“For too long, American Christianity has been poisoned by a narrowness of mind and spirit, demanding we believe the implausible, affirm the absurd, and despise the different. For many, the concepts of original sin, a God who sends people to hell, and Jesus as the only path to God can no longer be stomached. Thus thoughtful people leave the church in droves, no longer willing to diminish their lives or the lives of others for the sake of faith.
But what if there were another way? What if God wanted us to grow and change, both in our theology and our beliefs? In The Evolution of Faith, Philip Gulley invites us to put aside slavish obedience to antiquated faith claims and worldviews that no longer ring true, and discover what we really believe, rather than what we’ve always been taught.”
Actually, phantom passages, but plain old “phantoms” makes for a cheekier title. CNN posted a piece this past Saturday in their Belief Blog, called “Actually, that’s not in the Bible.” It’s got 6,220 comments (a tad more than our record), so you know it struck a chord.
What’s it about? All the sayings that people think are from the Bible, but, in fact, aren’t. Like:
This, too, shall pass.
God helps those who help themselves. (check your nearest $100 bill)
Spare the rod, spoil the child.
God works in mysterious ways.
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
Satan tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden. (paraphrase)
There are lots more. Why do they keep getting passed on from generation to generation?
[…] people rarely challenge them because biblical ignorance is so pervasive that it even reaches groups of people who should know better, says Steve Bouma-Prediger, a religion professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.
“In my college religion classes, I sometimes quote 2 Hesitations 4:3 (‘There are no internal combustion engines in heaven’),” Bouma-Prediger says. “I wait to see if anyone realizes that there is no such book in the Bible and therefore no such verse.
“Only a few catch on.”
Few catch on because they don’t want to – people prefer knowing biblical passages that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs, a Bible professor says.
“Most people who profess a deep love of the Bible have never actually read the book,” says Rabbi Rami Shapiro, who once had to persuade a student in his Bible class at Middle Tennessee State University that the saying “this dog won’t hunt” doesn’t appear in the Book of Proverbs.
“They have memorized parts of texts that they can string together to prove the biblical basis for whatever it is they believe in,” he says, “but they ignore the vast majority of the text.”
Another day, another GOP presidential candidate. Or so it seems. Rick Santorum entered the fray today. It should be another interesting, fatiguing, completely soul-sapping presidential race from now until next November. And religion will surely play a large role. Obama’s Christianity (or perceived lack therof). Romney’s Mormonism. Newt’s devout Catholicism (following closely on the heels of being a devout Southern Baptist). Santorum’s claim that he’s more Christian than any of his competitors.
But in their platforms and agendas, are any of these candidates truly Christian? Are they really following Jesus’ message to help the poor and the needy? Are they lovers of peace, or flexers of American muscle?
“As I’ve said before in On Faith, I am a person of faith who is not religious. As I’ve also said before, I am a complete fan of Jesus Christ, largely because, according to the Gospels, the guy was so not a hypocrite. He flat-out lived his faith, putting into practice all those inconvenient rantings about inclusiveness and giving a damn about the poor; gunking things up for the rest of us with bothersome statements about rich men, needle eyes and camels.
At no point did Jesus say thou shalt covet diamonds that cost more than the houses a lot of Americans are losing.Of course, Newt’s not the only politician who exudes the toxic glow of Christian hypocrisy. Almost all American presidential candidates claim to be fans of Jesus. So what are they fans of? The man’s outfits? His hairstyle? His commitment to walking everywhere and thus getting regular exercise?
It’s obviously not his selfless poverty, which, to me, non-Christian admirer of Jesus that I am, appears to be the heart of his message.”
I’ve been watching the saga of Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel with interest over the past several months. He was universally worshipped in the state of Ohio and in many parts of the country (not Michigan) as a morally upstanding chap who could really teach and motivate his players at the highest levels of collegiate football. I wondered. To me, to be in the top 5 year after year, you probably have to cut some moral corners here and there.
What I didn’t know was that Tressel was also revered as a Christian hero. In an impressive piece, Former Ohio State campus minister Rev. Jonathan Weyer writes:
“Tressel started bible studies, wrote books about character values, and preached integrity in all things. He spoke at Christian rallies, talked about the importance of his faith, and how much it influenced his life. Tressel had become the darling of the Christian world in our state. He became the personification of that curious American creature that is part sports hero and part religious icon.”
