially that God are unable to work in an institutional church. I believe that God has proven His mercy repeatedly throughout the history of Christianity. There is no doubt that the churches of the middle ages were some of the most unhealthy church models ever, but somehow people continued to experience the presence of Christ during those times. As an assessment professional I have to balance business growth with attainment of desired outcomes. Likewise, church growth must balance numeric and spiritual growth. The attainment of spiritual growth, however, cannot be limited to the appearance of growth for it to be a true measurement though. In fact, often the appearance of spiritual growth is only valuable for numeric growth. The church will come to rely on the illusion of spiritual growth to fuel numeric growth. This is a difficult message to convey because a mega-church can create powerful worship experiences for an individual and small home-church can create powerful intimate experiences for individuals but neither is necessarily producing spiritual growth. Likewise, a church can appear dead and stagnant and actually be producing significant growth for the individuals. Growth should be the result of a tension between numeric and spiritual growth. Church growth strategies, however, help the church appear to be spiritually vibrant for the sake of numeric growth. The outcome, for those with innocent motives, being that simply have more people will give way to deeper spiritual vitality. This is likely not to happen if the foundation of the growth strategy is an illusion of spiritual vitality. However, for many, the outcomes are far less innocent. For most, the desire to grow is motivated by capitalism.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: POLITICS- Part 3
The immediate answer to resolving this dilemma is scripture. As much as I agree with the value of utilizing scripture to shape our understanding of truth I do fear that by relying completely on scripture alone demonstrates to what extent we are shaped by culture. Scripture wasn’t written as a playbook as many argue. It was written as the narrative of God and His love for us. It contains absolute truth, but it is uniquely American to believe that all the answers can be found in the Bible if you just look hard enough. Prayer is another option. Again, a good option. But the answers we receive in prayer have a strange proclivity to support what we fundamentally believe already. Maybe the answer is in tradition? There is no doubt that theology and traditions have given much direction to the Church in profoundly meaningful ways. But tradition has also been a stumbling block to progress and revelation. It could be found in fasting, service, or other disciplines. True. Maybe it comes from passively moving with society and trusting that God will be faithful and will keep things in control.
However, I don’t think that the pursuit of truth can be formulated. In fact, I wonder if we are designed to live only in a shadow of truth, always seeking it but never finding it. That perhaps truth, as we want to know it, is not only far too complex for us to understand it or too intense for us to know it, but that it is in the seeking alone that we discover God. Knowing the right answers isn’t the goal, but knowing God. Obedience in all its raw and clumsy character is when we find what is actually most important. It isn’t in having the right answer or defense, but in knowing the heart of God. I spent my college years actively engaged in a group of Christians that were zealous about apologetics. We argued publically about faith and theology on campus, in bars, and in homes. It was a great part of my life that I will always treasure. God revealed a lot to me and I believe occasionally was able to use me. But what I know now is that none of the arguments brought me any closer to knowing God. Having the right answer never brought me any real comfort. And being able to defend my beliefs never grew me spiritually. As I continue to emerge from an old paradigm learning to let go of knowing the answers has been one of the most difficult challenges I have faced.
The real question I am left with as a post-evangelical Christian is what is truth in light of the politically charged western theology of the 21st century? As I emerge into a world-view that is open to corporate understanding of truth, how can hold to an absolute truth that is neither rigid nor fundamental? How do I balance social ethics with personal morality?
I don’t know. In all truth I feel that this is the greatest challenge for the 21st century Church. However, despite the opportunity we have to engage these issues for the first time with a true global perspective, it appears that the reaction that is occurring is to regress to more rigid beliefs systems and to rely on the rhetoric of ideology. While many places throughout the world are welcoming new dialogue, western Christianity is retreating to the security of consistency even thought the risks of such choices outweigh the benefits. Where do I stand in the midst of the ideological battlefield? Again I turn to the words of Martin Luther King, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”
“The conscious of the state.”
“Prophetic zeal.”
Post-evangelical Christians are a prophetic voice in the 21st century church. This doesn’t mean they possess an insight into God unavailable to others, but that they continue to say what they feel they have no other choice but to say. Likewise, they must seek each other out to refine these questions. And they must engage the church with love realizing that they will likely be rejected by the church for it. They must seek to understand the world without becoming conspirators with it. And finally, post-evangelicals must move beyond the ideologies of the church and question the motivations. It is in this quest that truth will be found, but it will be a truth revealed that comes with great sacrifices.
