Book Review: The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity - Hyam Maccoby

Case Dismissed for Lack of Evidence

It is true. Most of the conclusions this book offers about the origins of the "Jerusalem Church," the Roman Christian Church and Paul of Tarsus, are actually intuitive assumptions and speculations based upon circumstantial evidence and hearsay. Hyam Maccoby's case would therefore be thrown out of court, or dismissed by any other professional fact-finding panel.

This is the argument usually resorted to by Maccoby's critics and, as a matter of fact, they're quite right. His book actually "proves" nothing. However, this argument fails simply because the same can be said for any book written about the origins of the Christian faith, regardless of its author's purpose.

How pleasant it must be for fundamentalists who understand the Holy Bible as the literal and unquestionable word of God, given to us through inspired writers. Everyone else has to struggle with faith, drawing conclusions by reading between lines and parsing obscure passages originally written in the archaic vernacular and unfamiliar language of some ancient culture. Jesus, as far as we know, never wrote anything. Neither did anyone else, for the most part - no newspapers, magazines or books, not much in the way of carefully documented and archived official records. Therefore, the only research materials available are the scant offerings of people who usually wrote for a targeted audience, and without the journalistic or secretarial scruples we now understand as appropriate to such efforts. We therefore do Bible studies, peruse Bible commentaries, and read books like this one, attempting to figure out what we believe and why, never finding any truth, because there is none to find.

Most of us are persuaded by the religion of our birth; I am no exception. As Christian children, we are taught the fundamentals. I was no exception to that either. While fundamentalism suffices for children, increasing age and experience is likely to bring a decreasing willingness to accept the nebulous and obscure explanations traditionally offered for various aspects of our faith. Frankly, I began to think that some of it, including even the sacraments, was poppycock - hocus-pocus that Jesus himself might have found strange, irrelevant and/or inappropriate.

I admit that I was therefore favorably disposed towards Maccoby's book from the very beginning. In it, I found confirmation of my surmise that what we call "Christianity" is really based more upon what Paul thought than what Jesus taught. Whatever else he was, Hyam Maccoby was a highly respected scholar with impressive credentials. His intuitive assumptions and speculations therefore cannot be dismissed out of hand as the work of some charlatan, religious kook or bitter Jew. Furthermore, his explanations and ideas seem quite plausible in light of our understandings of human nature, politics, and the way things usually work out in the real world.

In this respect, Maccoby is a problem only for bible-believing fundamentalists and mainline churches intent on rigidly adhering to sixteenth century theology. A thoughtful reader is likely to finish the book wondering if the time has come for another reformation, this time to sort out the Paul vs. Jesus questions, towards developing a faith that makes sense to intelligent, thinking adults. Ideas that cannot stand this kind of review are not worth holding on to, since they are bound to fail us in times of trials and troubles. To this extent, Maccoby's work is of great value to serious Christians.

The express purpose of this book, however, is not to defame Paul of Tarsus or debunk the Christian faith, but to show how and why Paul's invention created anti-Semitism, vaguely hinting that Christian anti-Semitism was ultimately responsible for the holocaust. It is not his first attempt. In other works, he dances around the same accusation, without ever coming right out with it.

I do not buy Maccoby's "Christ-killers" explanation for anti-Semitism. By kicking that dead horse, I'd say he exhibits a very poor understanding of what practical Christians really think about. My religious upbringing taught that some Jewish higher-ups in Jerusalem were complicit with the Roman government in an affair that was otherwise mainly political and Roman. We were more apt to attribute that complicity to the usual corruption of people in high places, rather than to Judaism as a whole. Having said that, I must also admit that one of the things I have always found somewhat confusing is that while Christians are taught to revere the Old Testament's Israel as the foundation of our faith, the New Testament's Jews seem to somehow become the bad guys.

After reading Maccoby's arguments, I am willing to consider the possibility that a generally negative attitude, which I am not sure rises to the level of anti-Semitism, arises from the various defamatory comments about the Jews, which appear here and there in the New Testament. Maccoby lays the direct or indirect responsibility for these on Paul's doorstep. To that extent, his assertions seem to have merit.

