Redefining Orthodoxy

My series, Redefining Orthodoxy, is a personal attempt to explain how my beliefs–though perhaps atypical–fit within orthodox Christianity. My Statement of Faith explains briefly how I understand God, the world and myself.

An open letter to President Edwards at Anderson University

President James L. Edwards,

As an alumnus, former staff member, donor, and lover of Anderson University, I felt an imperative to convey to you my thoughts regarding AU’s involvement in issues of civil rights.

As a student I can recall numerous instances in which you spoke about your participation in the Civil Rights march as an AU student. I commend you for such brave action. I hold a great deal of respect for you and for all who struggled in solidarity with our black sisters and brothers during that era of our nation’s history. I respect your willingness to stand for what you knew in your heart was the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences. I believe that standing against injustice is a moral imperative that we all bear, as Christians and as human beings.

Having studied the lives of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Oscar Romero and other great non-violent resistors, one commonality that they all share is a willingness to stand for what they believe is right regardless of any consequences. Oftentimes these consequences are serious, as the tragic ends of King and Gandhi clearly illustrate. Yet, their resolve and commitment to justice have inspired billions around the world for decades after their deaths.

I believe that we face another opportunity to stand in solidarity with millions who have been denied basic civil rights. Our nation has a well-documented history of denying rights to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders and queers.

Thirty years from now, what will AU’s record show on this issue? Will it show that our students, faculty and staff took bold steps to advocate for LGBTQ rights? Or will it indicate a reluctance similar to that of the white moderates whom King so sharply criticized?

I understand that posturing an open and accepting attitude towards queer sexuality would have sweeping and fundamental implications to the culture of our school. It would mean reevaluating how our Admissions department reaches out to students. It would mean readjusting our messages to the concerned parents of prospective students. It would have implications on who we cultivate as donors. It would affect our accreditation with the CCCU. Most significantly, it would seriously alter our relationship with the Church of God. These are serious consequences, and such decisions should not be made lightly.

Nevertheless, the right thing to do should not be avoided because of consequences. If I have learned anything through studying the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., it is that we must stand on the side of justice regardless of the cost, and we must have faith that God will see us through. As dire as these consequences may temporarily be, do they outweigh the risk of being remembered like the white moderates whom King considered almost more of a stumbling block than the KKK?

Those who struggled and suffered during the Civil Rights movement are celebrated and revered. Decades from now, I want my alma mater to be remembered in this way. I do not want it to be said of AU that we preferred “a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.” If AU is to continue to be remembered for it’s bold participation in fighting for justice and civil rights, we must stand with our LGBTQ sisters and brothers.

Do not take the cowardly route of sidestepping the issue by citing concerns of money, recruitment, accreditation and church relations.

Someday when my children ask me what kind of place Anderson University is, I want to be able to tell them about more than a beautiful campus with friendly people. I want to recall stories of brave and bold actions taken across decades. I want to tell them that AU has a long, proud history of standing for civil rights. I want to tell them that AU is more than an academic institution; it is a place that stands for justice.

David Hynds
Class of 2003

Massive flood devastates NYC. Religious moderates blame extremists.

NEW YORK (AP) – The recent flood which devastated New York City has religious moderates pointing fingers.

Rev. Jonathan Green, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, said, “This flood is God’s punishment for allowing Christian extremists to blame natural disasters and acts of terrorism on innocent people. It’s because of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell that this tragedy has come upon us. These extremists are endangering the freedom and livelihood of millions of Americans by spreading hatred instead of love,” Green said. “This flood was a clear message from God that they should repent.”

Officials estimate that the flood last Thursday killed over 30,000, with another 80,000 still unaccounted for. Disaster relief organizations are overwhelmed by the nearly 1.2 million people who are now homeless. On Saturday President Obama declared martial law in Lower Manhattan in order to curb rioting and looting.

The archangel Gabriel confirmed that the flood in New York was, indeed, in response to what he called, “petty, childish finger-pointing of right-wing nut jobs.” Gabriel said, “All you religious moderates out there are right to blame these extremists for this. God is upset that they’re directing attention away from him.”

