Religion For {this} Life

I like to switch religions every now and then just to keep things fresh.  Here is my latest.  I call it a Religion For {this} Life.   The astute observer will notice that the title of my new religion echoes the title of my new radio program.   Here are a few of its non-doctrines.

It comes from Christianity.  I call it Christian Naturalism.  It is a religion.  It is not science.  It is not atheism or agnosticism.   It has beliefs.  The basic belief of my version of Christian Naturalism is that this universe is cool enough for me.   I have no care to speculate about what is outside the universe.   My belief is that there is probably nothing outside of it at least that can affect me (or the universe for that matter).   I am sure that thinkers who speculate on these things will keep me informed.

I cannot prove this belief is true.  My religion operates by trust.  I trust that this universe is fine for me.  My religion believes that the scientific method is pretty good and that public knowledge is more trustworthy than private revelation. 

I think human beings are special and unique.  We are the only beings we know of so far that exhibit a level of consciousness that can comprehend the universe.   I think it is good for humans to stay around and it would be wise if we learned to live compatibly with our environment so that we can do so for millions of years into the future.

God and the gods function in my religion as human creations.  They are products of the human imagination which is a product of the universe as is consciousness, love, art, and everything else.   Of course, I like to read and reflect on the Bible as a human creation and to reflect on other human works as well.  

Jesus is there.  He plays a large role in my religion.  He is an historical person that I have reconstructed with the help of others.  He is also a fictional character.  When I see him as a fictional character, I am mostly interested in the authors who created him.   I love Jesus.  I love Buddha, too, and Krishna, even Gilgamesh.   But at the end of the day, Jesus is my man.   That is probably because I feel at home with him. 

I love church.   My religion is happy with church, even with Presbyterians.  I like Presbyterians as on the whole they are pretty tolerant and they do have that freedom of conscience thing going for them.   Presbyterians have changed for the better.  They used to be pretty intolerant.   Now, rather than burn heretics and witches they prefer to form committees to study the issue.

I believe in goodness.  I believe in justice.  I like the concept of what Joanna Macy calls The Great Ball of Merit.  That gives me hope. 

I think religion has important tasks.  One of which is to help people cope with the contingencies of life.  Another task is to provide permission and resources so people can create their own religion.  Yet another task is to help people develop an internal moral compass in order to live well and to engage the powers.   And potlucks.  Always potlucks.

My religion also affirms the Great Peace.  I trust that after my brain ceases to function I will drop into unconsciousness like I experienced before birth (which was no experience at all).  There is nothing I need to do to earn the Great Peace or anything I can do to miss out on the Great Peace.   I don't have to worry about being good enough.  I do not need to fear hell.    I learned this oddly enough from Presbyterians.  It is my understanding of justification by grace.   Knowing that one day I will experience the Great Peace whenever that time comes gives me the freedom to live and love today. 

My religion even has a hymn.  There are other hymns in my loose-leaf hymnbook.  This one is delightful and sung beautifully by Iris Dement.

I could change my religion again next week.

So...stay tuned.

Michael Zimmerman and Evolution Weekend on Religion For Life

Dr. Michael Zimmerman, a biologist, is the founder of the Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Weekend. Over 13 thousand Christian, Jewish, and Unitarian Universalist clergy have signed a letter in support of teaching evolution in public schools. On the Sunday closest to Darwin's Birthday (February 12th) faith communities all over the United States celebrate Evolution Weekend by honoring science and religion.

On the next Religion For Life, Dr. Zimmerman speaks candidly about the state of science education and the need for scientific literacy. He writes on the topic of science and religion at the Huffington Post.

Listen via livestream...

Monday, February 6th at 1 pm on WEHC, 90.7.

Thursday, February 9th at 8 pm on WETS, 89.5.

Sunday, February 12th, at noon on WEHC, 90.7.

Sunday, February 12th, at 2 pm on WETS, 89.5.

Via podcast beginning February 13th.

Bread of Life--A Sermon

Bread of Life

John Shuck

First Presbyterian Church

Elizabethton, Tennessee

February 5, 2012

John 6:1-71

The Gospel of John is a weird book.

“If you don’t eat the Human One’s flesh and drink his blood, you won’t have life in you. Everyone who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has unending life, and I will raise them on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.”

It is no wonder that

“When the disciples heard this, many responded, “This sort of talk is hard to take. Who can take it seriously?”

That is the challenge of the Gospel of John. How do you take it seriously?

One way is to make a ritual out of it. Call it Holy Communion and once a week have people eat a piece of bread and drink some wine, tell them they are eating Christ’s body, the bread from heaven, and you got yourself a religion.

That is not so bad, if we know what we are doing.

How do you take this seriously?

The only way I can imagine that we might take it seriously is to treat it like a Zen koan. Such as,

“If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”

What does that mean? The Zen teacher would say, go wrestle with it and figure it out yourself. Koans are striking, puzzling statements. They are not riddles. The teacher who offers a koan is not looking for a right answer, but the state of mind of the student. A koan is a device used to help students become aware of who they are and what is real.

The Zen tradition didn’t begin until about six centuries after Jesus. I am not making an historical correspondence. I am not saying Jesus or the author of John was a secret Zen teacher. I am simply suggesting that the way to take Jesus seriously may be not to take him seriously. Maybe the author of John’s gospel is playing with our heads.

In the story, Jesus recognizes that the disciples are puzzled and so he offers a clue:

“So, does this shock you? What if you were to see the Human One going back to where he was to begin with?”

In other words what if you were to see reality? What if you were to see my true nature? He goes on:

“The spirit is life-giving; flesh is good for nothing. The words I have used are spirit and life.”

