(This blog is a “special edition” that has turned into more of a short
essay than a blog. I apologize and hope
you will bear with me through these words.
It is also addressed to my friends in the church though it may be of
interest to others as well.)
When I was in Seminary we all discovered a wonderful world
of ideas and began to engage with hundreds of people through their
writings. Sometimes we would become
infatuated with a particular writer or idea and would inflict them on one
another. One of my classmates became
enamored with Soren Kierkegaard, a 19th Century Danish theologian, whose
writings on love were equal parts biblical scholarship, theology, and
poetry. My classmate spent the entire
year quoting Kierkegaard every chance he had.
In the classroom, the student lounge, in the pulpit, and in casual
conversation. His classmates merely
chuckled at his infatuation. His
congregation tolerated him as best he could.
Many simply avoided him. He was
not the only one so smitten by a particular writer or idea. He was merely an easy-to-see example of
something that has become far too common in the last four decades, intellectual
and spiritual elitism.
On January 22, 2018 I posted this to Facebook.
“Until Churches and other religious groups can discover ways
to develop public policy that is grounded in love and is easily understood and
accepted by those with less than a college education, they will continue to
drift toward social irrelevance. Until then, they are more a part of the
problem with our partisan divide than a solution.”
Since I posted that comment, I have been thinking a lot
about this friend from Seminary. Why did
we find his constant references to love and Kierkegaard so distasteful? The subject matter, love, was certainly
comfortable and even inspiring to us.
Kierkegaard was a solid source of insight and academic reasoning. I have come to believe that our irritation
grew out of three simple impressions that our friend made on us. The first was his choice of language that was
more 19th century than 20th Century. The
tone was more esoteric than “every day.”
But mostly, by constantly quoting “Kierkegaard” he demonstrated a clear
lack of respect for the rest of us. He
implied that his classmates did not understand “Kierkegaard” like he did, his
church members did not understand love like he did, and regular folks were more
ignorant about life itself.
The mainline church has become largely irrelevant because we
are too much like my friend from seminary and too little like the one we
serve. It is part language, part tone, but
mostly a lack of respect for the people.
I may be wrong with this, but I cannot remember a single
time when Jesus named the theologian he was quoting. He allowed his words to carry their own
weight rather than weighing them down with the authority of others and
demonstrating his “superior understanding.”
He told stories and invoked teachings that connected with people’s
lives. He did not try and “snow” them
with scholarship and feigned academic powers.
Nor can I remember a time when Jesus talked down to
people. He was one of them. Generally, his tone was conversational. He would raise his voice, but only when it
was appropriate in the moment. When he
did raise his voice he did not come across as a scolding parent, but as an
angry and frustrated friend. His tone
was that of a companion along the road.
He refused to be called the Messiah.
He would accept the title “rabbi” but only as a way of finding his place
among the people. He was “of the people”
and he spoke as one “of the people.”
Finally, I cannot think of a time when he disrespected the
people he was trying to teach. He spoke
to their humanity and always acknowledged that they were worth his time and
energy. He set aside his own needs when the people’s needs were greater than
his own. He allowed his humility as a servant
to dominate his feelings for the crowds and the individual’s he encountered
along the way. The crowd that followed
him up into the hills, the little children that gathered about his feet, the
woman at the well, and the sinner who hung on a cross beside him all felt his
humble, loving presence. He respected
and accepted them as people, not as objects of his pronouncements.
Many of the people I love and respect voted for 45 in the
last election. They did so for reasons
that I cannot support. They acted out of
their fears and at the urging of fear-mongers among us. They voted out of a deeply embedded American
racism and exceptionalism. They refuse
to see any of this and continue to follow a political agenda that is contrary
to their interests and many of the ideas that they hold dear about our country. These folks represent a good portion of my
friends just as they represent about 30% of the American people.
The Mainline Church, following the progressive/liberal agenda
of today, lectures these people from the pulpit, in classes, and on posters
from marches in the streets. The Mainline
Church cites religious authorities, both biblical and non-biblical, to
“convince” them of the error in their thinking.
The Mainline Church talks down to them, using language that is “churchy”,
academic, and steeped in economic and sociological theory. Such language demonstrates that the Mainline Church
believes that they know more about life than those to whom they are speaking.
Finally, the Mainline Church disrespects people with whom we
disagree. Religion is, by its nature,
tribal using doctrine and practices to define “us” from “them.” We have done this against those who also follow
Jesus as well as those who have taken a different path. We have learned to be quite passive-aggressive
in defining ourselves over against others with the language and images we
use. We throw out Bible citations
without the text, assuming people should know their meaning. We plaster crosses on everything, assuming
that the image gives our words authority.
We dismiss the non-religionists as people who have not met God yet. We issue broad proclamations that “speak for
God.” We assume that we should be given
tax breaks because we are “good” for society and offered places of honor at the
head table during the “banquets” in life.
We expect the world to listen
just because we are talking. All of this
boils down to disrespect for those with whom we disagree and even those who are
not as enlightened as we are. Humility
is not our strong suit!
It has been argued that we are locked in a battle for the
soul of America. I believe this is true
and the Mainline Church is losing the war.
We need to seek forgiveness for our arrogant elitism and sit down with
people. We need to listen deeply to them
as they tell us their hopes and fears, joy and sorrows. We need to allow the gentle Spirit to speak
through us as one among them. We need to
respect them as children of our God and sisters and brothers in our
family. Whether they are Christian or
Muslim, Jew of Hindu, religionists or non-religionists we need to listen and
then speak gently out of our own hopes and fears, joys and sorrows. We need to do this in coffee shops and beer
joints, waiting in line at the bank or grocery store, or where ever we go about
our daily lives. We need to give up on
press releases and public relations projects and live out of our own
understandings rather than the authority of others, our own humanity rather
than our presumed status, and our love
for our neighbor that makes no distinction between “us” and “them.”
In short, we need to have more love about our lives than
“Kierkegaard.”
No comments:
Post a Comment