Far-right conservative Christians have a long history of blaming tragic events on their opponents. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell came under considerable criticism in 2001 when they blamed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians.”

In 2005 John Hagee came under fire when he claimed that Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in order to stop a homosexual rally. “In the case of New Orleans, their plan to have that homosexual rally was sin,” Hagee said. “But it never happened. The rally never happened.”

Robertson received considerable criticism again this year when he blamed the earthquake in Haiti in January on a “pact to the devil” that Haitian slaves allegedly made two centuries ago.

In a press conference at the Gates of Hell on Monday, Satan said, “I have never had any formal relationship with Haiti. I can confirm that the Haitians and I had some preliminary discussions in the early 1800’s. However, the Haitians made it abundantly clear that they were unwilling to put their eternal souls up as collateral. After that, things fell apart quickly. I’ve had only minimum contact with them since.”

Americans and religious moderates are counting their blessings that Jerry Falwell died of heart failure in 2007. Green said, “Can you imagine the fallout? Clearly Pat Robertson’s words about Haiti were the tipping point for God and this catastrophe. Think of how much worse it would have been if Falwell were still around.”

In a brief question-and-answer session on Sunday, God told reporters, “These religious kooks have consistently and mistakenly placed responsibility for these disasters on the homosexuals and the liberals.” Emotions flared high as reporters hounded God with questions. At one point God said, “Look, when I pull of some incredible display of awesome natural power, I want the credit for it! Stop blaming it on the abortionists. For the love of me, gimme some freakin’ credit!”

One angel, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told reporters that God’s emotional outburst at the press conference was probably due in part to stress related to increased Father-Son bonding time. “Jesus has been teaching God a lot about carpentry. God’s pretty good at it, and it’s doing wonders for their relationship. However, the work can be somewhat strenuous, and I think it’s partially to blame for his outburst at the press conference. Splinters in the hands of an angry God… that’s not good for anyone.”

When Religion Becomes Evil: The End Justifies Any Means

Here’s another quote from When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball.

… The ultimate focus of religion–liberation or salvation–cannot be disconnected from life in this world. In authentic, healthy religion the end and the means to that end are always connected. But it is often easy to lose sight of the ultimate goal and focus instead on one component of religion. When a key feature of religion is elevated and in effect becomes an end, some people within the religion become consumed with protecting or achieving that end. In such cases, that component of religion functions like an absolute truth claim, and zealous believers become blind in their single-minded defense of it. … The end goal of protecting or defending a key component of religion is often used to justify any means necessary.

Means and the end are always connected. Or to paraphrase Kierkegaard, one may only treat someone as a means to an end when one sees them as an end in and of themselves. Kimball cites Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. as examples of leaders whose movements recognized the inseparability of the end and the means to that end.

I’ve heard people argue that it is more worthwhile to show preferential concern for the well-being of one’s eternal soul over their physical situation. The rationale is that the physical world is but an iota when placed on the vast scale of eternity. However, this seems to divorce the means from the end, a process which often permits passive violence. When a person’s actions become inconsequential to that person’s fate, sins become inconsequential to her or him. Such a situation enables one to act without questioning motives or repercussions. It also allows very little concern for one’s physical well-being.

Protecting a component of the religion easily permits violence. To defend their religious convictions on sexuality, Christians like John Hagee and Jerry Falwell placed the blame of catastrophes like 9/11 and hurricane Katrina on homosexuals. Such statements are indefensible against the standard presented by Jesus: love your neighbor as yourself. They pervert and misalign one of the central messages of Christianity.

In contrast, when the means and the end are inextricably tied, the process of salvation becomes a daily act. This is not to suggest that our ultimate fate is determined by a tallied list of pros and cons. Rather, our spiritual transcendence of this world is in the spiritual moments throughout our human experience. We experience God by helping a friend move out of her place. We experience God in the meal we share with a homeless man. We see God in the child we mentor once a week.

When one’s means begin to differ from one’s end, an act of humble, penitent reconsideration is needed.