It could be something like this this: Jesus is saying,

“Since the flesh is nothing, telling you to eat my flesh is like saying, if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him. Because the Buddha you see is not really the Buddha. Buddha is in you. Similarly, the flesh you eat is not really me. Those who 'eat my flesh' get that.”

In this reading, eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking his blood is a way of shattering an illusion and discovering one’s true self.

The question that I have when I read John’s gospel is how to understand the figure of Jesus. Is John portraying him as a supernatural being who became a human being, did stuff, and then scooted back up to heaven? If that is the case, I am not so interested. Those myths are a dime a dozen. If that is the case, I am like the followers who say,

“Who can take this seriously?”

But, if Jesus is John’s way of saying this is what it means to be a human being, then maybe I will hang around for a little bit.

One clue that Jesus represents the myth of the authentic human is that throughout John, Jesus is certainly sure of himself. He has no doubt about who is, where he comes from, and where he is going.

Because this story is written in the first century, there is heaven up above where the gods live just above the fixed stars. Earth is the center of the universe. Above us is the moon, the sun, the planets all orbiting around Earth. Way out there are the fixed stars also traveling around Earth. Above all of that is heaven, the abode of the gods where Jesus is from and where he is going.

All of those images such as “from above” have to be reimagined in our time. So what might this look like in our universe with a naturalistic world-view? I think those images such as “from above”, “eternal life”, “bread from heaven”, all refer to that center of identity. 

• Who am I? 
• What is my value? 
• What am I doing here? 
• What is my purpose? 
• What do I want to make of my life?

Those are the kinds of questions we aren’t sure if we want to ask all of the time, because it is sometimes a bit easier allowing others to define our lives for us. It is easier not to pay attention to this amazing life that we share, that is existence. It might be easier to let others tell us who we are. And others will. We are a market share or a voting block or taxable commodity or potential cannon fodder. We are what the powers that be want us to be to the extent that we have value to them.

So Jesus comes along. It is the same world. There are different symbols and a different guy is in power, but it is the same dehumanizing world. Jesus says to that, 

“Eat me.

“Eat my flesh, drink my blood.

That is what I think of that.

I am not the flesh of this world.

I am the spirit of life.

I will not be defined by your categories.”

A couple of weeks ago, a new member of our community, Presbyterian minister, Rev. Don Steele, talked to the youth group. At our Wednesday night program, we were learning about Martin Luther King. I asked Don to come and speak because Don was in Memphis going to college in 1968. That was during the sanitation workers’ strike. Martin Luther King went there as you recall. Don marched with King on behalf of the sanitation workers. King was assassinated there in Memphis.

The sanitation workers were striking in part of because of wages, but also because of the way they were treated. They were not treated with dignity. There was not a place to even clean up before they went home. They had to ride on the bus smelling like garbage. One event in particular triggered the strike. Two men were accidentally crushed by a garbage truck and the city provided no compensation to the family members.

These sanitation workers marched in the streets of Memphis. It wasn’t just about money. It was about human dignity. They marched with signs that read, “I am a man.”

“I am a man.”

That is for what they were marching. Their humanity. They weren’t asking permission for it. They were declaring it. 

"I am a man."

It is as though they were declaring that they were from above. They were not identified with the worldly categories of garbage worker. They were human beings who happened to do this service for the community and they expected to be treated with respect.

That is what it takes sometimes.

When the powers that be do not serve the people but serve instead their own profits, they need to be shaken down. They need to be called out and called down. It is not wrong for a business to make a profit. A profit allows the business to survive in order that it can continue to serve. But when the profit becomes not the means but the end then it becomes, to use an ancient spiritual word, demonic.

That is what we have in our world today. We have demonic corporations masquerading as human beings and not serving the people, but serving their own profits. I am not saying that every business is that way, of course, but many are. We have politicians, not all by any means, but many, who instead of serving the people have sold out to the money these corporations foist upon them in order to stay in office and get elected.

We need people to stand up and say, 

“I am a man. I am a woman. I am a human being.”

When our mountains are destroyed, our water polluted for the sake of corporate profits and at the expense of the lives of human beings, we need to say,

“I am a man. I am a woman. I am a human being. This is Earth. This is home. This is not your commodity.”

Sometimes speaking on behalf of real human beings instead of corporations who masquerade as human beings can be risky. But it is what human beings do. These are the final words of the last speech of Martin Luther King in Memphis in 1968. He had received threats to his life. He talked about that.

And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?


Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.


And I don't mind.


Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!


And so I'm happy, tonight.
I'm not worried about anything.
I'm not fearing any man!
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!

That was King’s last speech.

This speech shows that King had a glimpse of who he really was and what mattered.

The Gospel of John is a weird gospel. 

But it is only weird when we take it literally. It is actually a powerful story of resistance to the powers that be when they become corrupt and dehumanizing. The Gospel of John provides a key and a clue in the person of Jesus who declares that he is the Human One, the Bread of Life, and so can we be.

These struggles that we have been witnessing around the world, the Arab spring, the occupy movement, and struggles for equality and civil rights for LGBT people in this country, the struggle for women’s value in many African countries, the struggle of the poor everywhere, is about human dignity, not just bread. It is not just bread, but as the song whose lyrics are in the bulletin, we march for bread and roses.

Bread, yes, but also roses.

Bread and dignity. The Bread of Life.

When we come later this morning and partake of bread and cup, for me, it is about a community of human beings gathering and uniting in a ritual that affirms life and dignity. It is reminding and being reminded of who we are and what we are here to do.

We are partaking together in the Bread of Life.

Amen.

What Presbyterians Believe (Except Me) Part 4

A recent post, Doing My Best to Undermine the Authority of Scripture, apparently raised an eyebrow or two.  I think I hit a nerve.    If our denomination is not splitting, it is at least flaking off at the right edge.      There are a significant number of congregations leaving.   I think a question to ask is,

"Why?  Why are these congregations leaving?"

A second question to ask is,

"What can we learn from this?"

The congregations that are leaving are telling us why.    This is from the Layman about the First Presbyterian Church of Orlando:

The 2011 approval of Amendment 10A and the passage of the new Form of Government (nFOG) topped the list of factors leading to FPCO’s departure in what many similar churches see as symptoms of a serious underlying problem in the denomination: variant views of the authority of Scripture.

 You saw what I saw, right?  

...a serious underlying problem in the denomination: variant views of the authority of Scripture.

Yeah, that is what I saw, too.  Authority of Scripture.

We all know that we are supposed to affirm, at least by vow and theory, that the Bible is authoritative, the Word of God.   But what does that mean?   Is it communication from a divine being?   Those leaving the church complain that the PC(USA) doesn't believe this anymore. The liberals and moderates complain that that isn't the case.  They say they believe in the authority of scripture.  

I am nobody's judge, but I would have to side with the conservatives on this one.   Now I know I am the 1% (See this chart).    In 2008 1% of pastors checked this box, "The Bible is not the word of God."   That would be me.  I am a proud one-percenter. 

I am one of the few PC(USA) clergy (at least that I know about), who admits publicly that the Bible is not a communication from a divine being.  I can play with metaphors, like "Word of God" like the rest of my colleagues to get through the vows, but there is nothing in the Bible, nor is the Bible as a whole, special revelation.  

Now I cannot prove that a divine being, spirit, or presence didn't hover over, blow upon, or otherwise inspire the various authors, but, is it necessary to think so?   Isn't it interesting enough that human beings came up with it?

I know we are not supposed to say that.   In fact, we clergy in particular are supposed to work our tails off and tie ourselves in knots to find a way to affirm the authority of scripture.   But it is getting tedious, isn't it?  It is getting harder and harder to defend the incredible.   

I cannot think of one good thing that comes from this notion.   I can certainly name a number of harmful things that have come from it.  This is not an abstract theological point I am bringing up.

Churches are splitting over this.   Gay and lesbian people have been denied ordination because of the authority of scripture.    For many, the Bible trumps science regarding how humans arrived.   The authority of scripture gives people a pass to do things or say things that they could never do or say if they had to rely on reason and logic to make their case. 

There is a reason for the doctrine of biblical authority.  That reason is power.  It is the power to control access to institutional goods. I think it might be a good time for us to admit to what we don't believe or do believe.  There is reason for the institution to seek clarity on this.

I think it is time for the PC(USA) to revisit all of its beliefs, but this is a good place to start.   The churches are telling us that they are leaving because of "variant views of the authority of scripture."  I think we should believe them when they say that.    

I think that people on the left have been leaving the church for a lot longer.  These are the folks who in decades past might have been part of a mainline church such as the PC(USA) but no longer find it credible.  Bishop Spong calls them the church alumni association.    If you want a snapshot of who these folks are, listen to my interview with Sarah Sentilles. 

What can we learn from this?

I am going to ask some questions and write some posts about the authority of scripture.  I want to know:

1. What is meant by the phrase, "the authority of scripture"?
2. How is the Bible authoritative?
3. Why should the PC(USA) continue to affirm this doctrine?
4. What is lost or gained if we let it go?

Please give me your best reasons, colleagues.   If you know of articles, books, or blog posts, that you find convincing, please let me know.    Make your own case.  At the very least, the Presbyterian Church website could include an article in the "What Presbyterians Believe" section that might address the above questions.

I still stand by what I wrote in 2005:

I believe that many clergy are overdue for a heart to heart with their congregations about the metaphor “Word of God” especially as it applies to the Bible. I have found that this metaphor more often stops creative thought than inspires it. The question we might ask our congregations is, “If the Bible is the Word of God, what makes it so?”

Modern scholarship has eroded the foundations for this metaphor. We have come to a time in which it is incredible to assert that our canon of scripture is objectively true or authoritative for all of humanity. Appeals to the Bible’s historical or scientific accuracy are naive. The claim that our canon has been dictated or inspired by supernatural revelation amounts to little more than special pleading. There is no magic power that makes the Bible or any text within it superior, truer, or more divinely inspired that any other human writing, religious or secular. The hands of human beings through their own imaginative power made every jot and tittle of carving and of script. The Bible is a collection of the writings of humans for humans. Once we dismiss the assumption that our book or library of books is more authoritative than any other collection, we can finally take our seat around the table of humanity.

When faith communities begin demythologizing the Bible, some interesting things will happen. The Bible’s authority will shift away from the text and toward the individual interpreter or community of interpreters. No longer will the Bible be considered an authoritative source of truth that contains infallible propositions about God or the human condition. Rather, it will become a resource for wisdom. Since authority is earned by the truth it tells, the Bible will have whatever authority the individual or community gives to it. People may find through its narratives, poetry, and song, an oasis of spiritual refreshment. Or they may not. It will be up to the people (both collectively and individually) to draw out what is meaningful and good and to discard what is not meaningful and good.

The preacher’s task will be to offer permission and encouragement for the congregation to engage in this discipline of freedom. The preacher can no longer assume that within a biblical text is a Word from God that needs to be teased out through exegesis and delivered to the waiting faithful. The preacher can no longer assume that just because a text is in the Bible that it is from God or is even valuable. A preacher can, however, provide information about a text using such tools as literary and historical criticism. The preacher can also provide an opinion regarding the text’s value for the community of faith. The preacher may even use the text as an impetus to speak about a contemporary concern. But I believe it is unethical for a preacher to make the claim that what s/he is saying is true, good or of God because it is based on his or her interpretation of a biblical text. In other words, a preacher cannot use a biblical text to prove a point. Anything a preacher says must stand on its own terms. This ethic will free both the biblical text and the preacher. The text will be freed from the preacher’s misuse of it. The preacher will be freed from the constraints of needing to “preach from the Bible” or to have everything s/he says to be backed by scripture.

Preaching can do a great deal of good in a community of faith. It can inspire, comfort, challenge, and inform for the betterment of humanity. Preaching can also do a great deal of harm. The harm results not so much on the content of the message or its style of delivery as on the implied authority of the preacher because s/he supposedly preaches the Word of God. I believe that Word of God is not only a meaningless metaphor; it is also a harmful metaphor for both the Bible and the preaching act. I recommend that preachers discontinue its use and have this conversation with their congregations.

To be clear, I am not so concerned about keeping the people on the right who are leaving.  Those on the right see the issue as the authority of scripture.  It is time for the rest of us to admit that, dismiss the doctrine, and move into the future.

Rev. Jacqueline Luck and Unitarian Universalism This Week on Religion For Life

My colleague, friend, and co-conspirator, Rev. Jacqueline Luck, is the minister at the Holston Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Gray, Tennessee. Among many projects, Rev. Luck is active with United Religions Initiative and the Green Interfaith Network. She talked with me about the history and commitments of Unitarian Universalism, and practicing a liberal faith in East Tennessee.    She is my guest on Religion For Life. 



Listen...

Monday, January 30th at 1 pm on WEHC, 90.7.
Thursday, February 2nd at 8 pm on WETS, 89.5.
Sunday, February 5th, at noon on WEHC, 90.7.
Sunday, February 5th, at 2 pm on WETS, 89.5.
Via podcast beginning February 6th.

Living, Life-Giving Water--A Sermon

Living, Life-Giving Water

John Shuck

First Presbyterian Church

Elizabethton, Tennessee

January 29th, 2012

John 4:1-42
Scholars' Version (SV)

We are making our way through the Gospel of John during Winter. Episcopal Bishop and biblical scholar, John Shelby Spong, wrote this about the Gospel of John in his latest book, Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World:

If I had to give my readers one clue and one clue only that would unlock the Fourth Gospel and allow its honesty and wonder to flow forth, it would be that the author is constantly poking fun at anyone who would take his message literally, misunderstand his use of symbols or attempt to literalize the words he has attributed to Jesus. P. 387

Spong goes on to say:

Time after time, the author of the Fourth Gospel asserts that this book is an interpretive book, not a literal one. It is a symbolic book, not a historical book or a biographical story. To read the Fourth Gospel with literal eyes is to miss the essence of its message. Yet throughout Christian history, this book has been read with literal eyes and this literal misreading has been used to buttress the case for orthodoxy, binding creeds and the rationally incomprehensible ecclesiastical doctrines that stand at the heart of what people assume is essential Christianity. P. 389-390.

I don’t know about you, but I agree with him. A literal, supernaturalistic reading of John’s gospel has kept the church mired in superstition. We are supposed to read Jesus as if he really did all these things and said all these things. Then we are supposed to believe it is all true. To the degree that we can believe and not doubt, we supposedly have faith. I don’t think that is faith. I think those mental gymnastics serve to make people credulous and obedient. Or they dismiss the whole thing as silly.

What might we gain from reading the Gospel of John critically? The interesting thing about reading John, is not Jesus, the symbolic character, but the author. Why did the author present Jesus in this way? Why did he have Jesus say and do all of these things?

One of the realities that the Gospel of John reflects is a late first century conflict between two siblings. This past week I spoke with Rabbi Rob Cabelli on my radio program. It will be broadcast sometime in the next couple of months. He is a rabbi at a Congregation Beth Israel in Asheville. I asked him what he would like Christians to know about Judaism. What do Christians get wrong and what would he like them to get right?

He said that people often confuse biblical Israel with contemporary Judaism. He said that Judaism and Christianity are not parent-child but sister-brother. They both arose at the same time from a common parent which was biblical Israel.

When we read the Gospel of John, we are reading one side of a bitter sibling conflict. Jesus is being used by the author as a mouthpiece for the movement that would become Christianity. Last week, we looked at the conversation with Jesus and Nicodemus. In the text itself, Jesus addresses Nicodemus as a plural. Listen to the text.

"You are a teacher of Israel, and you don’t understand this? Let me tell y’all this: we tell what we know, and we give evidence about what we’ve seen, but none of y’all accepts our evidence.”

This isn’t the historical Jesus. This is the author using the character Jesus to say what the author wants to say. This is obvious. It is a plural. It is as though the author is telling all readers, 

“Look how obvious I am being. I am making this up!”

Through the character Jesus and his conversations with opponents, the author is replaying the argument between these two siblings. One sibling will find a home in the synagogue and the other will find a home in the church. Two thousand years later, we know that one sibling became more powerful and numerous and we have a legacy of anti-semitism that has been fueled by the gospels and a misunderstanding of who Jesus was and who killed him.

In chapter four, Jesus meets this woman at Jacob's well. A Samaritan woman. This one is a third party. Samaritans did not make animal sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem. They had another holy place to make sacrifices.  She asks who worships on the right mountain, the Samaritans or the Jews? Jesus, representing the author John, says in effect, “Neither.”

“But the time is coming—in fact, it’s already here—for true worshipers to worship the Father as he truly is, without regard to place.” (Scholars' Version)

The place is important. By the time John’s gospel is being written, the temple in Jerusalem has been destroyed by the Romans. That is the crisis event that started these new religions, what has become modern Judaism and Christianity.

In this first century literature we see these movements trying to figure out where they are going and what they are about. Jesus is the symbolic figure who represents this new movement, a movement without a place. There is no Temple, no place for animal sacrifice, and that is true for the Jews and the Christians. They both have to figure out who they are without a place. What is worship if you don’t sacrifice animals? That is what ancient religion is.  They have to figure out who they are and what they do now.

The answer from John’s gospel is that the mystical presence of Jesus is the place and the focus of worship. He is the living water, he is the bread from heaven. Just to make sure you don’t get too literal about that, John invents these conversations between Jesus and these other characters in which the characters don’t get it.

The woman at the well says:

“Sir, give me some of this water, so I’ll never be thirsty or have to keep coming back here for water.” (SV)

Later his disciples tell him to eat something and Jesus replies that he has food they know nothing about and they say to one another, 

“Has someone already brought him food?”  (SV)

John has Jesus speak in these lofty spiritual metaphors and nobody gets him, including his own disciples. The author is continually looking at us and shouting, 

“Hey, this is a metaphor!”

The Gospel of John is one side of an ancient sibling rivalry that became calcified in canon and creed. A critical reading can loosen that up, but I recognize that it can also take the magic out of it. Nevertheless, I think that faith can become stronger when it dances with doubt. A faith, critically engaged, can develop into something more liberating and lasting. It isn’t always easy at first. I think, speaking personally, that it is worth it.

There is another gospel in which Jesus functions as a character. I should say that Jesus functions as a character in all of the gospels. Perhaps buried in them is an historical figure. But for the most part, Jesus is like the shape of water in Pat Boran’s poem, The Shape of Water:

Even when I cup it in my hands,

Trying to see it for what it is,

It takes my own shape, if temporarily;

It gives my own reflection back to me.

In the Gospel of Thomas, the author has Jesus say:

Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will rule over all. (SV)

I heard a quote the other day that says the same thing in another way. This is from Gloria Steinem. 

“The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

Yes, a critical reading of the gospels may be disturbing. But it just might set you free.

• What happens if we go ahead and read the gospels critically?
• What happens if we realize that the figure of Jesus is a character the authors (and especially John) use to tell a story particular for their time?
• What happens when we challenge the voices of loud, red-faced preachers in our heads warning us that if we start thinking for ourselves we are paving our own road to hell?
• What happens if we allow this story from John not be something we had to believe but instead allowed it to flow through us like “living, life-giving water?”

The truth will set you free.

When I read any other literature, I don’t read it worrying over whether or not I need to believe it. I let it be and allow it to speak freely and I give myself freedom to hear it. I read John’s Jesus now as a story for what it means to live a life that is authentic, free and life-giving, like water.

Jesus said to the woman at Jacob’s well:

“If you knew what God can give you, and who just said to you, “give me a drink,’ you would ask him and he would give you living, life-giving water.”

Mister, you don’t have anything to draw water with,” she says, “and the well is deep; just where will you get this ‘living, life-giving water?’ Can you do better than our patriarch Jacob? He left us this well, which used to quench his thirst and that of his family and his livestock.”


Jesus responded to her, “Whoever drinks this water will get thirsty again; but all who drink the water I’ll provide them with will never get thirsty again; it will be a source of water within them, a fountain of unending life.”


The woman says to him, “Sir, give me some of this water, so I’ll never be thirsty or have to keep coming back here for water.” (SV)

We, the readers, know that as long as she is alive she will still have to drink real water, no matter what living, life-giving water she gets from Jesus. The spiritual life doesn’t replace the physical life. The question the text asks me is what is life like when living, life-giving water is within like a fountain of unending life?

For me, it means first of all that life still happens. I need to eat and drink and do the things of life. I still need to go every day to Jacob’s well. I still live with the contingencies of life, a body that will age and eventually die, grief and loss, change and more change. But, the water within is an awareness that allows me to kiss life as it goes by. It is a fountain of refreshment from which I can draw. It is the living water of authenticity and integrity that is stronger than my fear about the contingencies of life.

It is an ocean of courage to take a risk, to try a new thing, to stand with someone who hurts, to be honest, to open my own self to a larger experience of life. When I feel afraid, anxious, awkward, out of place, or ashamed that I am not all I am “supposed” to be, I can draw from the river, that ocean, that fountain, that well of life-giving authenticity that says speak your truth, live your truth, find joy, and be the master of your thoughts and feelings. You are loved. You belong. The very elements of the universe are in you.

John’s portrait of Jesus is a portrait of a person with a deep center of peace that nothing could disturb. The living, life-giving water flowed so clearly and robustly that others thought he must have been “born from above.” The point of the story as the author tells us again and again is that that water, that living, life-giving, born from above water is within you. 

Jesus is the reflection of who you are.

Again from Pat Boran’s poem:

Great telescopes and simple mirrors

Water leaves for us everywhere

To show the connections between things,

To show us what we really are.

This coming September will mark my 20th anniversary as an ordained minister. Over the years, I continue to find that folks, including myself, have a thirst for belonging and for being OK. It is a thirst for love. I have also learned that that thirst for love will not be satisfied for waiting for others to give it to us. The greatest gift we can offer another is not to give the living, life-giving water. We cannot do that. The greatest gift is to give others permission and encouragement to lower that bucket, swim in that river, dive in that ocean, dance in that fountain, and open that spigot within.

Because my friends, it is the Holy Spigot.

Amen.

What is Religion?

We call it "Science And Religion" this conversation or, at times, contest.   I think the two terms are loaded and imprecise.   I hear people say that science can't explain everything.  I don't disagree, but I am not sure what they mean by saying that.   I don't know if the terms are science and religion so much as knowledge and meaning.   

The broader meaning of science is public knowledge.   What can we know about the universe and how do we know it and how do we communicate with each other about it?   This public knowledge is available to anyone who can develop the skills and learn how to use the tools.   An assertion to be valid must be able to be proved wrong.   This knowledge builds and corrects itself.

Religion, or its new cousin, spirituality, traditionally has been based on special revelation or private revelation.  You go to the cave and a supernatural being gives you the meaning of the world.  You take it on faith.  For those of us who didn't get called to the cave, we are required to trust the messenger.    The Bible, Qur'an, or a contemporary spiritualist provides answers that are not able to be disproved.    

I find this understanding of religion to be problematic.   It does nothing to advance public knowledge or meaning.  It is simply a matter of power.  If you cannot make a reasonable argument that can withstand the critique of public knowledge, then attempt to speak for God and require that people trust you.  Thankfully, this notion of religion (and "spirituality") is being exposed for its fraudulent claims.  

Religion is no longer legitimate as a depository for special revelation.  If it has anything to say about the natural world and its meaning for us, then we can use public knowledge to test its claims.   If it tries to protect its claims from a public test, then it has no legitimacy.  

When someone says to me that science cannot explain everything, I ask what the alternative might be.  Outside of public knowledge, what can be explained and how is it done?  If the answer is some version of "the gods told me" I call it either delusion, wishful thinking, or abuse of power.   I trust no one whose claims cannot be tested.

I think it is time to do away with any claim to special revelation.  This goes for our texts and creeds.   They are products of a time that relied on special revelation to answer life's questions.  This method has proven to be inadequate to describe the universe.    Instead I advocate that religion fully embrace the principles of public knowledge and devote itself to making life meaningful in a public way.  

What can religion be and what is its role?  I think the task of religion is to further the possibility of survival of the human species and to preserve our ecosystem for future generations. It is time to embrace the story of the universe that we are learning via public knowledge and work within that story to inspire a meaningful present and future for human beings. 

Some may argue that for them, religion and/or spirituality is about escaping this universe.  They may suggest that their identity is outside of it and the purpose of life is to transcend their earthly existence via immortal souls and what have you.  I have no argument.  What argument can possibly be given?  This is private revelation and folks are welcome to it.  I have no interest in it and find no value in it for our public life (except that I think it is in our public interest to respect the freedom of private belief). 

I think religion has so much more to offer than private or special revelation or speculation about matters that cannot be disproved.  We are in a unique and perilous position.   Humans have stretched Earth's limits to their breaking point.  We are not living sustainably.   Human beings may become extinct.   Earth will spin for 100s of millions of years whether humans are on board or not.   

The amazing thing is that the universe has evolved consciousness.   We are it.  We are literally the universe's eyes, ears, and thoughts.   That is valuable.  Far more valuable than we may realize.  It is worth preserving.   We have a great work at hand and that is to survive.  We need the best of ourselves.   We need to tell the story of the universe that we are learning through public knowledge and we need to work together to find meaningful images and metaphors that will inspire us to do this courageous work.  That, to me, is religion. 

I make this post in gratitude to two people who I think will be the inspiration to many, Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel Primack.  Check out their book, The New Universe and the Human Future:  How a Shared Cosmology Can Transform the World.     I will give them the last word:

What would it take, and mean, for Earth's citizens to become a cosmic society, a society capable of thinking in, and acting for, the extremely long term? The possibility of becoming a cosmic society may seem abstract, even pie-in-the-sky silly right now -- but in fact, it may only be possible now. There may be freedoms and resources available today that in a generation or two will disappear unless changes occur. How can we seize this opportunity? How can we help the world's people to recognize that the new cosmos is everyone's home, its origin story is everyone's story, and that sharing the unique place of intelligent life in this universe is a bond that unites us all?

Our goal in this book and this website is to inspire readers to imagine what a cosmic society that accepts and lives by the new cosmological concepts could become, and to start becoming it. We believe this may be humanity's best chance for a very long and successful future. And our best chance for infusing today with the hope and optimism necessary to get there.

Doing My Best to Undermine the Authority of Scripture

A new Presbyterian break-off has been formed.  I wrote about it here, ECO?  Seriously?   According to this chart, this latest denomination would be the tenth Presbyterian denomination currently active in the United States.   

Why so many?   It is about Truth of course.   It is about the Authority of Scripture.   

• That is why in 1861 the PCUS broke away because the Truth of Scripture was clear that slavery was ordained by God.
• That is why in 1932 the OPC broke away because the Truth of Scripture was clear that  "Modernism" (ie. Historical Criticism of the Bible and Evolution) was wrong.
• That is why in 1973 the PCA broke away because the Truth of Scripture was clear that women should stay out of the pulpit.
• That is why in 2012 the ECO broke away because the Truth of Scripture was clear that gays should stay out of the pulpit, too.

As with the other break-offs it is not slavery, evolution, women, gays or other worldly reasons.  It is about how the Truth and the Authority of Scripture have been compromised by the main body of Presbyterians who are chasing after that harlot "Culture" and her wicked ways.  

Now the cynics might say that it isn't the Authority of Scripture at all, just unwillingness to change with a dash of prejudice.  But that wouldn't be fair.  I believe them.  It is about the Authority of Scripture.  Not only that, the PC(USA) is awash in heresy and it refuses to do anything about it.  

Take for example, me.  I think the Bible is wrong about most everything.  It is wrong about evolution, slavery, women, and gays.   It has no authority on those topics.   I think the Bible is wrong about cosmology, history, our future, Jesus, and God.   The texts were all written by human beings without any supernatural or special revelation.   Yet I preach in a PC(USA) pulpit.  Run!  Flee!  Escape while you can into the refreshing waters of pure doctrine!   

Ten denominations aren't near enough.  We will need plenty more break-offs before we finally give up on the oppressive notion of the Authority of Scripture.   The Bible contains no truth outside of what we can discover through public means of inquiry.   Don't misunderstand.  I enjoy the Bible.  It is a marvelous human book.  I read it and study it with all the critical means at my disposal.   In so doing, I will do my part to undermine its Authority which I think is the next important step for religious freedom.     

Music For Our Mountains

Join us Saturday for a great concert at FPC Elizabethton. We are bound and determined to save Tennessee's mountains. Do get the word out about this concert!

Go here for more information.

If you can, come early and join our afternoon of action.  At 4 p.m. our Peacemaking Team will host an afternoon of action on behalf of our mountains.  There will be discussion, action planning, letter writing, and phone calls to Tennessee legislators' offices.  

Here is a packet with information about MTR and what we can do.

Today, January 24th, is the day to call governor Haslam and ask that he show leadership in the effort to end Mountaintop Removal Mining in Tennessee.

The number is 615.741.2001.

Ask him to support legislative efforts to pass the Tennessee Scenic Vistas Protection Act.

If it is too late today, call him tomorrow, and the next...

Here is my interview with Jennie Young about preventing MTR.

And read her article in the Elizabethton Star, Green Around the Hills

Born From Above--A Sermon

Born From Above

John Shuck

First Presbyterian Church

Elizabethton, Tennessee

January 22, 2012

John 3:1-36

During Winter, the season we have designated to explore the via creativa, the way of creativity and imagination, I am preaching a series of sermons on the Gospel of John. Theologian Matthew Fox coined the name Creation Spirituality to speak of a way of living that embodies a certain authenticity toward life. Creation Spirituality is Earthy spirituality. It is a friend of science. It is a friend of the body. It is a friend of Earth and all who live on Earth, that is all of life including more than human life. Creation Spirituality affirms that we are from Earth, we are bios or life, and that Earth is home.

Creation Spirituality is not a religion. While its roots are in Christianity, it transcends it. It also isn’t just what I say it is. This certainly isn’t about dogma or having the right beliefs about things. It is about a way of living more than requirements to believe. Creation Spirituality has four paths. The Latin term for path is via. These four paths or vias are:

Via positiva – the path of awe, wonder, and celebration

Via negativa –the path of letting go and acknowledging loss and limits

Via creativa—the path of creativity and imagination

Via transformativa—the path of compassion, justice-making, and transformation

These paths are not a ladder climbed, but a spiral danced. Connecting a path to season of the year is a way of acknowledging Earth’s changing seasons and a way of appreciating Earth’s rhythms. To connect the via positiva with Summer and the via creativa with Winter does not mean we are only creative in the Winter and celebratory in the Summer, any more than as Christians we live resurrection only on Easter. Attaching a path to a season (such as creativity with Winter) is a way of intentionally exploring this path even as in our own life we may experience bursts of creativity throughout the year.

I find it helpful to structure worship around the four seasons and the four paths of Creation Spirituality. Creation Spirituality, as I see it, is a way of living that embodies a certain authenticity toward life and Earth. It is an Earthy spirituality. It is a way of being authentic, of being human. Religion does its job when it encourages, invites, and provides means via ritual, reflection, community, and practice to live lives that matter.

If you are interested in learning more about Creation Spirituality, I recommend Matthew Fox’s book, Original Blessing. Or you can google Creation Spirituality or Matthew Fox. I am no purist or apologist for it. I borrow what I like from it and shape it in a way that makes sense to me. I think in doing so, I am honoring creativity. I make my own theology.

Religious experience for many has not offered that freedom. For the most part, religion is fixed. It is waking each morning and believing six impossible things before breakfast. It includes rules and weirdness and a whole lot of guilt. The idea of making up or creating your own religion or spirituality might seem to be an odd notion. Surely you’ll go to hell for that. Then again, maybe you won’t. Care to take a chance? Or is it safer to follow the rules and believe in a punitive god even though that god is like an abusive spouse?

We inherit our notions of God just by living in the culture. Our culture’s god is a mean old cuss. He is a male, first off. Then he’s tribal. He favors one group over another. He is always starting wars. He is racist. Look at the yokels running for president. They are all about god. Each one is just as holy and pure as mama’s Bible. Their god doesn’t want equality for gay people. Their god doesn’t believe in evolution. Their God doesn’t care about poverty and inequality. Their God’s long-term plan is to destroy the planet to get the fossil fuels as fast as we can by any means necessary. There is no reason to care about future generations because Jesus will be coming back and he’ll make us a new heavenly home. Hallelujah.

It may be an odd notion to create a new religion, but the dominant religion of our culture sure doesn’t seem to be working for us. Care to take a chance?

The via creativa is the spiritual path of exploring and imagining new ways of living in this world. And the creativity comes when we finally give up. We want to run out the door screaming into the darkness. More than one person this week has told me that they have given up on the political process. I wonder if maybe we are getting to a point where something new and unexpected is about happen.

You know what creative moments are like. You have been going through the motions, or stuck in a rut, or have a block, all of those metaphors we use. Suddenly, it seems, we get an insight, something breaks through. That is creativity. You know that you can’t force it. It happens when it is ready. The via creativa is a path of nurturing creativity. It is trusting creativity. You can empty a space for it, but creativity is serendipitous. It is surprising. It is unexpected.

It happens when you allow yourself permission to let go of old ways, the via negativa is letting go, and to be willing to try something new.

A teacher of the law, Nicodemus, comes to Jesus in the night (night is the symbol for the via negativa) and he acknowledges that Jesus is of God. Nicodemus says to Jesus:

“Rabbi, we know that you’ve come as a teacher from God; after all, nobody can perform the signs you do unless God is with him.”


Jesus replied to him, “Let me tell you this: no cone can experience the empire of God without being reborn from above.”

That is the Scholars’ Version, a translation by the Jesus Seminar. 

You may have heard the phrase, 

“You must be born again.” 

There is a certain type of Christianity in which people call themselves “born again” believers. It comes from this text in the Gospel of John. The word translated as “again” is the Greek word, anothen. It also means “above.” Was Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again or that he must be born from above? Nicodemus thinks he means “again” and asks how he can go back into his mother’s womb. Can you be much more of a literalist than that?

It is like the woman at the well later in the gospel. Jesus says I have life-giving water so you will never thirst. She says, “Great! Give me it and I won’t need to keep coming to this well.” No. That isn’t what Jesus means. Another time, Jesus says you must eat my body and drink my blood. They think he really means it.

The Gospel of John is not an account of the historical Jesus. The Gospel of John is the work of a creative author offering a poetic portrait of the authentic life. A life he saw in the historical person of Jesus. Then he wrote a parable about him.

Bishop John Shelby Spong has written a new book, Reclaiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World. The book is based on his weekly column in which he wrote about the different books of the Bible. It is a great summary of the background of each book of the Bible from a critical perspective. This is what John Shelby Spong writes about John:

“If I had to give my readers one clue and one clue only that would unlock the Fourth Gospel and allow its honesty and wonder to flow forth, it would be that the author is constantly poking fun at anyone who would take his message literally, misunderstand his use of symbols or attempt to literalize the words he has attributed to Jesus.” P. 387

In our story with Nicodemus, the joke is on him. Jesus says, “You must be born from above” or perhaps “reborn from above” as the Scholars’ Version translates it, to get both senses of that word. Nicodemus, the religious teacher, the leader, the smart guy, is as literal as a stump. “You mean I need to go back to my mother’s womb?” The joke is on him. But it is more than that. The joke is on us. We have been literalizing Jesus for centuries.

Every time we read one of these weird stories in John, it should be a clue that this is tongue in cheek. It is a koan, a parable, in which the character Jesus happens to be the protagonist. And it is an invitation at every step to live an authentic life.

What does it mean to live an authentic life, or to use some of John’s metaphors, what does it mean to

Be a branch of the vine,

To drink living water,

To eat Jesus’s flesh,

To hear and follow the shepherd’s voice,

To know the way, the truth, and the life,

To see the light in the darkness,

To rise from the dead,

To be reborn from above?

John just piles on the metaphors and images and the other characters in the story misinterpret them. The joke John says to us is, “Will you miss it, too?”

It is pretty much an historical consensus that the historical Jesus was executed by the Roman Empire. He died not of disease, or old age, or accident, but by a deliberate act of torture and spectacle by the most powerful empire in the known world. His execution according to Roman law was legal and legitimate.

The Roman Empire wasn’t a bad empire. To use a phrase by religious scholars, Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan, Rome represented the “normalcy of civilization.” To keep the peace and to keep order sometimes you have to crucify people. Jesus and thousands of others like him were collateral damage.

The author of John’s Gospel and the authors of the other gospels each in their own way, saw something in this. They saw that this “normalcy of civilization” is dehumanizing. Jesus represented a human being and what it means to be human in a dehumanizing world. John wanted to tell a story of the powers of this world, this normalcy of civilization, exposed for what they are and for what it is. He found in the story of Jesus a way to tell it.

This part is still true today. When we are told

that war is inevitable,

that destroying our planet for non-renewable resources is essential to life,

that infinite economic growth is possible or desirable,

that corporations are people,

then we live in a very similar world to the one John’s Gospel exposed as the power of darkness,

“the world”.

What does it mean to be a human being in “the world”? That is what I think John’s invitation is.

Jesus tells Nicodemus, “

You must be reborn from above.”

In 1967, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. told Americans the same thing. A nation that enslaved people for 244 years and said it was normal, even God-ordained, then today goes to endless war all over the globe and makes war an economic essential, exploits the poor, consigns our children to environmental catastrophe, and fills our every moment with white noise from the media, that nation needs to reborn from above.

King said, “America, you must be born again!”

He was right. 

It isn’t just America. It is everyone.

The author of John’s gospel by creating this exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus was saying to his readers, 

"It is time to raise your consciousness. It is time to be reborn from above."

The way we are going is not sustainable. But it is not hopeless.

Now is the via creativa.

The human brain is more complex than the galaxy. We have more neurons in each of our brains then there are stars in the galaxy. They are connected in ways the stars are not. Life is incredible. 

The possibilities for imagining and creating a new way of living with one another and with Earth in sustainable ways are out there and in here. Being born from above means to raise our consciousness and to become more aware of who we are and what life is and what it can be. Given the chance, we can share and create and cooperate and collaborate. We can survive and thrive for many, many more generations. Life as the Domination System has structured it is not inevitable.

Yeah, the world knows how to make crosses.

But the Gospel of John ends with resurrection, rebirth, and a new start. 

Amen.