Blog

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part seven: Purpose of Spiritual Community

This is the 7th in a series of blogs where we are comparing the mission statements of an evangelical congregation with that of a progressive congregation. By scrolling down you can find the previous six blogs.

  1. Foundation of Faith
  2. The Trinity
  3. God’s Relationship with Humanity
  4. Nature of Salvation
  5. Humanity’s Relationship With God
  6. Spiritual Practices

They are located below in reverse order (newest to oldest). Feel free to read them in any order you choose, but they might make more sense if you read them in order. For what it’s worth.

Also, I need to interject here that I do not believe in the theology of either congregation (including, in this blog, the story of the Flood). But I do have an opinion about which dogma or which view of God is healthier for humanity. Once again, what matters here is how each congregation views the…

Purpose of Their Spiritual Community 

Evangelical: Therefore, we want to be a colony of hope reminding the world all of life is sacred and all of our fears, failures, and brokenness can be restored and made whole. Our church does not exist for ourselves, but to join God in his redemptive work… and we see ourselves as agents of God’s Kingdom for the betterment of his world. The church is at its best when it serves, sacrifices, and loves, caring about the things God cares about.

Progressive: As a faith community, our call is to accept that we are already accepted by God, and to live a life imitating God’s love.

So much of the evangelical statement needs to be questioned. So, let’s break it down sentence by sentence.

Therefore, we want to be a colony of hope reminding the world all of life is sacred and all our fears, failures, and brokenness can be restored and made whole.

For what it’s worth

I was intrigued by the expression “all of life is sacred,” because it’s not really an evangelical belief unless, of course, it’s an unborn life. When I googled “all of life is sacred,” one of the results that came up is from a website called Bible Gateway. It is a bible study site that seeks to help people understand what they are reading. The passage that included the phrase “all of life is sacred” ironically comes from the story of Noah and the flood. Imagine the irony of that! You know the story, but let’s focus on this section about God’s directive to Noah’s family after the flood.

Genesis 9:  More than that, do not spill the blood of any human. If anyone spills your blood, I will hold him responsible. It makes no difference whether it is a man or an animal, both will be accountable to Me! If someone murders a fellow human being, then I will require his life in return.  Whoever sheds the blood of a human, that person’s blood will be shed in return by another for God made humanity in His own image. Now all of you, be fruitful and multiply; spread out and populate the earth.

First off, it was the last verse that struck me as rather humorous. Let’s read between the lines. “Now all six of you, be fruitful and multiply. Oops, I just realized that you’re all members of the same family. Guess I should have included another family. You’ll just have to practice some incest to repopulate the earth and make sure you spread out; we wouldn’t want you to feel crowded.”

It is here that the biblical experts from Bible Gateway inserted their own ideas about what is being said in Genesis 9. This is what they added about the above passage.

“All life is sacred. Human life is especially so. Protecting it is of utmost importance to God. He takes this so seriously and personally because He made humanity to reflect Him. We are His earthly representatives, made in His image. To murder another person is to mount an attack on the One who created him.” Bible Gateway

Here are two points that I find oddly interesting.

First, it seems contradictory to find this sentiment regarding the “sanctity of human life” immediately following the “story” of God destroying nearly the entire human race. It’s as if the Bible Gateway editors are saying, “Never mind what you just read in Genesis 9, even though God just killed millions of men, women and children, protecting human life is “of utmost importance to Him.” However, protecting human life is not something we see a lot throughout the Old Testament. Apparently human life isn’t that much a priority for God.

Second, the Old Testament contains many stories of God directing the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child in the conquest of the “Promised Land”.  Apparently, non-Jews were not made in God’s image, and it was okay to kill them. Numbers 31: 17&18.

Genocide and a Moral God?

Many people, (me included) point to verses like this throughout the Old Testament as an indication that the god of the Israelites was a barbaric monster. Many of us (rightly so) view genocide as morally objectionable. However, when I googled “Numbers 31” I found a plethora of christian websites justifying genocide. All of them are quite shocking in their defense of this particular case of genocide, but this one is my favorite. It comes from a website called 2BeLikeChrist. If you’re not an evangelical, prepare yourself to be shocked.

The Events

  • As a punishment for intentionally leading Israel into idolatry (Numbers 25), God told Moses to make war with the Midianites.
  • 1,000 soldiers were selected from each of the 12 tribes.
  • They killed all the male citizens,
  • All the women, children, and animals were taken captive before the towns were burned.
  • The Israelites brought the captives to Moses and Eleazar, but Moses became angry with the officers because they spared many of the women who were responsible for enticing the men of Israel into idolatry.
  • Moses told the officers to kill all the captives except the virgin women. (So they could become slaves and raped in the process.)

The Justification

  • This story typically draws an emotion response from readers, but from a purely rational viewpoint there isn’t anything in the story that shows God to be immoral. (Huh?)
  • It’s easy to for us to feel like taking life is morally wrong, but remember, we and God are not in the same position. (Forget about what was said in Genesis 9)
  • Furthermore, if God saves the innocent, which the Bible tells us He does, the Midianite children were being taken out of an immoral world (by killing them) and going to live in Heaven with God.
  • There would have been some pain associated with that journey, (like the pain of being run through by a sword, or having your throat slit, or being beheaded) but pain, in itself, is not morally evil. Consider our practice of poking babies with needles to give them important medicine. It causes the baby momentary pain, (killing them was the momentary pain) but we consider it a long-term good, (because the children got to live in heaven with the god who ordered their murder and the murder of their loved ones. How benign!)

As shocking as this may be for those of us who do not use the bible as our moral compass, justifications like this can be found in great number on Christian websites. But it doesn’t end there. This skewed (and sick) form of morality also has ramifications in our day and age and will be the topic of a future blog.

Now back to our original discussion about how evangelicals view the purpose of their spiritual community.

Evangelical: Our church does not exist for ourselves, but to join God in his redemptive work…

So, here we are back to God’s redemptive work? As we’ve seen before, evangelicals believe that we are all born into sin and are lost and depraved. Therefore, it is their job to get as many people to join the Jesus club as possible. But exactly how do they accomplish that?

Evangelical: …and we see ourselves as agents of God’s Kingdom for the betterment of his world.

I know that Christians want to believe that they are lights on a hill, showing non-believers a better way to live. But, that’s not how non-believers see christians. If you’re a christian and you really want to know how non-believers actually view christians, email me and we can have a conversation.

Evangelical: The church is at its best when it serves, sacrifices, and loves, caring about the things God cares about.

First off, you’ll also notice that this statement, like the rest of their mission statement, isn’t specific about how or who the church serves or how and for whom it sacrifices or who it loves. Nor is it specific about what God cares about. How would they really know what God cares about?

It’s worth noting here that this is the first and only time the word “love” is mentioned in the 1,775-word  evangelical mission statement. In this case it refers to the church’s love. Interestingly enough, “God’s love” is not mentioned even once in either of the evangelical mission statements. Hmmm! This is actually something I found to be common among evangelical churches. For some reason God’s love is rarely mentioned in most evangelical mission statements. Having grown up in an evangelical church, this really surprised me. So much so, that it will be the topic of a future blog project that I’m calling, “What’s love got to do with it?”

Why is “God’s love” noticeably absent from Evangelical mission statements?

Conversely, as we have seen in the progressive mission statement “love” and specifically “God’s love” is mentioned many times. In fact, it’s their major theme. Why is “God’s love” noticeably absent from evangelical mission statements? I reached out to a pastor from the evangelical congregation and asked this very question. I wanted to know if it was an oversight to leave out mentioning God’s love or whether it was by design. He declined to answer and our correspondence ended. No surprise there.

Compare how the progressive congregation views the purpose of their spiritual community.

As a faith community, our call is to accept that we are already accepted by God, and to live a life imitating God’s love.

Wow, can it really be that simple? Believe that you are loved by God and love others the way God loves you?

Once again, unless you are an evangelical, this is an easy one.

Point for Progressive! 7-0

 

Coming up next

Social responsibility

Evangelical: We “equip people with vision and tools for joining in God’s redemptive plan. That’s why we are passionate about relieving suffering, fighting injustice, and hold out the gospel as the hope of renewing all things.”

Progressive: Our starting point in the story of God is that all humans were created in love and for love. There is no hierarchy of value for a human life. But when dehumanization occurs, especially in the form of violence, we must turn again to Christ, who taught us that what we do to the most vulnerable, we have also done unto him. And we must ask for guidance from the Spirit as we critically examine ourselves, our institutions, our beliefs, and our practices which retain and perpetuate expressions of violence against non-white bodies.