However, I cannot remember ever encountering anyone, even among the most zealous radicals, who found in any of that reason enough for Christians to hate Jews. Like everyone else, I learned about what had happened to European Jews at the hands of the Nazis shortly after World War II ended, but I never heard of "anti-Semitism" until age fifteen, when a traveling lecturer speaking at a school assembly explained the meaning of the word "restricted," as used on signs in front of real estate developments.

Through common sense, practical people understand that there are always two sides to every story. For the case in point, it seems obvious that any group seeming to have a "better than thou" attitude is likely to encounter some backlash. Claiming a preferential status in the eyes of God, a reluctance to socialize outside their particular faith or ethnic group, discouraging offspring from marrying "outsiders", being quick to remind others of their particular faith or ethnicity whatever the occasion, and maintaining an allegiance to a country and culture other than the one they are sharing with their present countrymen - these are good ways to distance one's self from others.

This is not "anti" anything. It is, for better or for worse, just human nature. During my life, where I live, I have seen the same negative attitude arise with respect to others, and for the same reasons: the Christian Reformed Dutch ("Holanders"), the Catholic Polish ("Polacks") and the Catholic Bohemians ("Bo-hunks"). This accompanied the arrival of nineteenth century immigrants, lasted for a generation or two, after which the ethnic and religious differences giving rise to these feelings faded away, and the discriminatory feelings were gradually forgotten.

Maccoby does not address this reality at all. In view of that, one can only conclude that his opinion was that the sole source of anti-Semitism was Paul and the Christian religion he "invented." That, unfortunately, discredits the quality of his thinking by revealing as underlying bias.

Were it not for this, I would give this work a five-star rating. As it is, I give it a one-star rating for Jewish readers, since its premise is mostly invalid, and it probably will not otherwise teach them anything they do not already know.

For Christian readers, however, I think it merits at least a four-star rating, the above notwithstanding - the reason being that the book includes a lot of historical and other background information that has significant value as part of a well-rounded program of religious study and spiritual growth.

-=glw=-

Thoughts on “Foreign Aid” and “Mission”

(Note: this was written in response to a note from a pen pal in India.)


Your interest in promoting assistance for your compatriots from foreign sources brought a couple of issued to mind.

When I was a young schoolboy, we used to receive a little publication called the Weekly Reader It was designed to promote an interest in reading, and to help develop reading skills. Among other features, it included articles about current events, and one title that has always stuck in my mind was Trade – Not Aid. This was in the early 1950’s, and the point being made in the article was that people in countries who were receiving “foreign aid,” which was a political issue here at the time, did not want handouts. They wanted assistance in rebuilding their infrastructures and economies so that they would be able to support themselves and determine their own destinies.

Today, the U.S. Government spends a lot of money on various aid programs, although much less than the post WW-II/Cold War era, and what is distributed amounts to just a miniscule fraction of our government’s annual budget. Unfortunately, the largest portion of that aid involves military assistance and the fostering of political self-interest – money spent to buy and retain friends, in other words. The largest benefactor is always Israel (currently excepting Iraq). India is no longer on the list of leading aid recipients.

Mainline Christian denominations are big on “mission,” which is their euphemism for charity. A lot of money is collected and distributed to causes at home, and around the world. Perhaps nobody knows exactly how much. I was unable to find a figure, but I estimate it is somewhere in the area of $800-million (estimated by multiplying total Presbyterian spending by the ratio of PCUSA membership to total mainline church membership). This amounts to only about $6.75 per member. Unfortunately, much of that is wasted on projects that are ineffective, inefficient, or inappropriate. In the case of the Presbyterian church, upwards of 75% of the money is spent on personnel, support and administrative costs – almost exactly the opposite of what is ordinarily considered to be an acceptable program spending ratio by most charitable organizations.

I was brought up in a protestant Christian tradition, in the Presbyterian Church. Like any other religion, Christianity has its moderates and its zealots. Presbyterians have traditionally been on the moderate end of the spectrum, emphasizing mission (good works and charity) and education as an appropriate way of carrying on the work begun by Jesus Christ. Christ’s agenda was to bring hope for a better life, now and in the hereafter, to common people, and He worked to that end in his time by teaching and healing. Hence, Presbyterians have gone out into the world to build schools and hospitals, rather than to preach and proselytize.

