progressive involvement

Not enough time

Global temperatures are rising.  Many have talked of discomfort and dislocation in regard to climate change, but let's at least start to face this hard fact:  It is entirely possible that global warming may kill off the human race.  When the day time high hits 170 degrees in Phoenix, anyone still living there will drop dead as soon as they step into the heat.  That day could be as soon as 50 years away.

In the meantime, people will begin moving north.  The temperatures will be (relatively) cooler, and, in most cases, a water supply will still be available.  Even at that, Minneapolis or Calgary (then) is likely to be hotter than anyplace on earth at the present time.

Desert cities will become ghost towns as will a good number of towns and villages in more arid locations, including the Amazon basin, India, parts of Africa, China, Australia and the south-eastern US.  Global warming could get so bad that even northern climes become uninhabitable.  If that should happen, the human race would be doomed.

The demise of the human race would be a calamity for all life on earth.  The sun will eventually expand and doom our planet.  As the sun gets bigger, all water will evaporate from the earth.  We need to find another planet, one which can sustain human and animal life, and we have about 300,000 to do it.  If we haven't found a way off planet earth by then, no life will survive.

At present, humans are the only earthly beings scientifically advanced enough to find a way off this planet in 300,000 years.  Given enough time, dolphins, or perhaps bees, could take over and find a way to do it, but 300,000 years is probably not enough time for that evolution to take place.  Therefore, it's up to us not to kill ourselves off before we have a chance to make the move to another planet.

What are the odds?

Birth of a supercell thunderstorm

 

Greatest question of our time

Great people ask great questions.  Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther’s great question was:  How can I find a gracious God?  Fifty years ago, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s great question was:  Who is Christ for us today?

I’m wondering if there is a great question that faces people in our time today.  We were discussing this in text study a few weeks ago, and one of my friends said that he thought the great question of today is how to relate to, and what to do with, people who call themselves “spiritual, but not religious.”  

You’ve heard that expression before.  You may have used it yourself.  These are people who, by and large, want to stay away from religion, but want to hang on to spirituality.  

This has become quite a popular position, and it’s not too hard to figure out why.  Religion is associated with arguments and contention.  Religion is associated with arguing about the meaning of words.  Religion is associated with judgment and close-mindedness.  Given how people view religion, it’s not surprising that some people would move away from it.

Better get cracking

Stephen Hawking, who may be the smartest person in the world, thinks we only have about another 1000 years on this planet.  He expects human beings to be extinct by then because of "our fragile planet."

"We must continue to go into space for humanity. If you understand how the universe operates, you control it in a way," Professor Hawking said, adding that "we won't survive another 1,000 years without escaping our fragile planet."

Our sun is about half-way or so through its life cycle.  In about 400,000 years, the sun will expand and consume the earth.  Earth, of course, will have been uninhabitable for 100,000 or so before that.  All surface water will evaporate, and the atmosphere will disintegrate about 300,000 from now.

This would give us plenty of time to find another planet, or another way for human beings to survive somewhere.

Global warming and climate change rolls earth's potential doomsday much, much closer.  It is entirely possible that human beings will indeed become extinct because of climate change.  The atmosphere is thin and fragile.  We've messed with it, and now face our hour of peril.  Within 100 years, many portions of our world will not be uninhabitable.

We will need another place to go. 

The "new monasticism"

The shape of religion is changing rapidly around the world.  Africa is becoming the center of world monotheism.  Protestantism, progressive Roman Catholicism, and secularism are all on the rise in Latin America.

Christianity is outwardly prospering in the third world, yet perhaps as many as half of these new Christians were evangelized by the "prosperity gospel," which has about as much contact with the real gospel as a fish does with a cinnamon bagel.

In the United States, Christians are deep in the throes of an on-going culture war, one that is slowly tilting away from conservatives.  Most Roman Catholics like their nuns way better than they like their bishops, and gay rights is rapidly increasing in public support among all groups, including evangelicals.