For more than ten years, Progressive Churches have sought to answer the call to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with God. We will continue to take care of those who are harmed by unjust systems. We will insist on fairness for all people. We will remain loyal to those who have no voice. We will oppose authority when those in charge abuse their power.  We will hold sacred the bodies of black and brown people. We will work for justice until there is true liberty for all.

This is an essential part of our work as followers of the One who came and suffered in solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized, and who gave us the most important of all the commands: to love God, love our neighbors, and love ourselves.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

 

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part six: Spiritual Practices

This is the 6th in a series of blogs where we are comparing the mission statements of an evangelical congregation with that of a progressive congregation. By scrolling down you can find the previous five blogs.

  1. Foundation of Faith
  2. The Trinity
  3. God’s Relationship with Humanity
  4. Nature of Salvation
  5. Humanity’s Relationship With God

They are located below in reverse order (newest to oldest). Feel free to read them in any order you choose, but they might make more sense if you read them in order. For what it’s worth.

Also, I need to interject here that I do not believe in the theology of either congregation. But I do have an opinion about which dogma, or which view of God is healthier for humanity. Once again, what matters here is how each congregation views their… 

Spiritual practices

Evangelical: We participate in worship, prayer, scripture reading, memorization, sabbath, generosity, silence, solitude, and more because we believe actively training ourselves through healthy spiritual rhythms directs our whole selves toward being formed in the image of our Lord and Rabbi, Jesus. *

Progressive: Our mission is… “to do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with God.” We believe that when we embody this mission, we will be an extension of God’s welcome in the world.

Once again, Evangelicals focus on how mankind earns God’s favor. Do they actually believe that by actively participating in these “works” they will become more like Jesus?

Is this really what God requires?

  • to participate in worship
  • prayer
  • scripture reading
  • memorization
  • sabbath
  • generosity
  • silence
  • solitude
  • and more (?)

There is an alternative.

Our mission is… “to do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with God.”

The Progressive mission statement comes from Micah 6:6-8.
In verses 6&7 the writer is pondering how he can please God. In verse 8 he realizes what God really wants from him. And it’s simpler than Evangelicals could ever imagine.

6 With what shall I come to the LORD

And bow myself before the God on high?

Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings,

With yearling calves?

7 Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams,

In ten thousand rivers of oil?

Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts,

The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8 He has told you, O man, what is good;

And what does the LORD require of you

But to do justice, to love kindness,

And to walk humbly with your God?

The differences between these two churches becomes profoundly clear when you read the evangelical mission statement about spiritual practices in the light of Micah 6:6-8.

6 With what shall I come to the LORD?

            And bow myself before the God on high?

            Shall I participate in worship, and prayer?

            With scripture reading?

      7 Does the LORD take delight in thousands of memorized verses?

            In ten years of church attendance?

            Shall I present donations to the church for my rebellious acts?

            My silence, solitude and more for the sins of my soul?

      8 He has told you, O man, what is good;

            And what does the LORD require of you?

            But to actively train yourself, to love spiritual rhythms,

            And to form yourself to the image of your Rabbi?

Evangelicals have this one all wrong… again.

 

Now, let’s take a look at the “end purpose” of each congregation’s spiritual practices.

Evangelical: …we believe actively training ourselves through healthy spiritual rhythms directs our whole selves toward being formed in the image of our Lord and Rabbi, Jesus.

Progressive: Our mission is… “to do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with God.” We believe that when we embody this mission, we will be an extension of God’s welcome in the world.

No matter what they profess to believe, Evangelicals are once again doing the work by “actively training themselves” to please God. Evangelicals believe that all their “works” will transform them into the image of Jesus. I have no idea what it means to be “formed in the image of Jesus” and I don’t think they do either. It’s a nice, lofty and wonderfully pious thing to say, but how would they know if they’re actually achieving that goal? The vagueness of this statement makes it unmeasurable, unattainable and in a sense, worthless.

In addition, Evangelicals believe that Jesus Christ came to… “sacrifice Himself for all humanity”. Can anybody… has anybody ever lived up to that standard? Admittedly, it’s an honorable and lofty goal, but totally unattainable. If a person believes that Jesus was indeed perfect, then trying to live up to that standard of perfection can only lead to a lifetime of failure… and therapy.

 

 

So, while Evangelicals are trying (like Don Quixote) “to dream the impossible dream”

 

 

 

 

Progressives are striving to be “an extension of God’s welcome in the world”.

That’s a huge difference!

 

 

Point for Progressive: 6-0

End note:

*January 2025: I am currently reading a book about spiritual abuse. The authors say this, “Therefore, a spiritual system to be avoided is one in which the leaders or teachers add the performance of religious behaviors to the performance of Jesus on the cross as a means to find God’s approval. (False teachers say), ‘Faith in Jesus is right, and you must have it. But it is not enough. In order to really find positive standing in God’s eyes, you have to ___________.’” Fill in the blank with whatever fits for your church.

For the evangelical church, they fill in the blank with “participation in worship, prayer, scripture reading, memorization, sabbath, generosity, silence, solitude, and more”.

 

Coming up next:

Purpose of Spiritual Community

Evangelical: Therefore, we want to be a colony of hope reminding the world all of life is sacred and all of our fears, failures, and brokenness can be restored and made whole. Our church does not exist for ourselves, but to join God in his redemptive work… and we see ourselves as agents of God’s Kingdom for the betterment of his world. The church is at its best when it serves, sacrifices, and loves, caring about the things God cares about.

Progressive: As a faith community, our call is to accept that we are already accepted by God, and to live a life imitating God’s love.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

 

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part five: Humanity’s Relationship With God

This is the 5th in a series of blogs where we are comparing the mission statements of an evangelical congregation with that of a progressive congregation. By scrolling down you can find the previous four blogs.

  1. Foundation of Faith
  2. The Trinity
  3. God’s Relationship with Humanity
  4. Nature of Salvation

They are located below in reverse order (newest to oldest). Feel free to read them in any order you choose, but they might make more sense if you read them in order. For what it’s worth.

Also, I need to interject here that I do not believe in the theology of either congregation. But I do have an opinion about which dogma or which view of God is healthier for humanity. Once again, what matters here is how each congregation views… 

Humanity’s Relationship With God:

Evangelical: The gospel is hope for healing our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and all creation.  Learning grace is the process of transformation. We are convinced transformation happens by grace as we align our lives with the gospel.

Progressive: We cannot create our union with God. It is objectively given. As Father Richard Rohr says, “There’s nothing we can do or not do to increase or decrease God’s love for us.”

So, let’s take a look at what the evangelicals are saying here. Once again, their statement is so vague and so ambiguous, that it causes me to wonder if they actually know what they believe. Read the first part of this statement again.

The gospel is hope for healing our relationships with…

  1. God,
  2. others,
  3. ourselves,
  4. and all creation. *

First off, let’s define “the gospel”. If it’s the source of so much hope and healing, then it would be helpful for us to know exactly what is meant by it.  According to Marriam-Webster the “Gospel” is “the message (or good news) concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation”.

I can accept that definition but, I’d like to know more specifics about how “the gospel” actually heals our relationships with God, others, ourselves and all creation. For evangelicals, the phrase “the gospel” is like a silver bullet or a panacea.

For what it’s worth

Saying that the gospel can heal our relationship with all creation is a pretty bold statement which is not backed by any further thought or action. In reality it’s a simple and seemingly magical solution to the complicated problem of climate change.

Most conservative evangelicals choose to deny the science surrounding global warming. So, would this statement include healing the world from our (their) neglect? It’s as if evangelicals are saying, “Don’t worry about climate change, the gospel will heal the earth”.  (See endnotes below for more thoughts on this issue.)

Grace?

The second part of evangelicals’ statement is even more interesting.

Evangelical: Learning grace is the process of transformation. We are convinced transformation happens by grace as we align our lives with the gospel.

This definitely makes no sense. So, let’s dive deeper into what they are really saying. According to Britannica the definition of Grace in “Christian theology, is the spontaneous, unmerited gift of the divine favor in the salvation of sinners, and the divine influence operating in individuals for their regeneration and sanctification.”

So, let’s focus on two words in the definition; spontaneous and unmerited. So, if “Grace” is spontaneous why do Evangelicals refer to it as a “process of transformation”? In addition, if “Grace” is an unmerited gift, why do we have to earn it by aligning our lives with the gospel? And what exactly does it mean to align our lives with the gospel? That’s not quite clear, is it?