Mission is legitimate and effective when it helps people become capable of helping themselves. Otherwise it is often just an easy give-away which permits the more fortunate to justify their affluence without getting their hands dirty, while the rest of the world continues to suffer. Mission done right is not simple or easy. Ineffective and inappropriate projects therefore often result, with the well-intentioned, but misguided rushing in with temporary assistance of some kind, which does nothing to solve systemic problems. Eventually the recipients are left in the same poor condition, while the givers walk away feeling good about themselves.

Several years ago the World Council of Churches got into trouble for providing aid (money, food, and medical supplies) to people in Africa who turned out to be murderous rebels. That is an (admittedly extreme) example of "feel good" mission that has no good result.

A more typical example of wasting mission resources is the annual trip to Mexico that involves teenagers from our local church. Traveling across the country to a small village in Mexico, they reopen and repair a small derelict church building while befriending the local Mexican youth. For the Mexican kids, this has evidently turned into a festival of sorts; a time when they expect the gringos and gringas from America to show up to host parties, play games and pass out gifts. The price they pay is having to listen to American kids witness and preach. The reality is that Mexico is predominately catholic with a much stronger family oriented culture than ours, so Mexican youth could probably better be teaching the American kids about things that matter. After the American’s leave, the Mexican’s close up the building, permitting it to fall into a state of neglect again in preparation for next year’s event, and life in their little village returns to normal. Our kids come back home clucking to the congregation about all the wonderful things that happened in Mexico, while the congregation pats itself on the back for yet another contribution to mission. As a cultural exchange or encounter, this activity probably has merit, and it should probably be billed as such, rather than thought of as a mission project.

On the other hand, our local church helps support a man who felt he was called to go to Haiti to help the poor. His first project was to teach rural peasants how to build simple concrete water filters. That cost very little, and had a big impact upon disease. More recently he came up with a program where a $40 donation enables a peasant boy to establish his own small plantation, which will provide enough income over the years to pay for twelve years of schooling. This may not be a big deal in a global sense, but it is a big deal to the people of this small mountain region in Haiti. This man paid a significant personal price for the privilege of helping others. He devoted his own money and material to what began as his personal project. He gave up all the opportunities he would have had in his own country. He gave up the safety and security of his American home to take up his work in a risky, politically unsettled and relatively lawless place. He contracted a chronic form malaria, which evidently never really goes away. On the plus side, he also eventually met, fell in love with and married a fine Haitian woman.

Our church is small; only about 1200 members, all of whom are fortunate enough to have $40 to contribute to mission. If each small affluent group were to support a similarly small but effective mission, the world would soon become a better place for many.

***

As a footnote, I hasten to add this:

I am not trying to promote Christianity or the Presbyterian Church. I am not a student of religion, but am intelligent enough to understand that all religions have good and bad aspects, and that we are what we are mainly by virtue of the culture we are born into. My ancestors came to America as immigrants from Norway and Germany, and were therefore of the Christian tradition. Not surprisingly, our family was originally part of the German Evangelical Lutheran persuasion. My father was in the U.S. Coast Guard, a military service. After World War II, he was reassigned to a life saving station in Grand Haven, a small town on Lake Michigan that was originally founded by a Presbyterian missionary. As has been the Presbyterian tradition, the missionary quickly built a one-room schoolhouse, recruiting his sister-in-law as the volunteer teacher. In this town therefore, the Presbyterian Church was understandably prominent, and that is how we happened to become involved with that particular church.

We remain Presbyterians mainly because:

The denomination is liberal enough to recognize the equal legitimacy of other denominations and other faiths. That is unusual, most other traditions think that they must believe in the exclusive validity of whatever it is that they believe, and must therefore believe that everyone else is wrong. Today we are rediscovering scientifically and philosophically what wise people of old easily knew as a matter of common sense - that human minds are imperfect and our thinking on any subject is therefore fallible. Zealotry in any matter is therefore the mark of an ignorant person. Presbyterian doctrine is the only one I know of among the god-fearing faiths that acknowledges this fact of life. The alternative, which is to claim infallibility and insist that everyone else accept whatever such zealots claim to be "the truth" has a long history of destructiveness.