However, I don’t think that the pursuit of truth can be formulated. In fact, I wonder if we are designed to live only in a shadow of truth, always seeking it but never finding it. That perhaps truth, as we want to know it, is not only far too complex for us to understand it or too intense for us to know it, but that it is in the seeking alone that we discover God. Knowing the right answers isn’t the goal, but knowing God. Obedience in all its raw and clumsy character is when we find what is actually most important. It isn’t in having the right answer or defense, but in knowing the heart of God. I spent my college years actively engaged in a group of Christians that were zealous about apologetics. We argued publically about faith and theology on campus, in bars, and in homes. It was a great part of my life that I will always treasure. God revealed a lot to me and I believe occasionally was able to use me. But what I know now is that none of the arguments brought me any closer to knowing God. Having the right answer never brought me any real comfort. And being able to defend my beliefs never grew me spiritually. As I continue to emerge from an old paradigm learning to let go of knowing the answers has been one of the most difficult challenges I have faced.
The real question I am left with as a post-evangelical Christian is what is truth in light of the politically charged western theology of the 21st century? As I emerge into a world-view that is open to corporate understanding of truth, how can hold to an absolute truth that is neither rigid nor fundamental? How do I balance social ethics with personal morality?
I don’t know. In all truth I feel that this is the greatest challenge for the 21st century Church. However, despite the opportunity we have to engage these issues for the first time with a true global perspective, it appears that the reaction that is occurring is to regress to more rigid beliefs systems and to rely on the rhetoric of ideology. While many places throughout the world are welcoming new dialogue, western Christianity is retreating to the security of consistency even thought the risks of such choices outweigh the benefits. Where do I stand in the midst of the ideological battlefield? Again I turn to the words of Martin Luther King, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”
“The conscious of the state.”
“Prophetic zeal.”
Post-evangelical Christians are a prophetic voice in the 21st century church. This doesn’t mean they possess an insight into God unavailable to others, but that they continue to say what they feel they have no other choice but to say. Likewise, they must seek each other out to refine these questions. And they must engage the church with love realizing that they will likely be rejected by the church for it. They must seek to understand the world without becoming conspirators with it. And finally, post-evangelicals must move beyond the ideologies of the church and question the motivations. It is in this quest that truth will be found, but it will be a truth revealed that comes with great sacrifices.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: POLITICS- Part 2
Martin Luther King was one of the most prophetic voices of the 20th century, not simply for Civil Rights, but for the Church. Following are a series of random quotes that should give the Church a fresh perspective on laws and their moral value. (By the way, I am not proposing that Martin Luther King would have endorsed marijuana.)
“But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated.”
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.”
“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”
”Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
“The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”
“We must realize that Jesus was nailed to the cross not simply by sin but also by blindness”
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
“Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.”
Back to the Point
There is a very significant purpose for laws and I believe it is the responsibility of Christians to honor the laws of whatever nation they are in. I also believe that Christians, if they choose to vote, should vote in a way which reflects their values. Even though I feel that Christian values are far too complicated to be reflected in either political paradigm, if you feel this is best represented within allegiance toward a particular political party then party loyalty is understandable. But when laws are used as a way to validate the values of the Church then we have made laws an idol. Jesus’ crime was that he challenged the power structure of the ancient world. A central goal of Christ was to change the political structure and the abuse of power and wealth of the Romans and religious elite. Rarely did he blatantly break the laws of the land and often encouraged His followers to obey the laws of the land. Many of His teachings were directly related to Roman or religious laws or how the culture surrounding the political landscape of His day. He never used violence in His protests, but did take on the system head on. There is no doubt that Christ was politically astute and socially driven. But despite all His political activism and social protests, Christ was securely focused on one thing: the Kingdom of God.
During the last presidential debate faith and religion were central issues. Christian conservatives became a divided force struggling between the moral authority of the Republican Party and the social compassion of the Democratic Party. Christians who had a more liberal slant argued with the rest of America that it was time to embrace the mercy and grace of Christ and vote Democrat. In the midst of the upheaval Christians were forced to ask themselves what is the true place for politics in the Christian life. Despite the valuable insight gained during this historic time in Christian political thinking, Christians ultimately voted according to what they believed should be the legal standard. This act became an exercise in Christian elitism as well as displaying insecurity in the value of faith beyond the Word of God alone.