So, I thought if we could perhaps replace some of the key words from the evangelical statement with the actual definitions, the meaning of this statement might be clearer, or not.

Coming to know the spontaneous, unmerited gift of divine favor is the process of a series of actions, or functions that bring about change. We are convinced change happens by the spontaneous, unmerited gift of divine favor as we line up our lives with the message (or good news) concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation.

That didn’t help much, did it. What is clear, however, is that the Evangelical’s statement is actually saying the exact opposite of what they think they are saying. Once again, evangelicals focus on how man earns God’s favor; “we must align our lives with the gospel”

According to their statement…

Grace is neither spontaneous, nor unmerited.

A healthy alternative

Now, compare all this with the Progressive view of our relationship with God.

Progressive: We cannot create our union with God. It is objectively given. There’s nothing we can do or not do to increase or decrease God’s love for us.”

Once again, Progressives focus on God’s love, (something evangelicals have yet to do). For Progressives God’s love is not spontaneous, because it has always been there and will always be there, yet it is indeed unmerited and unconditional. It seems to me that this is a better way to live.

“There is nothing we can do or not do to increase or decrease God’s love for us.”

Point for Progressive! 5-0

 

Coming up next, we will be looking at…

Spiritual practices

Evangelical: We participate in worship, prayer, scripture reading, memorization, sabbath, generosity, silence, solitude, and more because we believe actively training ourselves through healthy spiritual rhythms directs our whole selves toward being formed in the image of our Lord and Rabbi, Jesus.

Progressive: Our mission is… “to do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with God.” We believe that when we embody this mission, we will be an extension of God’s welcome in the world.

End note: Christians and Climate Change

Bob Inglis was a conservative congressman from NC who, after joining a junket to Antarctica and seeing for himself the truth behind the science of global warming, decided that it was his christian duty to speak out for the stewardship of taking better care of this earth. His conservative constituents disagreed and voted him out of office by a landslide.

Merchants of Doubt: A documentary that looks at pundits-for-hire who present themselves as scientific authorities as they speak about topics like toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and climate change.

Biologos:  Why Should Christians Care for Creation? “As bearers of God’s image, all people have the responsibility and privilege of caring for God’s creation.”

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

 

 

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part four: The Nature of Salvation

This is the 4th in a series of blogs where we are comparing the mission statements of an evangelical congregation with that of a progressive congregation. By scrolling down you can find the previous three blogs

  1. Foundation of Faith
  2. The Trinity
  3. God’s Relationship with Humanity

They are located below in reverse order (newest to oldest). Feel free to read them in any order you choose, but they might make more sense if you read them in order. For what it’s worth.

Also, I need to interject here that I do not believe in the theology of either congregation. But I do have an opinion about which dogma or which view of God is healthier for humanity. Once again, what matters here is how each congregation views the… 

Nature of Salvation:

Evangelical: We believe that salvation from the guilt and condemnation of sin is possible only as the gift of God’s grace and that whoever by faith receives Jesus Christ as His Savior becomes a child of God. His salvation is not the result of any human effort or merit, rather it is the work which Christ accomplished through his life, death, burial, and resurrection that purchases salvation.

Progressive: The teachings of Jesus have led us to see ourselves as Christo-centric universalists, believing that Christ died for all the world and God’s love is accessible and available to everyone, everywhere. The embrace of God is an inclusive, unstoppable love that calls us to believe and bear witness to the belovedness of every human being. We believe that we belong to God long before, or even if we never believe in God. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.

The interesting point about how each congregation views “Salvation” is how they view the very nature of God. Let’s start with the evangelical view.

Evangelical: We believe that salvation from the guilt and condemnation of sin is possible only as the gift of God’s grace and that whoever by faith receives Jesus Christ as His Savior becomes a child of God.

Once again, Evangelicals’ starting point is “guilt and condemnation”. Even though Evangelicals say that our salvation is not a result of any human effort, something must be done to access that salvation. One must “accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior”, (P.L.A.S.) or in less wordy terms, one must join the Jesus club. It is then, and only then, that one becomes “a child of God”.

Evangelical: His salvation is not the result of any human effort or merit, rather it is the work which Christ accomplished through his life, death, burial, and resurrection that purchases salvation.

Even though evangelicals maintain, “salvation is not a result of human effort or merit”, there is much that the “children of God” must do to stay in God’s good graces. I pulled the following two statements from other evangelical websites. From these you can clearly see that even after salvation there continues to be “works” on our part in order remain in God’s good graces.

What is required to receive God’s grace?

To “continue in” or “abide in” the Savior’s love means to receive His grace and be perfected by it. To receive His grace, we must have faith in Jesus Christ and keep His commandments, including repenting of our sins, being baptized for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Ghost, and continuing in the path of obedience.

So, according to evangelicals we must…

  1. have faith in Jesus Christ (for what is not clear)
  2. keep His commandments (all of them, including those in the Old Testament)
  3. repent of our sins (on a daily basis)
  4. be baptized for the remission of sins (yet another transaction to perform)
  5. receive the Holy Ghost, (apparently it’s not included in the receiving part) and
  6. continue in the path of obedience. (a never ending list of ways to fail)

Remember that phrase “whoever by faith receives Jesus Christ as His Savior becomes a child of God”? Well, according to other evangelicals, someone might call themselves a child of God, but they’re really just adopted, (like a red-haired stepchild).

And our being called the children of God as an expression of the incredible love of God is grounded in our adoption. We are not by nature children of God. Only by adoption are we regarded as the children of God. Because of the Father’s love for Christ, the Father has adopted us into the royal family, making us joint heirs with Christ. We are beloved of the Father because Jesus is beloved of the Father, and we ought never to forget that.

For what it’s worth

If you read the blog about the trinity you will remember that evangelicals say that the three parts of the trinity “are identical in essence and equal in power and glory; they possess the same nature, attributes, and perfections” and existed before creation. If all parts of the trinity really are equal and there is only one god than the above statement should read as follows.

Because of God’s love for himself, God has adopted us into the royal family, making us joint heirs with himself. We are beloved of God because God is beloved of himself, and we ought never to forget that.

Simply stated, this means that a select few are the precarious benefactors of God’s love for himself, and they ought not forget that. What a mind game!

Compare that with how progressives view the nature of Salvation.

Progressive: The teachings of Jesus have led us to see ourselves as Christo-centric universalists, believing that Christ died for all the world and God’s love is accessible and available to everyone, everywhere. The embrace of God is an inclusive, unstoppable love that calls us to believe and bear witness to the belovedness of every human being. We believe that we belong to God long before, or even if we never believe in God. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.

For Progressives, one doesn’t become a child of God by joining the Jesus club, everyone already is a beloved child of God… (not by adoption) and there is no need to join the exclusive Jesus club.

We are already embraced and beloved by God. No transaction is required.

Progressives mention God’s love four times in their 88-word statement, while the evangelicals have yet to mentioned a loving God in any of theirs.

Therefore, I award another Point for Progressive 4-0.

Coming up next: Man’s Relationship with God

Evangelical: The gospel is hope for healing our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and all creation.  Learning grace is the process of transformation. We are convinced transformation happens by grace as we align our lives with the gospel.

Progressive: We cannot create our union with God. It is objectively given. As Father Richard Rohr says, “There’s nothing we can do or not do to increase or decrease God’s love for us.”

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

 

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part three: God’s Relationship With Humanity

It’s worth noting that I do not believe in the creation story, nor the myth of Adam and Eve. It is not my intention here to get into a debate about the apologetics of creation. For me, the myth of the creation story and what supposedly took place in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant for this discussion. However, both of these congregations do believe in these stories. So, what matters here is how each congregation views…

God’s relationship with humanity.

Evangelical: We believe God wants to bring about a new humanity by redeeming every part of us and our stories. We believe that man was originally created in the image and after the likeness of God, free from sin. Humanity (Adam and Eve) sinned and consequently experienced not only physical death but also spiritual death (which is separation from God). The consequences of this sin affect the entire human race. All human beings are born with a sinful nature and are alienated from the life of God and incapable of remedying his lost and depraved condition apart from divine grace.

Progressive: We believe that… when God created the world, and human beings in particular, God said, “This is good.” Our origin story is one of goodness. We believe this goodness applies to all of humanity.

Let’s break down the evangelical statement to see if we can decipher what they are really saying.

Evangelical: We believe God wants to bring about a new humanity by redeeming every part of us and our stories.