The other reason we are Presbyterian is that the denomination is governed democratically, rather than by a hierarchy of ordained clergy. Governing bodies include both lay members and ministers. A Book of Order, which is essentially a constitution, guarantees the rights of individuals, thereby limiting the power of any other individuals or factions, and assuring everyone of fair treatment, and a voice in the affairs of the church.

-=glw=-

Comment for Tamara (and other "survivors")

Preface:

I originally began writing this in response to a friend request I received on a social networking website from someone using the moniker “achildabusesurvivor.” The requester turned out to be a woman in her mid-thirties named Tamera, who claimed to have been a victim of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her mother, father and step-father.

As such stories go, hers didn’t sound all that horrific. But, of course, children living in their own little world inevitably arrive at a belief that their situation is unique and worse than anyone else’s. That happens because children usually won’t talk openly about things they feel are shameful or threatening to themselves or someone close to them, and their scant experience in life provides little basis for ranking their personal fear and pain. Her purpose was to lobby for a more aggressive child protection system, and harsher punishments for perpetrators of abuse. Meanwhile, she took satisfaction from the fact that her father was in prison, and would remain in confinement for the rest of his natural life, and seemed to suggest that her mother’s suicide was a well-deserved end.

The responses to her post ranged from politely supportive to viciously collaborative, one “Christian” writer even wishing he could go into that prison and murder her father. Assuming hers was an original appeal, I also felt somewhat sympathetic, but not for the same reason. Indeed, here was a person who had evidently embraced a “victim” identity early on, and has been wasting the best years of her life on a self-defeating hate campaign. That, indeed, is a sad situation. I found it disturbing that of all those who responded, none suggested there was anything wrong with her obvious obsession. And an obsession it turned out to be. Googling her moniker turned up hits on other sites where she had copied and pasted the same story.

Here’s my comment to Tamara, and many of those who commented on her blog.

Dear Tamara ~

I was also a severely abused child; physically and emotionally by parents, sexually by others. The physical and emotional abuse affected me much more than the sexual abuse. That might have been because I was a boy, I suppose, and was, most of the time, an accommodating "victim" of the sexually abuse. But the result of it was that I wasted the better part of my life hating my father, seeing myself as a victim, believing that my case was unique, and feeling that I was somehow "different" than everyone else.

Because of what went on in my childhood home, I developed what psychologists call "Avoidant Personality Disorder." Personality disorders always arise as a way of coping with low self-esteem. I did not begin to grow out of that until I was 36-years old.

At that point, people thought I had it made. I'd become a successful young executive, the resident "boy genius" at the small corporation where I worked, single, handsome, well-built, always tastefully dressed, cool car, money in the bank, great apartment, admired by all the cute young girls - all the things any normal young man would dream of.

Living on the West Michigan shoreline, I spent lots of time at our wonderful Lake Michigan beach watching those other guys come out in the evenings and pay with their kids. That really began to hurt as I began to think 'That'll never be me. I've let that opportunity slip away.' In fact, I did not have it made at all, or at least that is not how it felt to me. In spite of how much I achieved, it was never enough. I was still always lonely, hopeless, self-loathing, and clueless. I had no idea how I had gotten to that age and never been able to find anyone who could love me.

At the end of my 37th summer, I couldn't stand it anymore. By that time, I had finally come to realize that I wasn't any different than anyone else, just severely screwed up attitudinally and emotionally. I'd actually known that for quite a while. I had seen a couple of shrinks and read lots of books. None of that did much good because I wasn't able to accept the fact that the situation I'd gotten myself into by all the stinkin' thinkin' I'd been doing over all those years was my own fault - nobody else's. Like all neurotics, I blamed others for the way I was, rather than accepting the reality that the responsibility for making a life for myself was, and always had been, mine alone.

As long as I continued to blame others, nothing in my life could change, because I had no power to change other people, or to rewrite history. I did not realize that then, so only knew that I was a hopeless case, and nobody, least of all me, knew how to fix it. During that time in my life, most nights I went to bed hoping that I would not wake up in the morning. Nevertheless, each morning I did wake up, disappointed and frustrated at having to cope with yet another day. Suicide was not an option, because I was sensitive about the good opinion of others. In my goofy way of thinking, I thought a natural death would be seen as tragic; suicide as idiotic. So I had no choice but to get up, slog on, and hope to die in my sleep the next night.