For thirty years, the religious right has conflated the terms "Christian" and "conservative," and for twenty-nine years, the mainstream media has abetted them.  This gives the false impression that Christians are under assault from a secular culture, and are a beleaguered band of the "pure" lost in a society that is descending into a secularist hell-hole.

That's on the one hand.  On the other hand, while Christians do have their problems, some new things are operating under the radar.  The "emergent" churches are starting to have an impact.  They may not be large in numbers, but they dominate the discussion in all wings of protestantism.

Now, "the new monasticism" is making its appearance.  The name, incidentally, is misleading.  This is not about going to a convent or a monastery.  The "new monasticism" is an attitude of devotion, an appreciation of both action and contemplation, an understanding of, in de Chardin's words, the "divine milieu" in which we live.  Thomas Merton:

Contemplation is life itself, fully awake, fully active, and fully aware that it is alive.  It is spiritual wonder.  It is spontaneous awe at the sacredness of life, of being.  It is gratitude for life, for awareness, and for being.  It is a vivid realization of the fact that life and being in us proceed from an invisible, transcendent, and infinitely abundant Source.

Good Lutherans, the "new monastics" see "the holiness of the secular."  Our world is not split between the sacred and the secular.  There is no "pure" and there is no "unclean."  All creation is fully capable of being both holy and profane--at the same time, saint and sinner, Luther said.

Sacramental theology makes such a view possible--indeed, demands it.  If Christ can be fully present with us in the most common elements of earth--water, bread, wine--then Christ can be present with us through anything in all creation.  The reformer Philip Melanchthon once said, "There are a thousand sacraments"--anything in the world can bring Christ.

It will be interesting to see which, if any, spiritual traditions "have legs" as we move through this century.  What appears to be "up" right now may not be "up" in the year 2100.  No one knows if "emergent" or the "new monasticism" or any other spiritual thread will prosper or fizzle.

Nevertheless, every person is a mystic, whether they know it or not.  Every person has what the psychologist Abraham Maslow called "peak experiences," times when the window of every-day reality seemed to crack open and show something more.

Certain strands of the Christian tradition can give expression and encouragement to this phenomenon.  Those strands have been there all along, from the earliest days of the church, to the mystics of the middle ages, down to the present day.  The names of Origen, St. Theresa, St. Francis, Merton, Teilhard, and many more grace the pages of Christian history. 

It's a thin tradition, but a powerful one.  It represents many millions of people who don't have ready words for their own experiences.  Whether it prospers or not remains to be seen, though none of its advocates care much for "growth" or "success" as they are understood according to the customary models.

This tradition will continue, even when many others have long since faded.  The contemplative tradition will still be alive in the year 2100, perhaps vigorously alive, while some others, outwardly prospering now, may no longer even exist.

What was Bonhoeffer's "world come of age"?

People in the ancient world felt themselves dominated by forces from outside themselves, like “fate” and kings.  They felt themselves under external control. 

The medieval era—roughly the period from the decline of Rome to the reformation—was characterized by feelings of internal control.  People felt that they were controlled by forces within themselves, like sin and disease.  

The modern era was characterized by external freedom, the idea that we could use the laws of the universe to be free from being controlled.  Instead of being controlled, we could be in control ourselves.  We could do this through modern means, such as science, economics, engineering, and war.  The great gardens of Europe, for example, are creations of the modern era.  They express the sense that nature itself could be manipulated and molded—even controlled—by human beings.

It would follow that the (so-called) postmodern era could be a time characterized by internal freedom.  Will it?  Will it be a time when we seek freedom by asserting power over forces inside ourselves?  Put another way, will it be a time when we look for God less in “externals,” like dogmas, proofs, and external authorities, and more in “internals,” like relationship and devotion?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, writing in the 1940’s, and from a Nazi prison no less, anticipated this question when he spoke of a new consciousness which he called “a world come of age.”  For Bonhoeffer, “religious consciousness” was passing away and “world-come-of-age consciousness” was rising, a development which he welcomed.

By “religious consciousness,” he essentially meant a worldview that continues to be based in the authority of religion and church.  “Religious consciousness” was invested in retaining what it considered to be traditional understandings of God and reality.  