Redefining Orthodoxy: Interpreting Scripture

During my series entitled Redefining Orthodoxy, I attempted to explain how my beliefs–thought seemingly contradictory of what many Christians consider orthodox beliefs–fit within Christian orthodoxy. Based on the amount of dialogue and degree of responses, I would say that the idea which is the most difficult for conservative Christians to accept is my understanding of the Bible and scripture.

I think that conservative Christians often feel threatened by the idea that the scripture is not meant to be taken literally. The most common reaction is some variation of a polarizing questions which offers two answers: either the Bible is entirety as factually accurate and inerrant, or the Bible is a collection of lies and is utterly worthless. The basic premise of this argument is that the in order for a story to have merit, it must be factually accurate.

Unfortunately, such polarization leaves little room for creative imagination, a tragic misuse of the incredible potential of the human mind. This argument breaks down under closer examination. It’s actually not that difficult to understand how a factually inaccurate text may still hold great truth and worth. Anyone remotely familiar with any of the gospels should be able to understand this concept.

Jesus often spoke in parables.

Perhaps there actually was a good Samaritan. Perhaps a father really did have a son who ran off and another who was bitter when he returned. Perhaps a woman actually did lose one of her precious coins. However, I doubt that all of Jesus’ parables were accurate accounts of historical events. I don’t know anyone who interprets them as such today. I doubt that anyone who heard them 2000 years ago interpreted them that way either.

The historicity of Jesus’ parables is entirely irrelevant to their message.

If we can apply such logic to the very words of Jesus, can we not apply it also to the Hebrew scriptures? We may still learn substantial spiritual insights from the Bible without taking it literally. The creation account in Genesis is brimming with theological meaning, despite the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts it’s historical accuracy. We may learn much from the Exodus without believing that Moses actually parted the Red Sea. The story of Jonah may still offer us significant personal lessons, even it would be impossible for someone to live in a whale’s stomach for three days.

The evidence against the historical accuracy of many such accounts in the Hebrew scriptures is overwhelming. This does not mean that such accounts are devoid of meaning. It is ridiculous to assume that the authors of these texts were writing for the purpose of creating an accurate historical record or to assume that they were using the same standards that we use today.

When Religion Becomes Evil: Blind Obedience

I recently started reading When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball, the chair of the department of religion at Wake Forest. In his book, Kimball analyzes violent extremist groups from a variety of religions. Using his analysis, he outlines five warning signs of corruption in religion: absolute truth claims, blind obedience, establishing the “ideal” time, the end justifies any means, and declaring holy war.

In his chapter on blind obedience, Kimball discussed the religious cult of Aum Shinrikyo which was responsible for attacks using a deadly nerve gas in sixteen Tokyo subway stations in 1995. Although the movement’s beginnings seemed innocuous, Aum began demanding unquestioning dedication to his vision.

This is a pivotal point at which religion often becomes evil. Authentic religion engages the intellect as people wrestle with the mystery of existence and the challenges of living in an imperfect world. Conversely, blind obedience is a sure sign of corrupt religion. Beware of any religious movement that seeks to limit the intellectual freedom and individual integrity of its adherents. When individual believers abdicate personal responsibility and yield to the authority of a charismatic leader or become enslaved to particular ideas or teachings, religion can easily become the framework for violence and destruction.

I find this quote challenging on a number of levels. From a personal standpoint, it rings true with me. My faith reached an utterly new level of realness when I began to allow myself to question some the basic assumptions and absolute truth claims that I had been taught.

I dismantled the framework of my youth and set out on a journey to make my faith my own. When I was unable to reconcile what I knew in my head and felt in my heart about God, I engaged both in order to reconcile them on an issue. Sometimes the process required me to readjust my thinking toward a particular issue. At other times a change of heart was required.

Either way, I was left with a strong sense that my honest questioning and seeking was one of the most important tasks to which I could dedicate myself. I have known others to encourage “honest questions”… so long as I arrive at the right answer. Yet, I believe that honest questioning cannot presuppose an answer. If one may question so long as one arrives at the “correct” answer, then one does not have the free will to choose an answer. If a questioning person must arrive at the right answer, the questions become rhetorical and the person is blindly obedient. Only when a one is free to choose whichever answer one wants is the questioning process conducted honestly.