New humanity? Huh? What exactly does that mean? I googled “new humanity” and found lots of christian sites that referenced that expression, however none of them made sense in the context of this statement. Also, what does it mean to “redeem every part of us and our stories”? Once again this is so vague as to be worthless in application.

Evangelical: We believe that man was originally created in the image and after the likeness of God, free from sin. Humanity (Adam and Eve) sinned and consequently experienced not only physical death but also spiritual death (which is separation from God). The consequences of this sin affect the entire human race.

So, we are back to original sin, are we? How curious that it’s the corner stone of christian dogma and yet it is not named, stated or taught anywhere in the bible, The concept of original sin wasn’t even developed until the fourth century CE by Saint Augustine.

The doctrine of original sin is not named, stated or taught in the Bible.

I have been skeptical of  “original sin” for as long as I can remember. Even when I was actively involved in evangelical circles, I did not accept the concept that mankind was condemned from birth. I addressed this opposition in an earlier blog of mine titled “Why I Let Go of Christianity.”

One week, the message from the pulpit was that “in our natural selves dwells no goodness at all, that apart from Christ, our best deeds are no more attractive than soiled, puss drenched rags. Before Christ, goodness is cosmetic, badness is defining.” The pastor went to great lengths to explain that the god of the bible hates mankind but if we joined the Jesus Club, he would like us. Yipee!!!

I never returned to that or any other church. It’s been several decades, but the message is still the same.

Evangelical:  All human beings are born with a sinful nature and are alienated from the life of God and incapable of remedying his lost and depraved condition apart from divine grace.

Let’s see if I uderstand this correctly. All human beings are born morally corrupt and wicked because of something some guy named Adam did 6,000 years ago, (which God can’t let go of) and the only way to get back into God’s favor (and not burn in hell) is to join the (very exclusive) Jesus Club?

Compare that with how progressives view God’s relationship with humanity.

Progressive: We believe that… when God created the world, and human beings in particular, God said, “This is good.” Our origin story is one of goodness. We believe this goodness applies to all of humanity.

I like that view of God’s relationship with humanity. I contacted my friend at the progressive church and asked him if his congregation believed in “original sin”. This was his reply.

No! We believe in original blessing, that is, that everything God has brought into being is already beloved. It always has been. We do not deny the reality of sin in the world, but we talk about it as everything, whether personal or systemic, that moves us away or interferes with us living to the fullest as God’s beloved children.

Hmm, let’s see… “born lost, depraved and separated from God” or “born blessed and beloved by God”? Unless you’re an evangelical, this is an easy one.

Another point for Progressives 3-0

Coming up next

Nature of Salvation

Evangelical: We believe that salvation from the guilt and condemnation of sin is possible only as the gift of God’s grace and that whoever by faith receives Jesus Christ as His Savior becomes a child of God. His salvation is not the result of any human effort or merit, rather it is the work which Christ accomplished through his life, death, burial, and resurrection that purchases salvation.

Progressive: The teachings of Jesus have led us to believe that… Christ died for all the world and God’s love is accessible and available to everyone, everywhere. The embrace of God is an inclusive, unstoppable love that calls us to believe and bear witness to the belovedness of every human being. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part two: The Trinity

“I believe in one God, and no more.” Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

I need to interject here that I do not believe in the Trinity, nor do I believe that there is any basis for it in scripture. However, that is not relevant here. Since both these congregations do believe in the Trinity, we shall see how each respond to that belief.

As I said in my previous post, since both of these congregations are Christian, i.e., based on the Bible, I expected to find very few, if any, differences in their mission statements. I was wrong… very wrong. The differences were striking. The most notable being their view of God and how man relates with God.

I have divided the sections of their mission statements into areas of belief and compared them that way. There are nine and we shall compare one each week. This is part two.

The Trinity

Evangelical: We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are identical in essence and equal in power and glory; they possess the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and are worthy of the same worship, confidence, and obedience.

Progressive:  Our theological heart and soul has been formed by a Trinitarian understanding of God as Creator, Redeemer, and Spirit. We trust the flow of God’s love toward us and toward all people as it pours out endlessly from the relationships we discover within God’s very self: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We understand this relational aspect of the Trinity as a divine dance of love originating in God long before creation.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? It seems to me that although evangelicals know the different parts of the trinity, what role each part plays is not well articulated in their mission statement. But I have other concerns about how they explain the Trinity.

Evangelicals: These three are identical in essence and equal in power and glory; they possess the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and are worthy of the same worship, confidence, and obedience. “These three identities are worthy of our worship, our confidence and our obedience.”

So, if the three parts of the Trinity are identical in every way, why do we need the concept of the trinity? I’m just sayin’.

But more importantly, how do evangelicals respond to this Triune God? What seems clear (again) is that there are expectations for humans based on the nature of God. If God is perfect, then we as humans are required to worship and obey God. It would appear that, for evangelicals, our relationship with God is not so much a result God’s attributes but rather through our actions or “works”.

One last point about the evangelical statement is that it’s merely a standard orthodox statement of faith, borrowed from several different sources. Nothing in their statement is either original or thoughtful. It is obvious that the authors of the evangelical’s mission statement simply copied and pasted ideas from other various evangelical sources.

The expression “in power and glory” comes from the last line in the Lord’s Prayer.

For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen

Nothing original there. Much of the later part of this statement originated with the Westminster Confession of Faith , which says…

He is completely holy in all his purposes, works, and commands. To him is due whatever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require from angels, human beings, and all other creatures. (1646 CE)

Not sure why the word “service” has been replaced with the word “confidence” in contemporary mission statements. It seems that “service” would be something the god of christianity would like to demand of “all creatures”.

I found several mission statements from other denominations that say nearly the same thing. This one is from a Pentecostal Church. Note how similar these two statements are.

Pentecostal: We believe that there is only one true and living God, eternally existing in three Persons, namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  We believe each is a distinct Person, but all of one essence and all having the same nature, perfections, and attributes, and each is worthy of precisely the same worship, confidence, and obedience.

Evangelical: We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are identical in essence and equal in power and glory; they possess the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and are worthy of the same worship, confidence, and obedience.

Since the authors of the evangelical mission statement have not bothered to put any extra thought, (except to change the word order) into what the trinity really means, then neither will I.

Compare that with the progressive view of the Trinity.

Progressive:  Our theological heart and soul has been formed by a Trinitarian understanding of God as Creator, Redeemer, and Spirit. We trust the flow of God’s love toward us and toward all people as it pours out endlessly from the relationships we discover within God’s very self: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We understand this relational aspect of the Trinity as a divine dance of love originating in God long before creation.

It appears that progressives do a better job of articulating the nature of the trinity by delineating its three separate parts: Creator, Redeemer, and Spirit.

“We trust the flow of God’s love toward us and toward all people as it pours out endlessly from the relationships we discover within God’s very self.”

Having grown up evangelical, I was intrigued by this expression.  The idea that God’s love flows toward “all people” is definitely not an evangelical belief.  We will explore this in more detail in the next installment of this series.

We understand this relational aspect of the Trinity as a divine dance of love originating in God long before creation.

I was so preplexed by this statement about the trinity, that I reached out to the progressive congregation for clarification. One of their pastors responded the next day. Here is his reply.

I certainly cannot answer “how exactly the Trinity represents a divine dance, etc.” because, obviously, it is a very mysterious if not mystical concept! But my best way of trying to grasp, in some way, how Trinity might be revealing God’s self as a community of three persons is that I believe God shows God’s self to be an eternally relational being. But there was a “time” when our relational God existed (for how many eons??) but without any created beings with whom to be in relationship. We teach that God has forever been in a loving relationship within God’s self, which in time, flowed into all that God created for God’s company and enjoyment.

Let’s see if I understand this right. God has always been about love, even before there were created beings with whom God could share that love. Yet “in time” God’s creations were able to enjoy the flow of God’s company and endless love.

I might not believe in the trinity or creation, but I like this view of a loving God. As a former evangelical this is really quite refreshing.

(For the record, The Westminster Confession of Faith is a 12,000-word document and the expression “the love of God” is only mentioned once and only once. The Progressive’s statement about the trinity has 82 words and mentions God’s love twice. You do the math.)

Therefore, I award another point for Progressives 2-0

 Coming up next

We will look at how each congregation views God’s Relationship With Humanity.