Despite what we may want to believe regarding the development of what we, as Christians, believe today, the simple truth is that much of what we believe is the result of political and social change and the subsequent response of the Church. The cultural influences of the world have aided and hindered the Church many times over throughout history and will continue to do so. Much of what we believe today as absolute truth within the Body of Christ will change dramatically over the next few decades and the Christians of tomorrow will embrace the new truths with the same amount of vitality. And many of these changes in the ways we view truth will be sharply formed by what is happening politically. The Christians of tomorrow will also likely shape their understanding of what is right or wrong by what is or is not legal. The challenge for the Christian of tomorrow is the same as the challenge for the Christian of today: how are we going to shape what is right and what is wrong both within the context of the law and beyond the limitations of government?
“But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated.”
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.”
“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”
”Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
“The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”
“We must realize that Jesus was nailed to the cross not simply by sin but also by blindness”
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
“Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.”
Back to the Point
There is a very significant purpose for laws and I believe it is the responsibility of Christians to honor the laws of whatever nation they are in. I also believe that Christians, if they choose to vote, should vote in a way which reflects their values. Even though I feel that Christian values are far too complicated to be reflected in either political paradigm, if you feel this is best represented within allegiance toward a particular political party then party loyalty is understandable. But when laws are used as a way to validate the values of the Church then we have made laws an idol. Jesus’ crime was that he challenged the power structure of the ancient world. A central goal of Christ was to change the political structure and the abuse of power and wealth of the Romans and religious elite. Rarely did he blatantly break the laws of the land and often encouraged His followers to obey the laws of the land. Many of His teachings were directly related to Roman or religious laws or how the culture surrounding the political landscape of His day. He never used violence in His protests, but did take on the system head on. There is no doubt that Christ was politically astute and socially driven. But despite all His political activism and social protests, Christ was securely focused on one thing: the Kingdom of God.
During the last presidential debate faith and religion were central issues. Christian conservatives became a divided force struggling between the moral authority of the Republican Party and the social compassion of the Democratic Party. Christians who had a more liberal slant argued with the rest of America that it was time to embrace the mercy and grace of Christ and vote Democrat. In the midst of the upheaval Christians were forced to ask themselves what is the true place for politics in the Christian life. Despite the valuable insight gained during this historic time in Christian political thinking, Christians ultimately voted according to what they believed should be the legal standard. This act became an exercise in Christian elitism as well as displaying insecurity in the value of faith beyond the Word of God alone.
Despite what we may want to believe regarding the development of what we, as Christians, believe today, the simple truth is that much of what we believe is the result of political and social change and the subsequent response of the Church. The cultural influences of the world have aided and hindered the Church many times over throughout history and will continue to do so. Much of what we believe today as absolute truth within the Body of Christ will change dramatically over the next few decades and the Christians of tomorrow will embrace the new truths with the same amount of vitality. And many of these changes in the ways we view truth will be sharply formed by what is happening politically. The Christians of tomorrow will also likely shape their understanding of what is right or wrong by what is or is not legal. The challenge for the Christian of tomorrow is the same as the challenge for the Christian of today: how are we going to shape what is right and what is wrong both within the context of the law and beyond the limitations of government?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: POLITICS- Part 1
”Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” (Martin Luther King)
The history of the illegalization of marijuana is an interesting one. Despite the overwhelming evidence that marijuana is not nearly as dangerous for the individual or society as legal and illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine, marijuana has been labeled a dangerous substance. Like any substance, marijuana can be abused and like many behaviors, marijuana can be addictive. Marijuana can cause lethargy and lack of motivation and short-term memory loss, but unlike alcohol it does not cause death, violence, or organ damage. Marijuana has been linked to health problems, but not to the same extent of legal substances like alcohol and tobacco.
So then how did marijuana become illegal and receive such a bad reputation? The truth is that it stems from racism, fear, ignorance, and political greed more than anything else. For most of human history, marijuana was completely legal. It wasn’t made illegal until the early 20th century. In fact, America valued hemp as a consumer good useful for many products. In the late 19th century there were thousands of hemp plantations throughout the country.
It wasn’t until the early 1900s when the western states began dealing with the rapid influx of Mexicans that marijuana became a tool to deal with the immigration problem. The perceived popularity of marijuana of the Mexican people was exploited as a difference between whites and Mexicans. California outlawed hemp as a means of culturally undermining the Mexican population. Other states quickly followed. In the eastern states the use of marijuana was connected to a combination of Latinos and black jazz musicians. There were many who believed marijuana was a significant aspect of the Latino community and music scene, but it wasn’t considered a problem until tensions were growing between these groups and white Americans.
