Stanley Hauerwas -- US is More Secular than Britain

Image by Jordon via Flickr

 Stanley Hauerwas has an article in The Guardian this weekend where he addresses the professed atheism of Ed Millband, the leader of the Labour Party in Britain.  Some hold this up as an example of how much more secular Britain is than the US.  After all, people in the US can't imagine what it would look like to have a professed atheist running for office over here.  It's assumed that all of our leaders must be Christian or we'll end up going to hell in a handbasket. 

But, is that really true?  Because England has a atheist party leader does that make them more secular?  Perhaps a lot of that depends on how we view the faith one finds in the US.

Here's what Stanley Hauerwas has to say:

I am not convinced that the US is more religious than Britain. Even if more people go to church in America, I think the US is a much more secular country than Britain. In Britain, when someone says they do not believe in God, they stop going to church. In the US, many who may have doubts about Christian orthodoxy may continue to go to church. They do so because they assume that a vague god vaguely prayed to is the god that is needed to support family and nation.

Americans do not have to believe in God, because they believe that it is a good thing simply to believe: all they need is a general belief in belief.

And, I would argue, for our leaders, the more vague their belief, the better...

So, What is "A Christian Response to the Ground Zero Mosque"?

Image by Stijn Vogels via FlickrSarah Cunningham gives her answer in a post called "A Christian Response to the Ground Zero Mosque" over at Q Blog.  I have struggled with this issue, as have many (or all) persons of faith.  This response of Sarah's resonated with me. 

I’ve been encouraging Americans, particularly people of faith, to make a purposeful attempt to pump love and grace into our culture rather than to add to volatile or antagonistic attitudes that could fuel further violence as it escalates. Does this mean I am abandoning my spiritual or moral positions in favor of relativism? Absolutely not. I do not pretend that I see the Muslim faith and Christian faith as compatible and I do not rescind that I believe the best hope for healing in our communities is found solely in the way of Christ. Political correctness aside, I am not ashamed to say this.

(Thanks to DashHouse for this.)

I have always thought, along with, I think, Mother Teresa, that "There is no way to peace.  Peace is the way."  I think that phrase can be shifted to say, "There is no way to love.  Love is the way."  Or, "There is no way to grace.  Grace is the way."  When I am questioned about our food pantry and whether or not we are giving this or that family too much, my response is that "I would rather err on the side of giving too much than too little."

I DO NOT and WILL NOT diminish or lessen or make light of the loss of life on 9/11.  It was a horrible attack by a group of persons...killers.  Those killers were Muslim.  But that doesn't make all Muslims killers any more than Christians who kill abortion doctors making all Christians killers.
I'm actually not saying here that there should be a mosque near Ground Zero as is being planned at this time.  I'm merely saying that we need to approach this issue on a basis of what response from the Christian community brings grace and wholeness to the conversation while being honest about our characterizations (and mis-characterizations) of the Islamic faith and our own baggage that we bring to the table.  We can do so without abandoning our faith in the process.  More importantly, perhaps it is by doing so that we are most clearly embracing our faith.

Some Reflections on Orthodoxy and the Spirit

Two days ago was Pentecost Sunday and Girdwood Chapel, like many, many churches around the world, celebrated the coming of the Holy Spirit to God's church.

Of course, we read Acts 2:1-21, with some dramatic flair--even starting worship with it. We also read from John 14, closing with:

”I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid.

We sang "Sweet, Sweet Spirit" and "Spirit of God" as found in The Faith We Sing hymnal. We had our "Pentecost People" (red clothing in the shapes of persons) up on the wall.

The occasion of the coming of the Spirit got me thinking a little bit about "ORTHODOXY" -- right belief.


See, some years ago I had a member of a church approach me with questions about the Holy Spirit. This person believed in Jesus as "Lord and Savior" and believed in God the Father. This person recited the Lord's Prayer with gusto and sang in the choir and served the poor. From looking at his life, he certainly "looked" a whole lot more Christian than a lot of the other people sitting in the pews. What this person said was that they could not do was believe in the Holy Spirit. At this point in time, several years later, I'm not exactly sure what the holdup was. I understand that, intellectually, the Spirit seems to take more of leap of faith for some persons. It's that whole "you can't see the Spirit but you can see what the Spirit does" thing. But, at the end of the day...and at the end of the conversation...he didn't believe in the Holy Spirit.

Is that outside the realm of "ORTHODOXY"? If so, what does that mean? Is that person going to burn with unquenchable fire? Does grace abound? Does it matter if one stands outside of traditional orthodoxy? These are not simple, little questions.

So, is this outside of the realm of "Orthodoxy?" I want to say, "yes." I view traditional orthodoxy as the historical creeds of the church -- the Apostle's, the Nicene, etc. I want to say that this...this...is right belief...orthodoxy. So, if that's where I draw the lines, then what does it mean to be outside of that? What does it mean to have "incorrect" or "wrong" belief?

What if I believe that God used evolution as a tool to create the human race whom he loves? What if I believe women should be priests/pastors or if I'm a pastor who has experienced divorce and still is serving a local church? What if I believe that Scripture is the infallible and inspired Word of God but have difficulty with "literalism"? What if I believe in premillennial dispensationalism rather than postmillennnial dispensationalism? How narrow a circle are we drawing here and what are the ramifications for being on the outside of that circle...being "heterodox" in belief? And, where does grace come to us on our journeys outside of orthodoxy? And where does our quest for orthodoxy merely lead us into the realm of the Pharisees, straining gnats and swallowing camels?

Two thoughts here:

1. Eternal ramifications: I know that whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved. Beyond that, it is not my place to say. I put my trust in a God whom I believe has "Grace greater than all my sin" and will be much more welcoming at the pearly gates than I ever would.
2. Rather than focusing on a legalistic, separating, self-defining, other-defining orthodoxy, it's important for the church to bring persons into relationship with each other and with Jesus Christ, to be in a posture of growth, and to cast ourselves upon Christ's great mercy. "Correct belief" is not unimportant. I'm just not so sure we need to get into the level of detail that we have been known to do.

So, where does that leave the fellow who didn't believe in the Holy Spirit? Well, I want to say that his belief system was not orthodox. He stands outside the realm of orthodox Christianity and, if I were still his pastor, it would be part of my job to explain the reasons for our traditional understanding of the Holy Spirit and continue to work with him to live his life fully in Christ. And I'll put my trust in the Amazing Grace of our God to work out all the eternal details for each of us.

"Religion today..."; A quote from A.W. Tozer

Religion today is not transforming people; rather it is being transformed by the people. It is not raising the moral level of society; it is descending to society's own level, and congratulating itself that it has scored a victory because society is smilingly accepting its surrender.

... A. W. Tozer (1897-1963)

Posted via email from The Prodigal Blog