One of the ways that religion responded to science, for example, was by using “God” as an explanation for things that could not be explained (or, as it turned out, could not be explained yet).  Bonhoeffer used the phrase “god of the gaps” as a way of saying that, when there is a “gap” in our knowledge, it is quite often there that the church asserts “God.”  In other words, God is trotted out to explain what we cannot explain.  (Thus, ironically, “God” is associated with what we don’t know.)  

As we all know, science is now able to explain more and more of what, up until recently, was unknown.  The unknown has been, and is being, whittled down.  Since we had associated God with the unknown, many people came to feel that God was being whittled down too.  As we knew more and more about the processes of the universe, God seemed to be pushed more and more into the background. 

Perhaps this is why people in a “religious consciousness” tend to feel more and more unsettled and more and more out of place.  They tend to move away from these challenges of the secular world and into what Bonhoeffer called “religious enclaves” where they can pretend that “religious consciousness” still holds sway. People in a “religious consciousness” tend to be suspicious of new discovery, and leery of human achievement.  

In a “world come of age consciousness,” Bonhoeffer believed that the impulse toward human achievement, self-determination, and responsibility would not be resisted, but applauded.  The increase of knowledge would not be met with suspicion, but rather with welcome.  

With the decline of a “religious consciousness,” and the rise of “world come of age consciousness,” people would give less and less deference to a worldview that makes little sense to them.  They would, out of their own multiplicity of experience and ability to discern between competing claims, make their own decisions and actions in life, without falling back on, or seeking refuge in, any external authority.  

People would, of course, have to take responsibility for their autonomy and their decisions and actions in the world, which they would gladly do.  “World come of age” people do not shirk this responsibility, or fear it.  Indeed, they welcome it.  Of course, they recognize that they will make mistakes, but they will not blame “God” or “fate” or even “sin” for their failures.  They themselves will own up to them, without shame or guilt.  

Bonhoeffer believed that the church would resist the world’s coming of age.  The clergy will use all their “clerical tricks” to retain “religious consciousness,” he said.  They will frame certain questions in such a way that “(supposedly) only ‘God’ can give an answer.”

The very rich irony is that “world-come-of-age people” are actually closer to a Christian understanding of themselves and the world than are people in a “religious consciousness.”  Throughout the Bible, God calls people to take responsibility.  Directly in the face of the “religious consciousness” expressed by the Biblical pharisees, Jesus himself expressed a “world come of age consciousness” when he told them, “Why don’t you decide for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12: 57)

When Bonhoeffer opposed “religious consciousness,” he was not opposing the Christian faith, the gospel, the centrality of Christ, or the use of the Bible.  He did not even call for a change in the liturgy.  He was opposing a “head buried in sand” Christianity that, in its heart of hearts, wanted to revert to a 13^th century view of the world when the church told people what to think.    

“World come of age” consciousness would lead to a “religionless Christianity,” a Christianity that did not have its mind set in “religious consciousness,” one that did not seek God out there somewhere, in the wild, blue yonder, in a place we don’t really know.  

“Religionless Christianity in a world come of age” would seek God in the world we do know, in the midst of life, with all its joys and sorrows, successes and failures, and would encounter God precisely there, in one’s own heart, and in relationship with our neighbor.   

A “world come of age consciousness” is one of internal freedom.  It is freedom from the external control of “religion” and any other hierarchical authority.  People will, in an exercise of autonomy and responsibility, make their own decisions in life without relying upon the dictates of any institution—not church, not state, not even family.  Edwin Friedman, the late psychiatrist, called this exactly what Bonhoeffer called it:  “adulthood.”  

Thus, “world come of age consciousness” is not about morality.  It is not about “good” or “bad” or “right” or “wrong.”  It is not about moral perfection or even moral improvement.  It is about psychological maturity.  It is about taking responsibility for one’s self, and making one’s way in the world without excuses.