Early one evening I finally turned tearfully to God (something that was not characteristic of me at the time) and pleaded, "I know I'm a loner and a looser, but I know I don't know how to change it. If You are not willing to change me, for Christ's sake let me die! I don't want to go on like this anymore."

Within a day or two, I young waitress at a restaurant I frequently dined at sheepishly handed me an envelope containing an "I just want to be your friend" greeting card. I did my best to let her down gently, because I wasn't into flirting with the young waitresses at the restaurants I frequented. I did not care to be seen as a dirty, lecherous old man.

Then one night my "cool car," a bright red and white Oldsmobile Cutlass S, suddenly died. Something went wrong with its electrical system, and it was just totally stone dead. My neighbor owned a garage, so took it to his shop and tore it all apart - just before he had a minor heart problem and wasn't able to work for weeks. The young employee that he entrusted his business to in the meantime evidently wasn't capable of finishing the job, so the car sat there in the garage, in pieces. At the time, our town didn't have much to offer by way of dining places, so I usually frequented higher-class out-of-town restaurants. Now, without wheels, I was stuck with the few in-town choices. I never did "fast food" back then, and the restaurant where the girl worked was the only place open on Sunday in our town. So while the car was broken, I got into the habit of going there.

She was only 19 when she handed me that sappy "just wanna be friends" card; I was almost 37. We have been married for just over 30-years now, and have five wonderful children, four of whom are already all grown up, two with kids of their own.

When I look back at my life, I am never sorry about the way things have turned out, but I do regret all the years I wasted, and all the good things, and all the good times I was given that I never appreciated because I was too busy feeling sorry for myself and blaming others for my miserable life. I had indeed achieve much, but could never take any pride or find any satisfaction in those achievements. I did indeed "have it made," having a life that was the envy of many, but never took any pleasure in that, or felt any appreciation for having been so blessed.

And what of the villains in the story - those devils who were so abusive to the sweet, wonderful boy that I was?

Well, what of them! They were just neurotic, like most other people we see passing us on the street every day - suffering the pain of being imperfect, as it were. They were, perhaps, more imperfect that the typical man on the street, and their behavior was certainly not good. But the way they behaved never had to be defining of me. I just happened to have had the bad luck of being born into a bad situation. I suppose the same was true of them. For his part, my father was in the military for the duration of World Was II, doing convoy duty with the U.S. Coast Guard and watching the merchant vessels they were supposed to be protecting being sent to the bottom by enemy U-boats. That he was so volatile and mean might well have been a manifestation of PTSD; something we never heard of back then. But whatever their situation, they never had the good luck - or perhaps the blessing - that I had of being able to eventually overcome that bad beginning.

Now, their lives are over. It's too late for them. But as long as you are still breathing, the opportunity is still there for you.

How Christian is it to seek revenge, and revel in someone else's prosecution? How righteous is it to glorify the destruction of any of God's children; and we believe we are all - even your parents - children of God. We are all fallible, and it is always quite correct for any one of us to say of another's failing, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." We are taught that God understands this, and makes allowances. How does it profit you to remain angry and vindictive?

The need to point fingers and blame others is always a hallmark of neuroticism, which always arises from low self-esteem. It's simple; we feel badly about ourselves, and are able to find some solace, albeit a sort of sick solace, in pointing out how much worse others are. So-called "sexual abuse" has been elevated to such hysteric proportions that any child involved in it cannot help but feel shame at having been involved in something considered so vulgar and improper, and especially when in their hearts and the privacy of their own conscience they also feel some culpability or complicity.

I know that is a very touchy and debatable subject, and one that victims and professionals involved in the system are rarely willing or able to address. But no matter how the child-adult roles are rationalized, that underlying feeling is often present, and what happens to the child as CPS interrogators and prosecutors attempt to build an iron-clad case usually only exacerbates it. No amount of explaining to a child that they cannot be considered responsible in any way can change what they know about their part in the relationship. Even worse, when the "perp" is a family member, close relative or friend, others close to the "victim" are often hurt and resentful, with the result that investigations and prosecutions destroy relationships well beyond the one in question, giving the child even more cause to feel guilty and blameworthy.

Finally, let us revisit these fairly well-known realities: the majority of all child abuse allegations, for all of the pain and embarrassment they cause, never have enough merit as to result in formal charges. Moreover, of those that do, few result in actual convictions. Of those few that do, even fewer are actually found guilty through the trial process; most cases being settled by plea agreements, usually offered by prosecutors who don't really have what they think is a sure-fire case, and accepted by defendants who are lacking either in the courage or the financial wherewithal to fight them. And again, the children involved are always dragged through these nasty proceedings, often by people willing to use the most damnable strategies and tactics to get things out of them or elicit their cooperation in order to obtain a conviction.

Taking the long view, is this not also child abuse?

State child protection laws are all patterned after the federal law, which was originally the product of politicians pandering to lobbies and public hysteria. The federal law requires states to fall in line, else loose federal funding. Government funding has engendered a vigorous cottage industry, much as has "the war on drugs." Rather than fix anything, it actually exacerbates the problems, while costing everyone a lot of money. Like any other industry, it needs customers, and to assure a supply the law actually waives what we have always trusted to be sacred protections. One only need pick up a telephone and make a quick call to CPS to launch an investigation and cause a lot of trouble for someone they merely suspect, or perhaps just don't like.

Perhaps it is time for a more enlightened approach. We need no special laws regarding cases of rape or assault. The current laws are as protective of children as they are of adults. But what if we were to think of nonviolent sexual relations between adults and children as grossly bad behavior on the part of the adult, but not criminal? What if we thought of such adults as being unacceptably neurotic and in need of dealing with that, instead of being dangerous non-emendable monsters in need of incarceration and permanent stigmatization? Would this not be more compassionate for the children and considerate of their real long-term interests?

And what of you, Tamera? Bad things happen in every life. To grasp such a thing and cling to it as your life's defining moment is a fatal mistake. One cannot grow any more after that, so the only other alternative is to abide, waiting for the moment that death finally ends the agony. After all these years, might it now finally be time to recheck your premises? The woman who coined that phrase (a famous atheist, by the way) also offered this:

"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity ..."

To that I would add that nobody can be happy so long as they're making it their business to cause pain for others.

[-=glw=-]

Reply to Liar

Note of Explanation: This started out as a short response to a MySpace "friend request" (gladly accepted) from someone calling himself "liar2u ." "Liar" sorely attacked one of the companies I had listed in my bio there, as well as "michigans west coast hypocrits" [sic]. It was not my intention to refute any of that, since I'm not into online "pissing matches," but it did occur to me that something I had previously written (see I've become progressively more disgusted with religion.) could be similarly misconstrued by others. So an explanation of that seemed to be in order. My experience at the company in question was also much different than what Liar reported, so I felt inclined to share something about that also.

Hello Liar ~

About Thermotron Corporation ~

I worked at Thermotron for eight of its early years. It wasn't that way then. We were simple, happy, very successfully growing, but not very profitable. We were also not very shrewd or slick, so didn't have much choice other than openness and inclusiveness.

The owner was Chuck Conrad, who was also the company's founder. The good opinion of his employees was more important to him than money. I don't say that in praise. It was more a figment of his personality organization than a real desire to be thoughtful and nice, but it all came out the same anyway.

All of us Executive Committee members put together wouldn't have made one good manager. Thus, although very successful in terms of growth, technological and market leadership, and all that, we weren't making any money, and the bank finally threw in the towel when the debt began to exceed $2.5-million. At that point they forced Chuck to bring in some professional management talent. That was the beginning of the end for me, and I left a year and a half later to start my own business.

Not long after I resigned, Chuck sold a controlling interest in Thermotron to a holding company from Wisconsin. By virtue of their professional management talent, the company's financial situation quickly, and significantly improved. A few years after that, Chuck finally sold off his remaining share, and exited with a well-deserved $8.5-million. Over the years that followed, he donated large chunks of that to various projects in the Ludington area and elsewhere. He and I took a final nostalgic tour of the place on the day he received his final payment.

After Chuck's exit, I didn't follow the company's fortunes much. I was then doing business with their competitors, so they were not comfortable with the idea of my having access to any inside information. I did a couple of deals with them, but they were both unpleasant experiences, so I kept away after that.

Evidently you had a bad experience at Thermotron. I'm sorry to know that, but am aware that others also suffered some bad times there under the regimes that followed ours. On the other hand, there are others who survived and made out quite well, and I have often thought that had I been more mature, personality-wise and in a business sense, I probably would have fared equally well, and would be much better off in retirement than what I have to look forward to now. That's just an observation, not a lament.

On Evangelicalism ~

As for Larry Huch, I don't know anything about him or his organization. His approval ratings are low, but then so are Robert Schullers (A Hope College alumnus, by the way), whom I always thought was pretty much on the up and up. Meanwhile Jim and Tammy Faye Bakers ratings are high. Go figure! If you worked with the man, I'm willing to take your word for him.

I'm a Presbyterian (PCUSA); we're on the very liberal end of the reformed tradition. What I was alluding to in my commentary was the evangelical movement that's going on not only in our denomination, but elsewhere. Two things bother me about that. The first is a (supposedly) unquestioned acceptance of the Bible as the infallible word of God. The Second is the sometimes in-your-face or ostentatious sort of worship, witnessing and proselytizing.

The Presbyterian tradition has, up to now, emphasized learning, imparting knowledge and doing good in the world.

The emphasis on education arose from the idea that ignorance is not a good basis for faith, that the strongest faith is that in which the tenets are able to withstand scrutiny by wizened worshipers.

Some of what's in the bible is a mere recitation of history, as it was preserved for generations in the Jewish oral tradition. Why would any of that be need be considered infallibly inspired, and the word of God. Moreover, during the past three centuries scholars have studied the Bible and its various roots, and have concluded that in many ways it reflects the fallibility of its human writers and compilers, misinterpreting things, stretching facts and perhaps even making things up. An example is the often-quoted passage from John, where Christ supposedly said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." That's particularly disturbing to members of other traditions since, if true, that sort of leaves them out. I have a Vietnamese son-in-law who was naturally raised in the Buddhist tradition. We love him dearly, and the grandchildren he and our daughter had brought into the world. Am I to believe they are lesser in the eyes of God, and perhaps even doomed?

Many scholars doubt Christ ever said that, and as a simple matter of logic, so do I. Christians are a minority in this world, and I can't believe that God loves the child born to an earnest Jew, Muslim or even Buddhist any less than He does one born to someone professing to be Christian. Christ might well have said something on that order, but if He did, I'm sure it has been badly misconstrued - a costly mistake that, so far, has cost millions of lives because of religious intolerance and strife.

But this fallibility should come as no surprise to anyone with any common sense. We are all imperfect. Paul even acknowledged that of himself in his writings.

As for works, Presbyterians are famous for providing schools, colleges, hospitals, and similar social institutions where they have been sorely needed, and working for the less privileged around the world, as a means of demonstrating what real faith and the love exemplified by Christ looks like in action. Over the generations since its inception, thousands of "everyday saints" have generously given of their fortunes and put their hearts into all the good works the institutional church has done.

So when I see a movement that seems all too eager to take over, dumping that tradition simply because it is tradition, and without bringing anything of equal or better worth to replace it, I am disappointed. What the evangelical movement seems to bring is a lack of respect for the institutional church, bad music and ostentatious worship, with the belief that "talking the talk and walking the walk" makes one a real Christian, and that "good works" can be manifested by growing the congregation into a "mega-church," where thousands more can do the same.

At this point I'm suddenly hearing strains of the old We are One in The Spirit tune in my head. I guess there's also a version called They will know we are Christians by our T-Shirts, but I couldn't find a link to that. I thought I'd write up a witty, tongue-in-cheek lyric like that, but it's late, and I'm not really that cleaver.


[-=glw=-]

I’ve become progressively more disgusted with religion.

I might write a book about that!

The sermons of late have cast aspersions on other faith traditions, and even on other denominations within our own faith. That's personally rather irritating, since our son-in-law, for example, is Asian and of the Buddhist persuasion. This does not square with our Presbyterian philosophy of tolerance and inclusiveness, and I find it unnecessary and distasteful. There are lots of other things one can pick on. Ironically, he's one of the "members of the military" whom the congregation has been dutifully praying for every Sunday since the beginning of the Bush wars. I suppose we should make his faith orientation known so we could stop wasting our prayers on him.