Evangelical: We believe God wants to bring about a new humanity by redeeming every part of us and our stories. We believe that man was originally created in the image and after the likeness of God, free from sin. Humanity (Adam and Eve) sinned and consequently experienced not only physical death but also spiritual death (which is separation from God). The consequences of this sin affect the entire human race. All human beings are born with a sinful nature and are alienated from the life of God and incapable of remedying his lost and depraved condition apart from divine grace.

Progressive: We believe that… when God created the world, and human beings in particular, God said, “This is good.” Our origin story is one of goodness. We believe this goodness applies to all of humanity.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part one: Foundation of Faith

“I know that this bold investigation will alarm many, but it would be paying too great a compliment to their credulity to forbear it on that account. The times and the subject demand it to be done.” Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason 1794.

Moving away from my religious upbringing has allowed me to step back and look at my evangelical roots with a new perspective. While I was involved in evangelical circles it was nearly impossible to objectively examine what I was being taught. Once I started to analyze what evangelicals actually believe, (based on their mission statements), I began to see some glaring, deeply rooted flaws.

I need to interject here that I do not hold to the beliefs of either Evangelical or Progressive Christianity. I no longer call myself a christian and therefore feel no obligation to defend any christian dogma.

Nonetheless, I was curious to see how the mission statement of a progressive church differed from the mission statement of an evangelical church. I chose one evangelical and one progressive church (both of which I have a history), went to their webpages and compared their “mission statements”.

Since both of them are Christian churches, i.e., based on the Bible, I expected to find very few, if any, differences. I was wrong… very wrong. The differences were striking. The most notable difference being their view of God and how man relates with God.

Surprisingly, what became obvious to me rather quickly was how vague, ambiguous, and unclear the evangelical mission statement was. I kept asking myself, “What do they really mean by that?” I reached out to the evangelical church to ask for clarification. One of the pastors agreed to speak with me, but the conversation proved unproductive. Perhaps I was asking questions he could not answer. I’m not sure he had ever actually read his church’s mission statement. (I should have enquired about that at the beginning of our conversation.)

If someone is being vague or ambiguous about what they believe, it usually means that they don’t really know what they believe. And that’s what I found over and over with the evangelical mission statement. Conversely, the mission statement of the progressive church was less wordy, less ambiguous and much less vague, as we shall see.

I have divided the sections into areas of belief and compared them that way. There are nine and we shall compare one each week.

Foundation of Their Religion

Evangelical: “We are a group of people trying to figure out what it looks like to live in the way of Jesus with the heart of Jesus today. We are built on the values of presence, practice, wholeness, family, renewal, and roots. We are grounded in the lives and faith of those who have gone before us, but also, we believe Jesus has a beautiful mission for us in the present.

Progressive: We are a progressive, Christ-centered church, founded on the life, teachings, death, resurrection, and eventual return of Jesus Christ. We believe that we belong to God long before, or even if we never believe in God. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.

Let’s take a closer look at exactly what is being said here.

Evangelical: “We are a group of people trying to figure out what it looks like to live in the way of Jesus with the heart of Jesus today.”

“Trying to figure out…?” It appears from this statement that they believe they will be somehow pleasing to God if they could only figure that out. No wonder they’re confused. They’re trying to adapt the teachings of the first century Jesus into their modern-day world. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman gives an eye-opening evaluation of Christians who try to do that.

Jesus was a first-century Jew, and when we try to make him into a twenty-first-century American we distort everything he was and everything he stood for.”

So that’s why they’re still trying to figure this out. It’s an error of reasoning. It can’t be done. Dr. Ehrman has more to say on this issue of making Jesus a twenty-first century Christian.

Most televangelists, popular Christian preacher icons, and heads of those corporations that we call megachurches share an unreflective modern view of Jesus — that he translates easily and almost automatically into a modern idiom. The fact is, however, that Jesus was not a person of the twenty-first century who spoke the language of contemporary Christian America (or England or Germany or anywhere else). Jesus was inescapably and ineluctably a Jew living in first-century Palestine. He was not like us, and if we make him like us, we transform the historical Jesus into a creature that we have invented for ourselves and for our own purposes. Jesus would not recognize himself in preaching of most of his followers today. He knew nothing of our world. He was not a capitalist. He did not believe in free enterprise. He did not support the acquisition of wealth or the good things in life. He did not believe in massive education. He had never heard of democracy. He had nothing to do with going to church on Sunday. He knew nothing of social security, food stamps, welfare, American exceptionalism, unemployment numbers, or immigration. He had no views on tax reform, health care (apart from wanting to heal leprosy), or the welfare state. So far as we know, he expressed no opinion on the ethical issues that plague us today: abortion and reproductive rights, gay marriage, euthanasia, or bombing Iraq. His world was not ours; his concerns were not ours, and—most striking of all—his beliefs were not ours. Did Jesus Exist

“His beliefs were not ours!” Let that sink in for a second. I once attended a mega-church in the suburbs of Denver. Not only did they attempt make Jesus a contemporary, but they also made him a suburbanite.

Vague Beliefs:

This statement of belief offers no clarity to what they really believe.

Evangelical: “We are built on the values of presence (vague), practice (vague), wholeness (vague), family (vague), renewal (vague), and roots (vague). We are grounded in the lives and faith of those who have gone before us (vague), but also, we believe Jesus has a beautiful mission for us in the present (vague).”

What exactly does it mean to be “grounded in the lives and faith of those who have gone before us”? How would this manifest itself in their weekly services? What exactly is this “beautiful mission” they speak of? It would appear that they really have no idea. It sounds nice, but there is nothing of substance to support any of this.

Progressive

Compare this with how Progressives articulate the foundation of their beliefs.

Progressive: We are a progressive, Christ-centered church, founded on the life, teachings, death, resurrection, and eventual return of Jesus Christ. We believe that we belong to God long before, or even if we never believe in God. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.

Comparison

The Progressive’s foundation seems to be built around the attributes of God. “We belong to God… God’s love is eternal… and does not require any transaction on our part.” Conversely, Evangelical’s foundation is built around works: “we are a group of people trying to figure out…” They must do something to earn God’s approval because it doesn’t appear to be freely given.

This paradox is something that we will see quite often in our evaluations of the evangelical mission statement. They outwardly purport that “salvation” is a gift and cannot be earned by any measure of “works”. However, that is not what is found in their mission statement. We shall see that, for evangelicals, there are certain requirements that must be met in order to attain (and keep) salvation. In the words of Thomas Paine…

“Everything in this strange system is the reverse of what it pretends to be. It is the reverse of truth.”  The Age of Reason.

Therefore, I award a point for Progressives 1-0

Coming up next:

We will look at how each congregation views a belief in the trinity. Feel free to make your own evaluation before reading the next installment.

Part two: Belief in the Trinity

Evangelical: We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are identical in essence and equal in power and glory; they possess the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and are worthy of the same worship, confidence, and obedience.

Progressive:  Our theological heart and soul has been formed by a Trinitarian understanding of God as Creator, Redeemer, and Spirit. We trust the flow of God’s love toward us and toward all people as it pours out endlessly from the relationships we discover within God’s very self: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We understand this relational aspect of the Trinity as a divine dance of love originating in God long before creation.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

 

 

 

Blog

The Lonely Church

(Although the Church’s name and location have been changed most of this actually happened.)

 

It’s well known by people with active imaginations that buildings, like family pets, have unique personalities.

There are many stories about buildings with personalities. This is one about a church. And when we say “church”, we aren’t talking about a gathering of people.

We are talking about the actual church building.

The church, in this story, is a building made with red bricks and has occupied a corner on South Marion Street for over a century.

It was built, as they used to say, “in the middle of nowhere” but as the years passed, houses and neighborhoods popped up around it. It was known by its neighbors as Marion Street Presbyterian Church.

We’ll call her Marion for short.

 

 

 

Marion was not the only church in this town. In the middle of downtown there lived a big cathedral of great importance. His name was Saint Andrew. (No one would have dared call him Andy.) He was the grandest church in town and he was very proud of that.

He hosted a small congregation, and he felt that they were very fortunate to have him as their church. Many visitors came to admire the grandeur of his French Gothic architecture.

 

 

 

If they wanted to sit quietly and enjoy the somber organ music floating gently through his lofty rafters, that was fine with him. But the only thing he really desired from them was their admiration, not their love.

 

 

 

 

However, Marion was not that kind of church. Like St. Andrew she had a bell tower, a large sanctuary, a pipe organ, lofty high ceilings and rafters.

 

 

 

“Every good church should have rafters” Marion said proudly.  She loved that feeling when the music touched her rafters.