Bonhoeffer completely understood Luther’s famous saying:  “Sin boldly, and love and worship Christ more boldly still.”  To “sin boldly” is to make decisions.  I’m reminded of a scene in the movie “Ironweed” when a homeless woman, played by Meryl Streep, goes into a church to get warm.  Looking up at one of the side altars, she said, “I don’t call it sin.  I call it decisions.”  

We must act in the world.  We cannot escape this.  Naturally, we will make mistakes.  We will “sin.”  But, we can “sin boldly” because the gospel is not about not making mistakes. 

 

Cool!

 

327 years young

Lectionary blogging: Transfiguration, Mark 9: 2-9

2 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, ³and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them.⁴And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. ⁵Then Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.’ ⁶He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. ⁷Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved;listen to him!’ ⁸Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus. 9 As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

Translation:  And after six days, Jesus took Peter and James and John and he brought them into a high mountain, by themselves alone, and he was transformed before them, and his clothes began glistening dazzling white, such as no bleacher on the earth is able to make white, and it appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking together with Jesus.  And Peter answered, saying to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.  Let us make three booths, one for you, one for Moses, one for Elijah."  For he did not know what he was thinking, for they became afraid.  And a cloud happened, overshadowing them, and a voice happened out of a cloud, "This is my son, the beloved.  Listen to him."  And suddenly, looking around, they saw no one any longer but Jesus alone by himself.  As they were coming down out of the mountain, he ordered them to describe to no one what they had seen until the son of man might rise out of death.

 

Evangelical "discussion" on the historicity of Genesis moves into new territory

Evangelicals have two schools of thought on the Bible.  (1)  the inerrantist-fundamentalism of conservative evangelicals, and (2) the "let's talk about something else--How 'bout those Broncos?" approach of evangelical moderates.

Conservative evangelicals affirm inerrancy forthrightly and with gusto.  Moderate evangelicals get fuzzy on the question, like Christianity Today magazine, for example, which sometimes gives you the impression that they believe in literalism, but never seem to come right out and openly try to defend it.

In terms of the general public, Biblical literalism is still held by about a third of the population, but this number has also been in decline for decades.

 

Evangelicals have long tried to paper over something of a division on the question of the historicity of Genesis.  So far, the biggest difference of opinion has been in regard to the age of the universe.  The hard-line position is "young earth creationism," which asserts that the universe was created around 10,000 years ago.  The softer position is "old earth creationism," which asserts that everything else about Genesis is literally true, except that "day" is to be understood as a metaphor.

"Old earth creationists" don't put it that way--they wouldn't use the word "metaphor"--but that's basically how it comes out.  They understand "day" to mean "eras" or "epochs," which it may, although that somewhat elides the "and there was evening, and there was morning" phrasing in Genesis which would seem to support the use of "day" as being a 24-hour day.  (Benjamin Warfield and A.A. Dodge, sometimes called the founders of modern fundamentalism, took an old earth position.  Literalists quite often understand Biblical passages in metaphorical terms, even as they deny they're doing that very thing.)

Evangelical discord is breaking out into new territory.  On Tuesday, NPR noted several evangelical scholars who are questioning the historicity of Adam and Eve.  In other words, they do not believe that the human race began with these two individuals.  

Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

"This stuff is unavoidable," says Dan Harlow at Calvin College. "Evangelicals have to either face up to it or they have to stick their head in the sand. And if they do that, they will lose whatever intellectual currency or respectability they have."

As belief in Biblical literalism continues to decline, the evangelical position becomes increasingly difficult in terms of demographics and marketing.  Will they continue to market to the broad middle, in which case they need to moderate?  Or, will they market only to the dwindling number of the like-minded?

My own view?  The word “Adam” is Hebrew for “earth.”  The word “Eve” comes from another Hebrew word that is associated with “life.”  Therefore, “Adam” and “Eve” together stand for “living earth people.”  

Furthermore, to say “let the earth bring forth” and “let the seas bring forth” is, in ten words, the basic theory of evolution.  God did not create directly, but rather indirectly, through the earth and seas.  This is nothing new, incidentally.  St. Gregory of Nyssa said that the world had been created “with potential” way back in the fourth century.