God’s Visibility

Eric Weiner published an essay in Sunday’s New York Times in which he expressed his disappointment over our national conversation about God.  He noted that the two sides, “True Believers” and “Angry Atheists,” have monopolized the conversation so that those who are neither, people without any religious affiliation, can’t find any ground in this conversation.

He finished his essay with the following:

“We need a Steve Jobs of religion. Someone (or ones) who can invent not a new religion but, rather, a new way of being religious. Like Mr. Jobs’s creations, this new way would be straightforward and unencumbered and absolutely intuitive. Most important, it would be highly interactive. I imagine a religious space that celebrates doubt, encourages experimentation and allows one to utter the word God without embarrassment. A religious operating system for the Nones among us. And for all of us.”

I think Weiner looked in the wrong places or else he’s not hearing a different conversation; a conversation which many of us are having in the mainline church.  This conversation goes to the heart of his essay — what does being faithful mean?

We’ve been watching the changing landscape of the mainline church in our communities over the last couple of decades.  Generally, the average age in our congregations has increased every year because we’re not replacing those who die or age out of the pews at the same rate.  This is not to say that younger people and families with children don’t join our churches, but they engage with our churches differently.  Church membership has become less defined as people are more apt to dabble and sample than make a commitment to join.  This raises ancillary issues such as financial support for the church, both the local church and the denomination, and the relationship of the local church with its community’s context.

These alone represent a profound change in the way we are the church.  We can’t expect people to come and stay if we don’t offer them something other than a worship experience they don’t like.  When they ask us questions, such as the inerrancy of scripture, we shouldn’t dismiss them; probably we should be more forthright in our answers, noting that we have questions, too.  We should also make clear that discipleship is always a growing edge; living the gospel as Jesus intended is a lifelong challenge, even for the most devout of us.

Weiner perceives religious people as worshiping an angry God.  We shouldn’t be surprised given the way the media covers religion nationally.  But then, as people in the mainline we don’t offer a counter-narrative, either.  We hesitate to talk about God openly, our love for Jesus and God’s steadfast love for all of us.  (I’ve sometimes asked congregations, “When you tell people on Monday what you did on Sunday, what hour do you begin describing your day.  Do you start at noon when you say, ‘I went to brunch?’ or do you start at 10:00 when you say, ‘I went to church?'”)

Politically, we can do better, too.  I’ve been a bit flummoxed by the Occupy (insert location) movement’s success.  Did we fall down somewhere and stopped talking about the common good?  Or maybe we’ve been too “proper” about our ability to bear witness to injustice? (They got people’s attention by going out into the streets, we just gabbed about in our pews.)  Or maybe the gospel’s message gives us a bit of anxiety because we realize we’re not completely in synch with Jesus.  But certainly our understanding of the gospel, which should inform our politics, should loudly proclaim a different political perspective than one that seems to preach anti-LGBT positions, the legitimacy of torture, or a gospel that tells people that the wealth they accumulate is theirs alone to do with it whatever they wish.

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t be spineless either.  Comparing religion to an iPad sounds neat, but religion is not intuitive (implication, that we don’t need to think hard about it).  The gospel turns our world on its head.  If religion is going to have meaning to us, we should be challenged and forced to think deeply about this world and our relationship to it if we’re to experience God’s reign of peace and justice for all people here on earth.

While I don’t think Weiner looked hard enough, I don’t think we’ve made it easy either.  Clearly we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.

About Quentin Chin

Eclectic interests: religion, technology, food, music, current events. I live in the reality-based world.
This entry was posted in Ministry and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to God’s Visibility

  1. James Lumsden says:

    I resonate with the heart of your comments, QC ~ and would like to share some qualifications:

    + Most of the “mainline/sideline” churches that I know refuse to acknowledge there is a problem; they believe that the decline in religion is a sign of a corrupt and godless culture, but do not own their own complicity in this decline. What’s more, we believe that “gimmicks” will solve our problem when it is so much deeper.

    + Too often those of us in the so-called “progressive” church are sloppy about our theology and liturgy, self-congratulatory about our political commitments and unable to answer the tough theological questions about suffering that plague so many. H. Richard Niebuhr still rings true that too often we look to a “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

    + The recent edition of Christianity Today put it best: why reason and ethics alone won’t cut it. We have TONS of good ideas, we have a great deal of compassion but we have almost no passion for Christ. And Jesus is all we have to offer the world ~ without Christ we are a book club or an ethical society or a group of complainers with a moral superiority complex.

    You are right: we’re in trouble and the NYTimes article points to a part of the problem. Let’s keep talking and exploring this because our tradition is a LONG way from getting it right.

  2. Rick says:

    Quentin: I have to say I think Eric Weiner got it exactly right. If mainline churches really are offering the kind if interactive, intuitive, non-denominational space he’s talking about, it would be good to know about it. My sense is that our churches are too caught up in liturgies, lectionaries, structures, formats and ceremonies to be able to have the open, immediate environment that is needed. I also think our churches are too political — though I am a liberal, I am put off even by messages I agree with when they are couched on religious language. I feel like I’m searching for the kind of church Eric Weiner describes — if you know of one, I’d like to attend!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s