 

 

Unlike St. Andrew she was a neighborhood church, and had a strong connection with her congregation. She also was admired and revered, but not for her architecture. Her people were a part of a community, and she was the center of that community, and that gave her a great sense of belonging.

 

Of course, Sundays were her favorite days. She had classrooms for the children and even a nursery. She loved the nursery. And as the years passed, she watched the children grow up and their children take their place.

As the families grew, so did her congregation. Several times, over the years, her sanctuary had to be made bigger to hold all the new people. She felt a great sense of security knowing that she was a church of families. She was their church and they were her people. Marion was especially proud that her congregation was made up of multigenerational families; children, parents and grandparents. There was a feeling of security in this. She felt complete.

But that was many years ago. Sadly, Marion’s people were all gone. It had been a long time since anyone had walked through her doors. The sanctuary, which used to be filled with people and music, was now empty and silent. She felt a deep sense of loss.

She was alone and lonely. The years of silence had caused Marion to fall into a prolonged and profound sadness. She had lost her sense of purpose and her identity. “What is a church without people?” she asked. She couldn’t understand why her people had left her. She was a good church and she had done her best to make them feel safe and secure.

What she didn’t know was that, (despite what she was telling herself) it was not her fault that her people had left. But we’ll get to that topic shortly.

1950s

During these long months and years of loneliness, she would think of happier times. Her favorite memory was the day of her dedication; a very special day in the life a church building. It was 1954 and her congregation had just finished construction on a new and bigger sanctuary. They had even added a new piano. Her sanctuary was full on Sunday mornings. This made her happy.

During her dedication service people were putting objects into a steel box, (a time capsule). It seemed to her that these objects must have great importance to them. As each person placed something of prominence in the box, they explained why it was an important item to the history of their congregation. It would be her responsibility to keep them safe and secure. As they placed the time capsule behind her corner stone and the cement dried, Marion felt a great sense of pride and a warm connection to this congregation which referred to her as “their church home”. She would not let them down.

She had an identity. She had purpose. She was loved. And that made her happy.

Marion loved the sound and feel of the organ and piano music. She especially liked it when they would open her windows and the loud melodious music would spill out into the neighborhood. (The neighbors like it too!)

Church buildings are keenly in tune with the emotions of their congregation. Marion loved all the experiences that went along with being a church. Weddings and holidays were times of happiness.

She also felt the sadness of funerals and did her best to make the solemn music of the organ as comforting as possible. She would comfort her people in such times.

 

 

Each year when it was cold outside and the ground was white her congregation put a tall tree in her sanctuary. Even though the ceiling was tall, the tree almost reached the rafters. It was decorated with lights and shiny ornaments.

She felt it made her look pretty.

 

 

 

 

1970s

What she didn’t know was that her congregation was changing. A time came, in the 1970s, when a new youth pastor began recruiting from a local university, resulting in more and more young people attending the church.

This influx of young people meant that her sanctuary got even more crowded than before.  A second service was added to accommodate all the new young people. The music changed as well. Marion could feel that there was more energy in it. And she liked it. There was more laughter, as the young are prone to laugh. These young people lingered in the church long after the families had left to go home. She liked that too.

 

Little did she know how all these new young people would change her life.

1979 – The Split

While church buildings are keenly in tune with the emotions of their congregation, they know nothing about church politics or church doctrine. Marion began to sense something new from her people. It was something that she had never experienced before. She didn’t recognize it at first, and didn’t have a word for it, but she learned later that it was called “disagreement” or “division”. She didn’t understand why, but she felt that something was terribly wrong within her congregation.

What Marion didn’t know was that her congregation was actually a small part of a much bigger collection of congregations from all over the country. The word we use to describe such a collection of congregations is “Denomination”. There are as many different types of denominations as they are different types of people. People are free to choose a denomination that best fits their personality. Marion’s congregation was part of a denomination called Presbyterian, which is a formal word meaning “ruled by elders”

In 1979 the Presbyterian denomination decided that all their congregations (including Marion’s) should be ruled by elders that were “representative of the make-up of their congregations with respect to age, race, and gender.”  What this meant for Marion’s congregation, was that anyone could be an elder, including young people and women.

The leaders of Marion’s congregation agreed with the idea of having young elders. As a result, half of the board of elders were made up of newly arrived young people who had no history and no allegiance with the church building.

As to the other point, there was a disagreement over whether women could be pastors and elders. Some of her people agreed with the Presbytery and thought it was okay for women to be elders and in positions of authority. However, the pastors and elders (composed entirely of men) believed that the role of women was to be submissive to men. In addition, they believed that women should never be in positions of authority over men. After many discussions it became clear that the two sides could not come to an agreement. It was a very tense time in the life of Marion’s congregation and there was nothing she could do to help.

Had she known what dark clouds were looming on the horizon, she would have been even more distressed. Her life was about to change… and not for the better.

Dark Clouds

Later that same year, when there were leaves on the ground, the pastors and elders left the building to have another meeting with the Presbytery to discuss the issue of women as elders. While they were gone some men arrived and began changing the locks on all her doors. “What are they doing?” she wondered. “How will my people get back in?”

So, when her people returned, they were locked out. They tried their keys and peered through the windows, but to no avail. They finally left. “Maybe those men who changed the locks forgot to give my people their new keys”, she thought. “They’ll be back!”

The next day, Marion heard a key at one of her doors. “My people are back”, she thought. But they were accompanied by a gruff, rather stern looking man, whom she didn’t recognize and instantly didn’t like.

Her people were carrying boxes.

Under the watchful eye of the stern man, they put their personal things in the boxes. She could feel that they were stunned and a bit sad. And then, still being carefully watched, they were escorted out of the building.

If Marion had had the words to describe this day, she would have said that it felt like a divorce. Someone she deeply cared for was leaving, and they didn’t even have a chance to say goodbye.

Little did she know that they would not be coming back.

The next Sunday she anxiously awaited for her congregation to return. Her sanctuary which was normally full to overflowing twice on Sundays, barely had enough people to fill up half of the sanctuary. She was confused by this, “Where are all my people?”

What she sensed from those who were there that day was sadness and shock. There was no happy music. Their singing was soft and solemn and their voices hardly even reach her rafters. She began to feel a sense of panic. Something devastating had happened but she didn’t understand what.

The following weeks she anxiously waited for all of her congregation to return, but they didn’t. The small group that stayed with her, were mostly the older people who had been with her for years. The new young people, who had no history with Marion, left with the pastors and elders.

Marion sensed that those who stayed were sad, and she was sad with them.  Over time she came to realize that those who remained, no matter who they had as elders, were still her people, and she was their church. It was her responsibility to be as comforting and as welcoming as ever. And she was!

The first woman elder of this congregation that stayed behind, was a grey-haired woman named Adda. (center)

Marion liked her for the kindness she showed to others, (something that wasn’t always the case with men who were elders).  In addition, Adda was nearly as old as Marion and had been part of Marion’s congregation for many, many years. She felt a special connection with Adda, and as she watched Adda getting older, she realized for the first time that she was getting older too.

 

2000s

Twenty years passed and the church was a much quieter place. With each passing year there were fewer and fewer people in her congregation. It seemed to Marion that there were also more funerals. Her congregation was literally dying and that made her sad.

There was very little music in those days and what music there was, would not have been able to spill out into the street, even with the windows wide open. Parts of the building had not been used for years. The nursery which was once an active place wasn’t used at all anymore.

Adda was now 91 years old. She and the other gray-haired people that made up her congregation were old and tired. Like Adda, Marion had given so much of herself over the years and she wondered how much more she could give.

 

 

She was an old building and now there were fewer people to attend to her maintenance. Her windows were dirty and filled with dust bunnies and spider webs. There was dust everywhere. Marion felt old.

Saying good-bye – 2003

One Sunday in early 2003, there were more people than normal in the sanctuary. She liked that. Maybe the worst was over and she would have a congregation again. But she felt no joy or happiness from the people who were there. It was a somber and sad occasion.

What she didn’t know was that her congregation could not afford to keep the church open any longer. The forty members who still remained voted unanimously to dissolve the congregation. Which meant they were all leaving. This would be their last Sunday Service at the Church on Marion Street.

They called it a “celebration”, but it was anything but a “celebration”. Some former members and some neighbors came to bid their farewell. Everyone felt a great sense of loss, but none more than Marion.

When the service was over and the last person left, the door closing behind them echoed loudly within her empty walls with a great sense of finality. Then there was only silence. Her worst fear had come true. She had lost the people who had been with her for such a long time and she knew now that they would not be coming back.