This week it was the Pope. Last week it was non-Christians, and even the Dalai Lama. I don't suppose anyone's going to get their back up over digs at Benedict; he has never come across as a person in need of one's loyalty and support. He looks mean-spirited, and if I remember correctly, he was formerly John Paul's "enforcer." But the Dalai Lama is such a nice man; relaxed and smiling all the time and saying nice things about everyone and everything. I'm suspicious of the motives of any man who would bad-mouth the Dalai Lama. Here again, there are a lot of worse people one might more appropriately pick on, indeed many of whom profess to be right-thinking fundamentalists and evangelicals. For starters, we could visit newamericancentury.org and jot down several names, then whitehouse.gov for a few more. Now that TALON has been shut down, I daresay many of these are certifiable "war criminals," responsible for the needless deaths and disablement of thousands of our own military people, and hundreds of thousands on the other side. But that's a rant I'll leave to others.

Were it not for the fact that we still have a minor living at home, I'm not sure we'd bother dragging ourselves out of bed on Sunday mornings to make the 9 o'clock "traditional" service and drop our $20 check into the plate. The services are usually uninspiring, and sometimes even aggravating. Probably about twenty years ago, an old preacher, addressing our congregation on the occasion of our then newly-hired minister's installation, mentioned that during his retirement he'd visited numerous churches, and found them all mediocre at best. His challenge was something like, "At this moment, ladies and gentlemen, you have an opportunity to rise above mediocrity." That was prophetic in a rather pathetic way; we've been increasingly mediocre ever since.

Nevertheless, there are still some useful opportunities for our minor child; camping opportunities, summer bus trips, the Wednesday evening youth activity, and all that. And then, of course, there is always the possibility of a death in the family, or a marriage. A church affiliation comes in handy at times like those. I suppose I should also think about Sunday morning coffee times after the service; that's usually pleasant. Sometimes you meet someone new and interesting, while other times bring a hug or a nice conversation with an old acquaintance.

Our latest newly hired leader is seemingly into the evangelic movement. Our other Sunday morning service is now billed as the "contemporary service." We used to call it simply "the second service". No we traditionalist duplicitously call it "the Hootenanny." During that affair, the old organ pipes are silenced, being replaced with guitars, tambourines, bongos, and unmemorable songs, and performed by sloppily-dressed people with sandals or bare feet. The lyrics are projected on a large screen, leaving heads and hands free to be thrust heavenward. I've never quite figured out what that's all about; perhaps a reaching out for the Lord? We use to think of that sort of thing as ostentatious. But who knows? Maybe the Lord likes hootenannies and writhing worshipers better than Bach and thoughtful reverence in His presence.

Most of us "traditionalists" are among the older members of the congregation. Newer members and staff people have neither knowledge of, nor much appreciation for, the sacrifices and contributions people in the "traditional service" have made over the years. At best, we're mostly seen as irrelevant, I think; at worst, as in the way. Perhaps, like many other PCUSA congregations, we're headed towards the EPC.

Anyway, I write about things that move me to the page, and at the moment I'm thinking about doing a book called something like "A Practical Faith for the Third Millennium." It would be a simple, common sense approach to -- Christianity, I suppose, since that's the tradition I was brought up in. Christianity, when one dispenses with all the theological clutter, philosophical baggage, political correctness and magical thinking that has been brought into it over the past 2,000 years, still has lots of good stuff left in it. By itself, it would be a sufficient code for everyone in the world. However, when stripped of all that silliness, it has much in common with the basic precepts of most other faiths, so there's really no need to get pushy about that. Probably better to respect the rights of others to cling to their own traditions, and hope that they also might concentrate on the fundamentals and eschew the obfuscations brought into theirs over the generations.

I have other work in process, however. I'm no spring chicken; do I have time for this? I checked DeathClock.Com and find that as things stand I have until Friday, July 5, 2013 to get the job done. According to the clock, I could squeeze out another year by getting my BMI down to "<25". That would extend my life to Saturday, July 5, 2014. Would it be worth it; beating my brains out and depriving myself of such pleasures as an occasional beer or ice cream to loose 70 pounds, just to gain another 31,500 seconds?

Nah, I don't think so.

[-=glw=-]