Jim Tressel resigned earlier this week for covering up misdeeds in his program and then lying about both the misdeeds and the coverups. The misdeeds themselves will most likely cost the football program dearly in years to come. What to do now? Here’s Weyer again:
“I hate what Tressel did. I hate that he lied. But even more, I hate that I put him in a position to break my heart so much. He should never have been there in the first place. Tressel is just a guy, a good football coach who messed up for a variety of reasons. He should never have been my idol and it’s not fair to blame him for my own sin, the sin of making an idol in my life.
I really hope the Tressel situation will really make us as Christians examine our whole point of view on our icons by asking the questions: Are they icons for the right reasons? Are they icons because they are poor in spirit, meek, peacemakers who admit their sins, weaknesses, Are they servants, lovers of God and humans, or good neighbors?
Or are they icons because they are famous, supposedly moral, powerful, and influential?”
We’ve taken a brief break after finishing Mark a couple of weeks ago, so we haven’t yet gotten to going through John (let alone Luke) line by line. But in my previous readings, I’ve always been troubled by 14:6, where Jesus answers Thomas’s question “Lord, we don’t know where you are going. How can we know the way?”
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.”
I’m not the only one troubled. Carl Gregg has written a well-thought-out piece on his journey with John 14:6. He speaks of his “critical phase” where he wondered:
“Does this verse mean that Jesus is the only way to heaven? If so, what does that claim mean for all the faithful Hindus, Muslims, and Jews I have met, who are also good, funny, competent, kind, and smart human beings?”
Read Gregg’s story and see where he has arrived today.
Some of you may know Kristin Chenoweth from Glee, others from her amazing voice and starring roles on Broadway. Me? I first encountered her as the character Annabeth Schott on The West Wing. I had no idea she could even sing. Anyway, she’s going to have to make room on her mantle (slide over, Tony and Emmy) for a new award: best quote on Christianity.
“I think it’s important to remember that Christianity was based in love and tolerance and forgiveness and acceptance. I don’t want Christianity to be a negative word anymore. I want people to understand that there is a group of Christians out there who want to be more open and understanding and tolerant and loving of all kinds of people, even the people that don’t believe in God at all. I guess that’s one of my purposes in this life is to make sure people know that Jesus would have taught the same thing and did teach the same thing. If he were alive today, where would he be hanging out? He wouldn’t be hanging out at Neiman Marcus. He probably wouldn’t even be at church. He would be downtown feeding the poor and helping the sick. That’s what it’s about.”
You see Ayn Rand’s name popping up all over the place lately. I read both “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.” I thought the former was terrific; in fact it’s the only book I have ever stayed up all night reading. “Atlas Shrugged,” however, I thought was a tired re-write of “The Fountainhead.” Swap Dagny Taggart for Howard Roark and railroads for architecture, and you’re done.
Today, her name is constantly mentioned by prominent Republican politicians, most notably Rand Paul and Paul Ryan (say those names together 5 times fast), who feel her writing perfectly captures the morality of capitalism.
But what about her feelings on God, religion, and faith? They certainly can’t have it both ways when it comes to Ayn Rand, right? I wonder how they will explain the following to their conservative/evangelical Christian base?
Surprise, surprise: the world didn’t end on Saturday at 6:00pm. Harold Camping is apparently “flabbergasted” that his prediction didn’t come true. What he should be “flabbergasted” about is the fact that with no Biblical training, and no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, he was able to decipher the day of Judgement, convince hundreds/thousands of people to follow him, and build a $120M radio empire with 160 stations in 49 countries. I’m flabbergasted about that, too.
What does he say now to the followers who spent their life savings on billboards? What does he say to the mother in California who slit her daughters’ throats and wrists? Mr. Camping is supposed to make a statement later today.
For those who *did* believe Saturday was the end, you might want to check out this article for your next steps.
If Harold Camping is correct and the world does end tomorrow, do you think it could happen before my son’s minors Little League game? I wouldn’t mind skipping yet another 2.5 hours watching the kids mindlessly heave the ball all over creation. Then again, Mr. Camping apparently miscalculated in his earlier date of September 6, 1994, so maybe he confused sine and cosine again.
But, if indeed his calculator gave him the right date and this is the last post of our blog, I thought it best to go out with a laugh. Take it away, Onion:
The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops commissioned John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York to research the causes of clergy sexual abuse. The study concluded that homosexuality and celibacy were not to blame:
“The rise in abuse cases in the 1960s and 1970s was influenced by social factors in society generally. Factors that were invariant during the time period addressed, such as celibacy, were not responsible for the increase or decline in abuse cases over this time.”
This finding, if you were wishing to maintain the status quo of an all-male, celibate priesthood, was just about the best thing you could hope for. One wonders if an independent study, not paid for by the Catholic church, would reach the same conclusions.
Join What He Said Online