Adda passed away two months later.

New Life in a New Language

Marion was still reeling from the loss of her old congregation when a new congregation showed up. They spoke a different language and their music was different but none of that mattered to Marion. There were families again in the sanctuary.

She cherished their voices, their laughter, and their music. She was somebody’s church again and she would be the best church she could be for these people. She was aware that she was still in need of some repairs, but when these new families gathered in her sanctuary, she felt happy again.

These people stayed for several more years and Marion loved every minute of her interactions with them.  But the day came when they went away as well. She was confused. She wondered if it had been her fault they were leaving? She knew that she was in need some repairs, but she was still a good-looking church. At one time she had been revered in the neighborhood. What happened? She couldn’t understand why her people kept leaving her. She had done her best to make them feel safe and secure.

2017 – Demolition

One day in 2017 something unusual happened. Men in suits came and walked through her hallways and stood in her sanctuary. “Oh goody”, she thought. “They will see what a lovely building I am and they will bring a new congregation for me.” But that is not why the men were there.

 

 

 

What she didn’t know was that these men were real estate developers who wanted to buy the church building and turn it into apartments.

 

When she finally understood what these men wanted, she was perplexed. “I’m a church. That’s what I was built to be. I’m not an apartment. I wouldn’t even know how to be an apartment.” The little she knew about apartments was that they had walls. They were planning to divide her sanctuary and put-up walls, lots of walls. “How could there be community with so many walls? I’m a church”, she repeated.

 

One day a new sign appeared outside her front doors. What she didn’t know was that the sign was a notice of demolition. The developers where petitioning the city to allow them to tear down the old building.

She didn’t understand what “demolition” meant, but one day she heard some neighbors say as they were walking by, “So, they want to tear this old church down? That would be a shame. It should be designated as an historic landmark.”

“So, that’s what ‘demolition’ means,” she thought.  “They want to tear me down? But, I’m still in good shape. I have a lot of life still left in me. I could still make a good church home for some congregation.” She didn’t understand what “historic landmark” meant, but she felt it might be something that could save her from “demolition”.

2018 – Buildings are like elephants, they never forget.

One day, a large group of people arrived. They were obviously happy to see each other and greeted one another loudly and with such happiness. There was laughter too. It had been a long time since she had heard such sweet laughter, and she liked it.

 

As they walked through the hallways and into rooms where no one had been in years they talked about their memories of being in the building. Remember this room? We had some great times here. Remember this person or that person? Remember? Remember? Remember?

 

“Yes, I remember these people”, thought Marion. “They are the ones who left so many years ago without even saying goodbye. They’re back and maybe they’ll want me to be their church again. That would be so nice. Maybe I won’t be made into apartments after all.

 

After reminiscing their way through the building, everyone gathered in the sanctuary.

 

 

 

Marion was a bit embarrassed by her appearance. What would her unexpected guests think of her? The organ was gone and there was so much dust on the piano. But none the less, she was so happy to be hosting a congregation again.

 

People were talking about their memories of attending church here. Some of them had been married here, others had attended funerals in this sanctuary.

Some of them spoke of the Holiday Tree that had made her feel so pretty. Someone even mentioned the time capsule which was still behind her corner stone. Maybe they had come for it.

Many of the people who were there that day had a been a part of that group of young people who had left so many years ago.  Someone pointed out that they had become a group of senior citizens. Everyone roared with laughter because it was so true. Where had the years gone? Marion loved the laughter. It had been many years for her too. Marion wished they would sing a hymn. This was the group that had made her rafters vibrate.

No sooner had she made that wish when a woman, named Marlane, stood up and started singing a hymn (without organ or piano). “I recognize that voice and that song,” Marion thought.

 

“How can I say thanks for all the things you have done for me. Things so undeserved, but you gave to prove your love for me…”

 

 

Soon everyone was standing and singing with her. “There’s that old feeling again”, thought Marion. She wished someone would jump up and open the windows so this music could roll out into the neighborhood like it used to. She remembers these people like it was yesterday, and it felt so good.

But after the song, their laughter turned to tears. Their sadness reminded her of the many funerals she had hosted over the years. It was then that she realized they were saying goodbye to her.

Then it hit her like the ton of bricks that she was. “This is a funeral… it’s mine. I’m hosting my own funeral.”

Marlane stood up again and said, (now in tears), “This church is our home and our family. I kind of feel like a stepchild where I go to church now, because nothing has ever felt quite like this church.”

There were many affirming Amens.

 

Marion wanted to cry with her because she had missed them too.  If she had arms, she would have embraced Marlane and everyone else as well. She wanted to thank them for such a wonderful day.

As the service ended people lingered about in the sanctuary as if they didn’t want to leave. Marion didn’t want them to leave either.

When the last person left and the door shut behind them, Marion desperately tried to hold on to the echo of the hymn that had touched her rafters, but there was only silence. This time she knew for sure that they had said their final goodbye and were never coming back. She began to weep.

2020 – The beginning of the end… or so she thinks.

Another year passed. Occasionally, a few people wandered through the building, but Marion hardly noticed them.

 

One day some workmen arrived and removed all of the pews in her sanctuary. “This is it”, she thought. “I cannot be a church without pews.”

“Where would my people sit?”

“This is the beginning of the end for me. Soon there will no longer be a church on Marion Street.” She resolved herself to her fate.

 

Two things she didn’t know:

First thing was, that she was still revered in the neighborhood. Her neighbors wanted her to stay a church too. They did not want the old historic building torn down, especially to make way for high density housing. They took their protest to the city and requested that the church building be designated as an historical landmark. They were able to block any attempt to rezone the property.

 

 

The developer admitted defeat and put the building back up for sale.

 

 

 

 

 

Second thing was that a thriving congregation, on the other side of town, was looking for a church building to accommodate their growing congregation. They were in need of classrooms for their children and a fellowship hall where people could hang out. They were the ones who had removed the pews, to make way for a new floor and new chairs.

Marion had been mistaken.

 

The men who arrived with tools weren’t preparing the building to be demolished. They were fixing her up to be their church.

Day after day these people returned to work on the building. They painted her walls and cleaned the spider webs from her windows.

Over the next several weeks Marion began to realize that these people were not tearing her down. “This is not demolition”, she thought, “this is construction.”

Finally, she was receiving the much-needed repairs she had been longing for.

The sanctuary began to change and look much different.

New carpet!

New floor in the sanctuary!

New Speakers

New chairs so her people had some place to sit.

New paint for her sanctuary.

 

All the dust was gone and she looked pretty again.

The Wait is Over

She began to feel hopeful and optimistic for the first time in years. “I’m going to stay a church”, she said joyfully! And she was correct. These people were preparing her to be their church.

The reconstruction took months but one Sunday the long wait was over. There were people again.

This felt so familiar, but when the music began there was a noise she didn’t recognize. She would later learn that the new “joyful noise” was caused by guitars and drums. “Oh my, how things have changed with church music”, she thought. She preferred organ music but the drums and guitars really were quite exciting, and it was so nice to hear music and singing again.

A Hateful Note.

One day while everyone was away, a person came to her front doors. She peered out to see what he was doing. He was taping a note to the door. As she watched him, she perceived something that she had never known before. It made her reel back as if she had been stung. When her people returned and discovered the note they too were visibly upset. What was it in that note that made them so upset?

What she didn’t know was that some people from other churches disapproved of her congregation because they were “inclusive”. The note was condemning her congregation for offering unconditional love to everyone, no matter who they were or who they loved.

Despite the opposition from these outsiders, Marion’s congregation went ahead and offered unconditional love anyway. That pleased Marion greatly.

Marion later learned that what she had felt with the note-giver was something called “hate”. She had been fortunate as a church building and had never experienced hate with any of her congregations. Little did she know that other church buildings experienced hate on a regular basis. But for Marion it was new, and she didn’t like it. There was no place for it within her walls.

The Irony of it all

If Marion had known anything about irony, she would have appreciated that the people who had left so suddenly all those years ago, had done so to prevent women from being in roles of leadership. Conversely, the congregation that had rescued her from demolition and had given her new life, had women pastors. But that didn’t really matter to Marion because she had learned from Adda that LOVE is more important than who’s in charge. And the love she felt from this new congregation was strong. Besides, Marion had long known that women were more nurturing than men and that they were the glue that held congregations together.