During this same era in American history, prohibition was a hot topic across the country. Alcohol was a visible debate while the drug laws were mostly unnoticed. The difference being that it was assumed that white people preferred alcohol while minorities’ drug of choice was often marijuana. So it is obvious why alcohol remained at the front of debates. Tax penalties and constitutional amendments were used to control alcohol and drugs through legislation such as the Harrison Act of 1914. In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics with Harry J. Anslinger named as director. More dangerous drugs were beginning to go under the control of the government, but Anslinger realized that he would need a popular drug to be controlled if he was going to make his mark of the department. He drew upon the themes of racism and violence to campaign for the illegalization of marijuana. Anslinger said of marijuana,
There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others. (Harry J. Anslinger, 1st U.S. Drug Czar- 1932)
At this point it may appear that it is my desire to see marijuana legalized and that I feel suppressed by the government. I am actually pretty lame and have never had marijuana and am not sure if I have ever even seen it. Whether it should be legalized or not, I am just not sure. There are plenty of good reasons for it to remain illegal. There is sufficient evidence that the potency of THC, or tetradrocannabinol, is significantly higher in today’s engineered marijuana than in the marijuana as late as the 1960s. And the newer versions of marijuana also contain chemicals that have been linked to cancer and other health problems. But rather, I am concerned with how the illegalization of marijuana and the subsequent attitudes toward the substance illustrate how modern Christianity has developed reliance of what is or is not legal to determine what is and is not right and subsequently, how often modern Christianity relies on laws to make something right or wrong.
The history of the illegalization of marijuana is an interesting one. Despite the overwhelming evidence that marijuana is not nearly as dangerous for the individual or society as legal and illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine, marijuana has been labeled a dangerous substance. Like any substance, marijuana can be abused and like many behaviors, marijuana can be addictive. Marijuana can cause lethargy and lack of motivation and short-term memory loss, but unlike alcohol it does not cause death, violence, or organ damage. Marijuana has been linked to health problems, but not to the same extent of legal substances like alcohol and tobacco.
So then how did marijuana become illegal and receive such a bad reputation? The truth is that it stems from racism, fear, ignorance, and political greed more than anything else. For most of human history, marijuana was completely legal. It wasn’t made illegal until the early 20th century. In fact, America valued hemp as a consumer good useful for many products. In the late 19th century there were thousands of hemp plantations throughout the country.
It wasn’t until the early 1900s when the western states began dealing with the rapid influx of Mexicans that marijuana became a tool to deal with the immigration problem. The perceived popularity of marijuana of the Mexican people was exploited as a difference between whites and Mexicans. California outlawed hemp as a means of culturally undermining the Mexican population. Other states quickly followed. In the eastern states the use of marijuana was connected to a combination of Latinos and black jazz musicians. There were many who believed marijuana was a significant aspect of the Latino community and music scene, but it wasn’t considered a problem until tensions were growing between these groups and white Americans.
During this same era in American history, prohibition was a hot topic across the country. Alcohol was a visible debate while the drug laws were mostly unnoticed. The difference being that it was assumed that white people preferred alcohol while minorities’ drug of choice was often marijuana. So it is obvious why alcohol remained at the front of debates. Tax penalties and constitutional amendments were used to control alcohol and drugs through legislation such as the Harrison Act of 1914. In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics with Harry J. Anslinger named as director. More dangerous drugs were beginning to go under the control of the government, but Anslinger realized that he would need a popular drug to be controlled if he was going to make his mark of the department. He drew upon the themes of racism and violence to campaign for the illegalization of marijuana. Anslinger said of marijuana,
There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others. (Harry J. Anslinger, 1st U.S. Drug Czar- 1932)
At this point it may appear that it is my desire to see marijuana legalized and that I feel suppressed by the government. I am actually pretty lame and have never had marijuana and am not sure if I have ever even seen it. Whether it should be legalized or not, I am just not sure. There are plenty of good reasons for it to remain illegal. There is sufficient evidence that the potency of THC, or tetradrocannabinol, is significantly higher in today’s engineered marijuana than in the marijuana as late as the 1960s. And the newer versions of marijuana also contain chemicals that have been linked to cancer and other health problems. But rather, I am concerned with how the illegalization of marijuana and the subsequent attitudes toward the substance illustrate how modern Christianity has developed reliance of what is or is not legal to determine what is and is not right and subsequently, how often modern Christianity relies on laws to make something right or wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)