Losing My Religion

Lately I've been wandering farther and farther away from a collective Christian identity. In the literal sense of the word, yes, I study the bible and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, which makes me a Christian, but I detest some of what the church promotes in it's practice, and I disassociate myself from that. For example, the church promotes the idea of "witnessing"  to non-believers to "save" them. I hate the way I've seen Christians coming across to non-believers and I hate the image of the brainwashed bible thumper walking around, desperately trying to hit people over the head with their religion. The result of that has been that I NEVER talk to non-believers about my faith. That's kind of embarrassing to see in print, because it's a fundamental principle (Matthew 4:19) of Christianity to bring people to the faith. Jesus said "come follow me and I will show you how to fish for people."

My issue has always been that I don't agree with the church recruiting members to become a mega-church brand, or even for some blind, delirious need to have told however many hundreds of people "the good news." Where is the heart in this? Perhaps I'm a little obsessed with being genuine, but I haven't necessarily felt that in those scenarios, the motivation was a deep, burning love of people. The problem with me though, is that I now have to answer the same challenge - is it loving to say nothing at all? I can ride my high horse right into the city of church brands and big, famous pastor/minister/preachers who corner "the unsaved" but if we are examining the heart behind certain actions, then I have to start with my own. Do I think that being a Christian,  in the true sense of the word is worthwhile? Yes. Is my life better having had an experience of God, and having followed the practices that the bible has outlined? Yes. Do I think that Jesus is Lord, and that "knowing" Him has significantly increased the quality of my life? Yes. Do I think that it is selfish to tell no one about the treasure that I have found in Christ? Absolutely.

Source

It's interesting how uncomfortable I am with some of the terminology in the paragraph above. I sometimes watch televised sermons, and recently have found myself writhing in discomfort when I find the pastor too political, too judgemental or in some way, too much. It's all well and good for me to say that it isn't right to impose personal values on the "faith" that a person publicises, but my question for myself is whether there's a danger of going too far to the other side where you start losing content. For example, I grew up in a pretty conservative Christian household, yet I have a real problem with the church cliché. I find it difficult to conceptualise that God is the same yesterday, today and forever when we the human race are definitely, definitely not. Does that make any sense to you?


I'm really looking forward to people's feedback on this one, because I'm literally looking for answers here. The people who exist now are grossly different from the people in biblical stories. I see many stories (and some of "The Law") as being sexist and offensive; it also makes provision for people who are slaves, people who own slaves, and  I just tend to disregard these verses and chapters completely. Of course, many of these critiques are based on old testament doctrine, so does that mean we tear the old testament out and start at Matthew? If so, then we lose the ten commandments, and a lot of foundational stories of faith. How do you maintain the same consistency that God models while following the church? 

This is a key point  I think - Christians have become really dependent on the instruction of the church instead of taking responsibility for their own faith. Humans are very susceptible to influence, and that means that when we appoint a leader and decide to succumb to his/her authority, then we can become lazy to think for ourselves. Now, there's another side to that where you're just projecting - using the name of God or of religion as your personal scapegoat to your choices that have very little actual resonance with God. Both of these tire me. I don't have any confidence in a church that sounds like this guy, or him. I never saw Jesus proclaiming his faith through convincing other people of how wrong they were. He seemed to have beckoned the lost based on their need, not on how sinful they were. The only thing he blatantly berated was when the people defiled the temple of God. I have time for the church that holds firmly to the values that God gives us and fully understands that now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now [we] know in part; but then shall [we] know even as also [we] are known (1 Cor. 13:12). 

Since social constructs change and what is common practice in the human realm does not stay consistent, I think more than ever the church needs to clutch fully to the knowledge that we do not have sufficient information to judge. Is it possible to follow God, be His servant in whom He is well pleased and to love your neighbour as you love yourself? I maintain my belief that it is. To me, it is about seeking God's instruction, facing our personal insecurities and letting only The Omniscient pass judgement.

With and Without: Finding Your Own Empowerment

I have lived in five countries. I feel/felt assimilated in four of the countries, and I felt heartbroken when I left three of the five (USA, Germany & Trinidad). I felt comfortable in all five countries though. As a person, I am pretty laid back when it comes to new situations, cultures and people, so moving has been an adventure for me. The reason I bring this up now is because I was thinking about the difference between being a person "originally from..." and a person who is "born and raised in..." I've spoken before about the fact that when you become a world traveller, especially having had the experience of living in other countries and becoming assimilated to the culture, you tend to take ownership of your locale.

The interesting thing about taking ownership of a new place, is that you may lose some ownership of the place from which you've come - you are less friendly with your old friends, for example, you don't know about the physical changes that happen in your other hometown, etcetera. This is what happens, but there is another side to things - the side of connection, where you miss people and places you love, even as you have accepted a full and loving ownership of somewhere new. You are with and without in the sense that this new destination enriches your life in ways that make you stay and you are separated quite fundamentally from people and places that will always be connected to you. You make a choice to live with your balance of gains in the new place and losses in separation from the old.

This week, I'd like to ask the question of what makes you feel separate, and what pulls you in? A few posts ago, I wrote about hedonism. I referenced Dr. Shawn Achor who argued that people aim to be average, in stead of aiming higher. The main message of the post was that research supports the idea that being intentional about our own happiness is positively correlated with how we feel in this regard. Things like keeping a journal of good things that happened, or sending an encouraging email impact the way we (and others!) feel in a day. For me, what makes me feel separate is this idea that life is going on somewhere without me. I struggle with the concept of being present. Sometimes, I am existing in one place, even as I wish I were present in a real and effective way in another place. I am pulled in by the reality that I can impact, be present in, more than one place at the same time through the connections that I maintain.

In my group sessions with employees, I am currently singing an Accountability mantra, and I challenge complaining behaviour with outcome questions - What are you going to do about that? Will you speak to your boss by the next time I see you? What is the next step? The point I'm communicating to them is this - they are empowered by their own behaviour. Yes, sometimes bosses and colleagues and partners take away some of our control with the choices they make, but we are empowered to communicate what makes us feel separate, and what pulls us in. We are empowered to determine what we can live with and without, in a world where we are intentional about truly being wherever we are.

Source

To put it another way, life is what we make it. I was talking to a man yesterday about the differences in personalities, and he said that he thought persistence was a personality trait, and therefore, not something that he would be willing to do in his interactions at work. In relation to our accountability conversation, he said that he just didn't think that persistent communication was "in him." We talked about how different motivators for persistence change the way it feels to be persistent. For example, if someone was threatening to hit your car, harm your children or cut your pay to half for the same hours you would persist as best you could to prevent them from doing that. Personality will come into it in the way that you attempt to prevent them, but it would no longer be about whether or not this was something that you "thought you could do." Isn't it funny the way that we are quick to fight for things outside of ourselves but struggle to fight for even the little things that would improve our personal work, home or other environments? 


My challenge for you this week is to ask the question what are you living with and without that you really don't need to be? What do you need to ask for that you haven't yet? Will you go out and be intentional about existing, and being happy?