In addition, Marion felt a strong connection to many of the people in this congregation. Like her, many of them had felt alone and lonely. Many had been rejected by other congregations. Some of them, like her, had experienced periods of discouragement and despair. Some new visitors who walked through her doors felt apprehensive and fearful, wondering if this church would be any different than others they had attended. They feared they would be rejected again. Marion joined her congregation in welcoming them all. They would be accepted here under her roof.

It had been a long time since Marion had thought about the steel box (time capsule) that was still safely behind her cornerstone. “If someday, someone comes back for that steel box, they can have it” she thought. She no longer needed it. She was creating all new memories with her new congregation.

Safe at Last

One day there was a ceremony, and they hung a sign above her front doors. It looked like a badge, with the words “Historical Landmark”. Marion wore it proudly, knowing that she would never again have to worry about being demolished.

She had a renewed sense of purpose and identity. She was their church, and they were her people. They had finally found each other! She felt young again because she was useful and needed. This loving congregation had given an old church, like her, a new chance at life and she would not let them down.

The Church on Marion Street is no longer lonely.

 

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

Blog

The Boogie Man of Secular Humanism

In my last post I discussed a dream about turtles that led me to discover a diversity of belief systems other than christianity. One of those alternate beliefs was that of Secular Humanism.

I had no idea what Secular Humanists actually believed, but I feared them anyway.

Every group has their anti-group. There can be no “Us” without an opposite “Them”. Every religion needs an enemy in order to maintain group cohesiveness (and insure hefty donations). When I was a practicing christian and still highly involved in the church, secular humanists were that enemy; our boogieman, you might say.

We were told that “we must stand firmly against humanistic error.” What that “error” was exactly, I never really understood, but as a good member of the fold, I went along with what I was taught.

I had never actually met or even talked to a secular humanist, nor had I ever read any secular humanist literature. It was about time I found out (for myself) what secular humanists really believe. What I found truly surprised me. Turns out, we were taught to fear something that is actually quite freeing. If you’re a secular humanist, I hope your nodding your head and chuckling (with me) at my ignorance.

If you’re still involved in a christian community and have been taught, like I was, that humanists are evil, just take a minute and read what they actually believe. It’s okay.

What do Secular Humanists actually believe?

First off, let’s define the words secular and humanism.

  • Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
  • Humanism: an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

In my investigation of Secular Humanism websites, I found one in particular that was very informative from Capital District Humanism Society (CDHS). The following is from an on-line article entitled, “You May Be a Humanist.”

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. – American Humanist Association

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. – The Humanist Magazine

Humanism is a joyous alternative to religions that believe in a supernatural god and life in a hereafter. Humanists believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet. A belief that when people are free to think for themselves, using reason and knowledge as their tools, they are best able to solve this world’s problems. Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy of those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. – The Humanist Society of Western New York

Humanism is a democratic and ethical lifestance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. – Humanists International

Wow! That’s what they really believe? What’s so scary about that?

It doesn’t take much thought, however, to understand why Christians would be so threatened by these statements. Look at some of the things Humanists believe and contrast those ideas with christian dogma.

  • responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment
  • a rational philosophy informed by science
  • affirming the dignity of each human being
  • standing for human rights and social justice
  • a joyous alternative to religions
  • this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge
  • people are free to think for themselves
  • take responsibility for and shape their own lives
  • does not accept supernatural views of reality

After reading this article, I realized something quite remarkable… I might be a Secular Humanist. Oh my!!

In Defense of Secularism

I would argue that a strong case could be made that atheists and secular people actually possess a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers.

One of the most prominent secularists is Phil Zuckerman. I first discovered Zuckerman in an article entitled Atheism, Secularity and Well Being.

He writes:

“According to Psalms 14 of the Bible, people who don’t believe in God are filthy, corrupt fools, entirely incapable of doing any good. Although those sentiments were written over 2,000- years ago, nonbelievers are still stigmatized to this day.”

(“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.” Psalms 14:1)

It is often assumed that someone who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t believe in anything, or that a person who has no religion must have no values. These assumptions are simply untrue. People can reject religion and still maintain strong beliefs.1 Being godless does not mean being without values.2 Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions.

Atheists and secular people have very clear and pronounced values and beliefs concerning moral, political and social issues. I would argue that a strong case could be made that atheists and secular people actually possess a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers. (They) are less likely to harbor ethnocentric, racist, or nationalistic attitudes. Strange then, that so many people assume that atheists and nonreligious people lack strong values or ethical beliefs – a truly groundless and unsupported assumption.

There you have it. I can choose to not believe in christian, or any other religious dogma, and still choose to believe in many other things. Letting go of christianity actually freed me to make my own choices regarding ethical and social justice issues. I suppose I’m rather fortunate to be living in the twenty-first century. A couple of hundred years ago professing such beliefs could have earned me a center seat at a community bonfire.

  1. This statement correctly describes my personal experience.
  2. The line should read: “Being godless does not (necessarily) mean being without values.” An obvious exception would be our 45th president, who was both godless and morally bankrupt, yet he was widely heralded by christians as the new messiah. Something, I’ll never understand.

Coming next: While researching Secular Humanism, I discovered an article by a christian public school teacher who believes that Secular Humanists are impeding his right to (and I quote) “publicly appeal to our God or to discuss our faith to our captive audiences of schoolchildren.” We’ll see how much of his argument against Secular Humanism is accurate and how much is fabricated. It is surprising, if not alarming, to realize what he would like to teach his “captive audience”.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

 

 

Blog

An Enlightening Dream About Turtles

Letting Go of Christianity. Now what?

I had completely let go of christianity and no longer called myself a believer.

Now what?

I no longer believe that the bible is inspired by God, or inerrant or even relevant.

Now what?

Christianity is no longer a viable option for me.

Now what?

If I stopped believing in christianity, does that automatically mean that I don’t believe in anything?

Am I an atheist by default?

Is there anything out there worth believing?

An Enlightening Dream

These questions lingered in my mind for months after letting go of christianity. I was in limbo. Fortunately for me, I had a dream about turtles. Yeah, you read that right… turtles.

In that dream I was wandering around carrying a turtle. Somehow it slipped out of my hands, and I started looking for it. (You know how dreams are.)

A voice in my dream asked what I was looking for.

“I’m looking for my turtle”, I replied.

“You need THAT turtle?” the voice asked.

I looked at the ground and there were turtles everywhere. Turtles of all shapes, sizes, and colors. I woke up wondering what that dream could possibly mean. I pondered on it for weeks.

 

Soon after that, I was at my local garden center and there were garden decorations with words on them. A rabbit had the word “Love” on it and a dragonfly had the word “Serenity”. (You get the idea.) Then I noticed a turtle, and to my astonishment, the word on it was, “Believe”. I immediately purchased it and put it in my garden.

 

 

So, how can I make sense this dream? My former christian friends (who were no longer talking to me) might have told me that God was reaching out to me and that I had been mistaken to leave. An atheist might have said that it was simply serendipitous and that there was nothing supernatural about it. I would have to disagree with both of them. I really have no explanation for this dream and its subsequent fulfillment, but I assure you that I’m not making it up.

“Believe?” Believe what?

Here is what I understand my dream to mean. Even though I had figuratively dropped my turtle of christianity, I didn’t need that turtle because there were plenty of other turtles I could pick up (and believe in).

True to my character, I began to read and investigate other options. I approached this new adventure with the same vigor I had when I was a new christian. I read a lot, and searched for something to believe in. Along that journey, I picked up and examined the turtles of progressive Christianity, Atheism, Secular Humanism and the writings of Thomas Paine and Dr. Bart Ehrman.

The Age of Reason

My quest led me to a book entitled “The Age of Reason.” by Thomas Paine, (a contemporary of the Founding Fathers). His book opened my eyes to a whole different way of thinking about religion. It was exactly what I was looking for. During my time in christian circles I could not find anyone who would/could discuss religion rationally. Thomas Paine did exactly that.

He opens “The Age of Reason” by stating exactly what he does and does not believe.

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, or by any church I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and for my part, I disbelieve them all.”

A dream come true!

So, there you have it. My concerns about being in a void of belief after letting go of christianity were completely unfounded. I learned, (and this is the best part) that there is so much out there to believe in that doesn’t require faith. I was finally on solid ground, and it felt good.

Coming up next: The Christian Boogie Man

During my years going to church we were taught from the pulpit to fear (and hate) Secular Humanists. Those scoundrels were out to destroy christianity. However, when I looked into what Secular Humanists really believe, I was astonished to learn that all my fears were based on lies.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum