Many churches in the U.S. draw heavily from the values and methods of secular businesses. When one pastor was confronted about this fact he replied, "So what? A principle is a principle and God created all of the principles." His answer illustrates the degree to which Enlightenment thought has shaped our understanding of God and faith.
The worldview behind his statement is the same as that held by deism -- God has created the cosmos with certain knowable and immutable laws. Among them are the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of mathematics. But modern people have expanded the list to include other areas of life such as leadership, relationships, and business. In order to function properly, our task is to discover these laws and translate them into applicable principles. In this view God is the law-writer, the principle-creator, the watchmaker.
The problem with the world, this view argues, is that most people are not living by the right principles. They are trying to run a diesel truck on fruit juice -- it just won't work. Rather than applying the principles of life derived from scientists, political leaders, or Oprah Winfrey, people should be living by God's principles. After all, as the Creator of all things, he knows what's best, right?
This understanding of God informs how many contemporary Christians engage the Bible. They believe the Scriptures are a divine instruction manual for life; a resource to be culled for principles that may then be applied to any challenge or dilemma. I've heard church leaders joke that B-I-B-L-E stands for "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth," and others have called it the "owner's manual" for a human being. We may chuckle at these metaphors for the Bible, but behind them is a very un-Christian understanding of God and ironically an unbiblical one rooted in Enlightenment thinking.
When the Bible is primarily seen as a depository of divine principles for life, it fundamentally changes the way we engage God and his Word. Rather than a vehicle for knowing God and fostering our communion with him, we search the Scriptures for applicable principles that we may employ to control our world and life. This is not Christianity; this is Christian deism. In other words, we actually replace a relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible. If one has the repair manual, why bother with the expense of a mechanic?
Tim Keller, in his book "Counterfeit Gods," defined idols as "good things turned into ultimate things." I wonder if this definition applies to what some evangelicals have done to the Bible. Rather than making the Bible the means by which we discover and commune with God, they have made the Bible an end in itself. It has come to replace Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End of their faith.
I realize that in Christian traditions holding a very high view of the Scriptures, like my own, it may sound as if I am downgrading the importance of the Bible. That is not the case. I believe it is God's Word, inspired by him, and the authority for our faith and lives. Through it we discover who he is -- and what greater gift can there be? And it does contain many useful and applicable principles for life and faith. But in our zeal to honor the importance of the Bible and extol its usefulness, we may unintentionally do the opposite. We may reduce the Bible from God's revelation of himself to merely a revelation of divine principles for life. And we are not the first to fall into this subtle trap.
The religious leaders in Jesus' time were expert students of the Scriptures. They had memorized the entire Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). And they had parsed every command, extracted every principle, and delineated every instruction it contained. But their mastery of Scripture had not resulted in actually knowing God or recognizing his Son when he stood right in front of them. Jesus said to these leaders, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."9
This is the sinister shortcoming of faith built upon principles, laws, and formulas. It causes us to reduce faith to divine instructions or godly self-help tips: five steps to a more godly marriage, how to raise kids God's way, biblical laws of leadership, managing your finances with kingdom principles, etc. But discovering and applying these principles does not actually require a relationship with God. Instead, being a Christian simply means you have exchanged a worldly set of life principles for a new set taken from the Bible. But like an atheist or deist, the Christian deist can put these new principles into practice without God being involved. God can be set aside while we remain in control of our lives. He may be praised, thanked, and worshipped for giving us his wise precepts for life, but as with an absentee watchmaker, God's present participation is altogether optional.
This posture is particularly tempting in affluent, professional communities where people are accustomed to off-the-shelf solutions and self-help manuals. Their education and wealth mean they are used to being in control of their lives, and a huge publishing industry has ensured they maintain this illusion. Many best sellers are self-help books advocating principles to overcome nearly any problem. While proven formulas might be expected for losing weight or growing a vegetable garden, we tend to apply scientific certainty to even the more mysterious areas of life. Perusing the shelves at the local bookstore can be a very comforting exercise. Knowing that there is a solution to any problem life throws at you provides a sense of control -- it calms our fears. And if the answer cannot be found at the bookstore, we know there is always the pharmacy down the street.
This same trend is evident in many other areas of contemporary Christian teaching. It is now possible to have a "Christian" marriage, a "Christian" business, and even a "Christian" nation without Christ actually being present. The fact that we employ principles derived from the Bible is enough to convince us that they are -- and therefore we are -- Christian.
This popular form of Christianity with its emphasis on working principles and worshiping the Bible rather than God, may be appealing because it is far more predictable and manageable than an actual relationship with God. Relationships, whether human or divine, are messy, time consuming, and often uncontrollable. But principles are comprehensible and clinical. Perhaps this explains why a 2005 study found that only 3 percent of pastors listed prayer as a priority in their ministry. If he's already given you the watch, why bother maintaining a relationship with the watchmaker?
Follow Skye Jethani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/skye_jethani
One thing that always drove me crazy when trying to discuss issues with literalists is how they handle contradictions in the Bible. They always say, "well, it's still true but must be interpreted." When I try to tell them that interpretation is the opposite of taking literally, there's just a wall of noncomprehension.
http://myth-one.com/memorial.htm
Anyhoo, maybe there was formal ratification about idolatry in one of the other commandments (11 to 20) that the reader knows about... Moses dropped the other tablet containing the rest of the commandments when he slipped on Mt Sinai -- or did I confuse that with a movie?
But yes, your point is well made and well taken. To LITERALLY (there's that dang word again) turn the Bible INTO GOD can in NO WAY be any less than idolatry. It's not the book; it's not even the words of the book; it's the principles contained in the words of the book that have the potential to do some good in a person's lives; or some bad, also, as evidenced by the California couple just sentenced to 22 years for beating their child to death "because the Bible told them to."....
The Bible is one of the most dangerous and lethal weapons around.
Hebrews 4:12
Short answer - yes.
This has been another episode of "Short answers to obvious questions"
When priests hold the Bible high above their heads during religious processions it is an idol.
Heck it is now possible to be an "Atheist Christian" Unitarian minister. . .
Just Google "Atheist Christian".
I dare say that I got a wry chuckle out of how "fundamentalist atheist" poster boy Christopher Hitchens of all people put self-described "liberal Christian" Unitarian Universalist minister Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell in her place when she interviewed him for the Portland Monthly Magazine a while back -
Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell - I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Christopher Hitchens - I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell - Let me go someplace else. . .
ROTFLMU*UO!
Source - http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hitchens/
By definition, Marilyn Sewell is closer to a humanist that Christopher Hitchens is. So what? I'm not one to scoff about that and there is much we can learn from that standard of living.
We as a society need a little more of the humanist "golden rule" aspect of living as opposed to being the religious accuser who lives through words alone -- with very to show for it in their every day good deeds and have little to show in terms of kindness.
I *did* say just Google it. . .
:We as a society need a little more of the humanist "golden rule" aspect of living as opposed to being the religious accuser who lives through words alone with very to show for it in their every day good deeds and have little to show in terms of kindness.--
I thought that the "Golden Rule" was Christian, albeit similar to and probably founded upon pre-existing Jewish religious concepts. For the record there are plenty of "less than kind" "Humanist" anti-religious accusers such as Richard Dawkins just for starters. . .
[Then] We must make an idol of our fear and call it God.”
The author's criticism that many christian churches are very much like the religious leaders whom Jesus critisized is right on target, but the study and application of the word of God is not the flaw. God can be encountered in his word, in prayer, and in worship.
If we use and emphasize one spiritual discipline, such as Biblical Study, to the exclusion of all others, then certainly that or any other discipline can become a form of idolaty and hinder rather than help our relationship with God.
"The religious leaders in Jesus' time were expert students of the Scriptures. They had memorized the entire Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). And they had parsed every command, extracted every principle, and delineated every instruction it contained. But their mastery of Scripture had not resulted in actually knowing God..."
I would disagree with this. I'd be much more comfortable if it said "Some of the religious leaders..." When it absolutely paints a picture of all Jewish religious leaders at the time of Jesus not knowing God it supports anti-semitism. Two facts belie this. The first is that Rabbinic Judaism, the source of all subsequent Judaism came from that time and for this vital stream to exist it must have included leaders who knew God. The second is that in the Christian New Testament many religious leaders DID recognize Jesus and follow him from Simeon to Joseph of Arimathea.
Jesus in saying that the pharisees searched the scripture but missed they were witnessing to him was speaking only to a segment of pharisees who were attacking him. Meanwhile others, like Nicodemus, were calling him Lord and following him.
I don't. I own it as my scriptures. But scriptures just means "writings" and the original determination of what was scripture wasn't based on whether it was God's Word; but whether it was read and studied by the communitiy. That means the Big Book is the scripture of AA; no one in AA thinks it is God's Word or needs to in order to find it helpful. In fact in AA they say, "Take what you want and leave the rest."
I'm also not comfortable with using "him" for God. I try to avoid masculine language for the Divine because it implies God's male. I even struggle with "God" because it can be set over against "Goddess" as a male term.
Finally I can't confess the scriptures are "the" authority for faith/life. I'd definitely say it's a source, even an unparalleled source for Christians like me, but not "the" only one. I like the Anglican idea that we also have two other sources: reason and tradition. I'd go further and agree with the Medieval Mystics, the Quakers and the original Wesleyans that there is a fourth source: experience.
So I'd probably say:
"I believe it is our Tradition's Scripture to be read and studied by our community, inspired by the Creating One, and an unparalleled source for our faith and lives, along with reason, tradition and experience."
I would have unpacked the problem with the Enlightment more, making it clear the problem isn't it's elevation of reason but it's modernistic removal of spirit from nature so we humans began relating to it as an IT rather than a THOU and seeing ourselves as separate from nature rather than part of it. These modernistic mistakes of the enlightenment are the root of the Industrial Revolution and lie behind the ecological crises of our time. Post-Modernism rejects this part of Modernism, but not necessarily the Enlightment's emphasis of reason.
What Jethani is talking about with "Christian Deism" is this tendency of Evangelicals to understand how to be a Christian as an I-IT reality and the IT is the Bible and principles of life. I agree that spirituality is healthier as an I-THOU reality, as Martin Buber said, and the THOU is both the Creating One as well as Nature including other persons. I also want to say that I believe this healthy way of doing spirituality is NOT limited to Christianity, or even other Theistic faiths.
Christianity claims the solution to all the religious problems and questions of human existence are not something that we can achieve through our own efforts; the christian solution is the gift of God's grace accomplished through the work of Jesus Christ and forming a relationship with God initiated by him. We only need to accept the gift of God's love, grace and reconciliation through faith in Jesus Christ. We realize that this seems to be rather arrogant because it is an exclusive claim to Christ as the only answer to finding reconciliation with God and ultimate eternal happiness as a result. It is non-the-less, what defines christianity. You can accept or reject the claim, but you cant seperate christianity from this basic and essential belief.
You speak of bridging a gap between God and human beings. That indicates duality; God and not God. If God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent there can be no duality. There can be only God. A house divided cannot stand.
Jesus of Nazareth didn't set himself up as being anything more than everyone else. When speaking about the apparent miracles he performed he said words to the effect of: this and more you can do. I don't believe he meant that he personally was the way the truth and the life, but that his teachings were.
If God is all there is in creation there is nothing that is not God. If there is something that is not God then God is not all of it's own creation and it is not God. That's ridiculous. Since God is all of creation then human beings are a part of God and cannot be separated from It any more than all of the drops of water can be separated from the ocean. Any sense of separation is an illusion. It's wrong thinking. Wrong thinking is sin. Righteousness (right useness) is remembering who we really are and living accordingly. Your faith has healed you. Go and sin no more.
Everything changed when John Wesley experienced a mystical experience of God's unconditional love for him while in community and then felt that love motivating him to love others practically, including working for social justice. It kept the name "Methodism" but it no longer was utilitarian, like you described your earlier way of doing spirituality, at all.
I think this is the result of man creating God in his image.