sinking ships

I am genuinely concerned that, in order for our global civilization to survive, the "elites" of the world will be forced to cut the tether that holds up the poor. If it does not, or cannot, I am even more concerned that the civilization, in all of its parts, will collapse entirely. When the choice is between "ethics" and survival, the former is almost always abandoned for the latter. 

So the question I want to ask is this: if you had to choose between the downfall of our entire civilization (and a return to a global "Dark Ages") or the abandonment of the poor, needy, sick, dying and uneducated, what would you choose? 

the fallacy of "one"...

The Western tradition has a long and complicated history with the number "one". Western, post-Latin/post-Roman cultures in Europe and the Mediterranean were so dependent on the primacy of the number "one" that "zero" (or "zed" if you're un-American... I jest) wasn't even fully incorporated as a number until after the twelfth century! As Americans, we are philosophically indebted to this Western dependence on both the number and the concept of "one", but what you may never have thought of was how much this conceptual dependency has shaped our culture, our values, and our way of life. I hope to explore this concept a little. Some will surely read this and accuse me of far too much leisure time. Others may peer deeper and, in seeing a legitimate critique of Western values, accuse me of sinister machinations. (I should be so lucky as to become a banned writer that some might take me so seriously!) Yet others still may see what I've written and understand that my attack on "one" is a valid attack on a cancerous falsehood, eating away at our cultural integrity. Allow me to be more direct.

- One has become a symbol of rootedness. For so many of us, we have one home town. One home. Sometimes this is a matter of fact. Some people will die within a hundred yards of where they were born (figuratively and, in some rare cases still, literally). Their narrow geographical experience is not to be judged, perhaps admired in some respects or pitied in another. But, indeed, many of us have lived in more than one home in our lives. Even more than one city. Some in more than one country. Yet we still limit ourselves to a belief that we have but one home! This can cause us to remain loyal to provincial particularisms that limit who we are able to be. By abandoning the "one" of "home", we abandon our "rootedness" to a single place... we can allow ourselves to be more open to the rest of the world (anywhere from new and unknown neighbors, to distant and foreign cultures).

- One has also limited our sense of family. True, a human being can only have one pair of biological parents - but they are still a pair. No human has been spontaneously or - as the phrase goes - "immaculately" conceived. Even in biology, nature shows us the fallacy of "one". But we think of ourselves as having one family, usually that of blood-relation. But how deceptively conventional this kind of thinking is! How often have we said, "He is like a father to me" or, more colloquially, "My brother from another mother"? We have families of our own choosing, all as important as the families not of our choosing, and even here this is no one family. The limitation of family that "one" creates is similar to that of the home: it lends our frame of mind to artificially constructed loyalties: a father abuses his children and, as the saying goes, "But what are you going to do? We're a family." We might be better served to think of our family as much larger than our kinship, but to see a mother and a sister in every woman, a father and a brother in every man. We must be broader than our narrow loyalties!

- One has affected our sense of self, especially in relation to the "other". We say, "I am an individual" or, more appropriately, "I am just one man." But this, too, is an artificial convention. Do we know - truly know - that we are simply one? Might we be closer to being "zero" or anything other than "one"? And in such a non-"one"-ness, might we be more than ourselves? Perhaps closer to something more infinite? Of course we are! But we must abandon, first, the fallacy of "one"! Easier said than done.

- We cannot lie to ourselves and say that this concept of the "one" has not destroyed other relationships as well. Let us not forget what it has done to marriages in the modern (or "first") world! What am I talking about? Divorce! Our growing innate skepticism with "one" has destroyed conventional marriage! But it is good that it be destroyed. Conventional marriage is predicated on "one"! One husband, for one wife. Indeed, "two shall become one flesh" - if ever there was a wrong-headed denial of reality! It is a shame that Paul never learned proper arithmetic, that he should not have been so deluded as to repeat the falsehood that two are made one - or worse yet, that three may be one! No, the weight of responsibility that is placed on the spouse - to be the primary (if not the sole!) provider or satisfaction, comfort, fulfillment for the other - is a crushing weight, one deserving of the discard is has so richly earned, as evidenced by the present divorce rates... and even more by the drop in registered marriages! There is no healthy relationship which is predicated on "one". This is true for non-married couples and, yes, homosexual couples as well. The "one" is a relationship cancer, even among our "best" friends - as though any of us had but one of those.

- But what of the so-called "Ideal Marriage", this laughably ill-conceived marriage to an eternal God? Can this relationship be the refutation of my criticism? Is this where the "one" retreats to, but not one step further? Hardly! One god can no more satisfy the insatiable human being than can one parent raise her, one lover fulfill her, or one home hold her. Let there be many gods, or none at all! But what of this "One God"? No, he does not exist - even to his followers. The reverent Jewish adherent holds fast to a "burning bush", but does she not also deify her Torah? Is not the Pentateuch an immanent extension of her unnamed and unthinkably transcendent YHVH? And in between, was there not a Temple of stone and cedar, and also a Talmud to mediate? But the Christian is no better. What Christian is a monotheist? He is a tri-theist as he has not one god, but three (and a poorly understood third god at that!). The Catholic is the only half-honest Christian, since she admits - even if not admitting - that she is still a polytheist! The dutifully literal Muslim, he may come closest of all to the non-existent monotheist, but his Prophet smells too much like a Christ for me.

- But we should not give our philosophers a pass either. The "first principle"? The "unmoved first mover"? An "absolute" or an "essence"? "The meaning of life? "The truth?" What are these claims, questions and systems if not products of the great artificial convention called "one"? We cannot fix a single moment in time or a single point in space. There are many meanings and no truths. "Facts" are constructed, agreed upon. We have moved, thankfully, beyond the narrow dogmatism of "foundationalism". What more might we be able to achieve once we have moved beyond the "one"!

a dogmatist's rules of engagement

A Dogmatist's Guide for Engaging a Critical Thinker:

A. The first rule for any dogmatic believer, whether your belief(s) be religious, political, economic, social, racial or cultural is this: you are right! But because you are right, you - and people like you - are a target for evil people in the world that are jealous of your clarity and wisdom. These jealous people, we'll call them "critics", want nothing more than to steal your peace and joy from life. But they can only do that if you allow them to make you doubt that you are right... so never doubt it. 

B. You have every right to whatever beliefs, opinions, or values that seem best to you. But because your beliefs are the right ones to have, you have a special right to tell everyone you come into contact about these beliefs - in fact, it is your duty to spread the truth to them! In the course of sharing your beliefs, you will run into a lot of people that already believe like you do. Make sure that you surround yourself with those people - they're the key to your strength and convictions. 

C. Sometimes, however, you'll run into people that have different beliefs. They believe just as much in what they think is true, but - of course - it isn't true because it isn't what you believe. If you're feeling generous, you can tell them how much you respect their beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, and they will probably tell you the same thing. But never forget, you are right - not them.

D. Every once in a while, though, you will run into someone that asks a lot of questions. People like this are very dangerous. When you try to tell them about your beliefs and how they are the right thing to believe, they will ask you all kinds of questions that you don't necessarily have the answers to. Don't panic! You're dealing with a "critical thinker", or a "critic" for short. Here's how you deal with a critic. 

1. A critic will ask you, "How do you know what you believe is the absolute truth?" Remind them that you know it because you believe it (duh!). Remember, if it wasn't true you wouldn't believe it because you only believe things that are true. 

2. The critic might then ask you, "But what if you're wrong?" You see what (s)he's doing? (S)he's trying to steal your soul by suggesting that you could be wrong! Refer to point "A": you are right. Simply remind the critic that a lot of people believe what you believe. You couldn't all be wrong! It is more likely that these critics, as an extreme minority, are the ones that have something wrong with them that, they can't simply accept the truth that is so obvious to most people. 

3. The critic may then ask you, "Ok. Well, where did you personally get these beliefs from?" Here are the acceptable answers to this question: your parents or family members, your place of worship or religious leader, your local congressman, one of your favorite television talk-show hosts or news pundits, one of your favorite musicians, an author or a radio show host. 

4. (S)he will ask you, "Where did that person get their information from?" This answer is much easier: a really old book, collection of writings, or a single document. This can be anything from Paul's Epistle to the Church at Rome, to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, to Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence", to Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto. The best answers are always the oldest writings, though, so use those first to discourage any further questions by the critic. 


5. The pestering critic, not knowing that it is rude to continue asking questions and disturbing you, might point out information in other books - sometimes even older than the one(s) you cited - that seems to make your belief seem unoriginal or even wrong. They might use statistical data, facts, or research. This can be very intimidating since you don't have anything like this to support your beliefs - not that you need them, because you don't! (S)he might then ask you what you think about that information and if that makes you wonder if you're as convinced as you were when you first started talking, pointing out contradictions or things that don't seem like they can be real. Remember, you cannot be wrong: you are right! But, you cannot win this fight. The sinister critic has baited you and is about to spring the trap! Whatever you do, do not try to answer his/her questions anymore but simply try to end the conversation. Here are the best ways to get rid of the critic. 


6. Appeal to his/her sense of reason and propriety: tell the critic that "this isn't the right time or place to have this conversation." If you can use the word "venue", do so - it will make you sound really smart to anyone else that may be listening. Also, it doesn't matter if your excuse is true or not - you're not trying to engage the critic anymore, you're simply trying to evade and get away. You now know that you're in a fight you can't win, which means that there are no rules for how you behave anymore. 


7. If that doesn't work, accuse the critic of being a bad person. Tell the critic that (s)he is "being a douchebag" or "a bitch". Oh, sure, they'll respond by saying that they're only trying to have a civil conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but don't let their hurt feelings stop you. Keep going on the offensive!


8. Tell the critic that you never wanted to have a conversation anyway. All you wanted to do was tell them what the true beliefs were. What the critic doesn't understand is that it is stupid for this process to be a two-way road. There is only one way: the truth! And you, not (s)he, that knows what the truth is so you should only be the one that can talk and make claims. But they went and ruined that chance! Not to mention that you don't care what they think anyway, because if it isn't what you think then it isn't true!


9. The critic will be offended or bewildered by your responses. Now's your chance to turn up the heat! Tell the critic that (s)he is a "traitor", a "heretic", and/or a "Communist". Remind them that they are what is wrong with your life and the country you live in. Tell them that they are probably going to "Hell", especially if they don't believe in it. That will teach them to question your beliefs! 


10. If it doesn't, threaten physical violence. Tell him/her that you are going to "kick their ass!" Most critics are physically puny people that can't defend themselves anyway, so this is the best way to shut them down completely. Even if they're not, most critics don't believe in "fighting" or "physical confrontation" which makes them losers. This is how you know they don't live in the "real world" like you do. Almost every critic will leave the conversation at this point. You've done your job - what needed to be done to defend your beliefs. 


11. If you feel that you have to get one last word in, make sure you tell the critic that you will pray for him/her so that they'll find the truth that you have. 


With these steps, you will finish every fight over opinions, beliefs and values that a critic starts - even if you don't "win" it. There is, however, one very serious danger in arguing with a critic: critical thinking is like a disease. When you come into contact with a critical thinker, there is a chance that they may get some of their disease in you without you noticing at first. We know this because almost every single critical thinker was - in the beginning - a very dedicated dogmatist that was infected with critical thinking while arguing with a critic. This is why, if you feel like you may be getting affected by a critic, you should just jump to step 10 and threaten violence. This limits your exposure and the chances that you'll ever become one of them. 


I hope you use this information wisely and always remember: you are right, they are wrong.

a few things recently on my mind...

I just wanted to take a moment to post a few of the ideas/questions that have been floating around in my head for a few months. Some of them are ideas that hit me randomly while others were provoked by readings or classes. 

- Hospitality is responsibility without the "should". In other words, hospitality is what happens when "responsible" behavior is performed without any sense of obligation. In this sense, hospitality is superior to responsibility.

- Why is it that, in the so-called "Abrahamic" monotheistic traditions that God can control (and does control) everything in nature, but cannot seem to control you and me? In the scriptures, God controls the rain and the produce of the Earth. He can make "she bears" come out of the woods and maul blasphemers. He can "number our days". We even see that he can make entire nations behave in ways that he desires. But yet he cannot force us to conform to his standards? I know that in my more devout days I would have found it preferable that God would override my will and force me to do whatever it was he wanted. As it turns out, however, he either cannot or does not. Why are the proverbial "you" and "I" so different from anything else? 

- It seems to me that Jesus, during his ministry, was tapping into a mass cultural fear of deus absconditus among Jews in the first century CE - having not produced a prophet of note in 400 years. His "yoke", and the advent of his "kingdom" on the coat-tails of John the Baptist, were a powerful response to this collective cultural fear. 

- The continued cultural significance (and I hesitate to call it "popularity") of Jesus - even two thousand years after his death - speaks not simply to his uniqueness in history, but to how insecure and "homeless" we humans feel here on Earth. Our need for him is not so much soteriological, but psychological - we continue to feel a deep-seated, primal need to be rescued from ourselves and healed from our self-inflicted wounds. The kind of "saving" that Jesus can provide will never be achieved, but always longed for. The messianic expectancy is a hope for healing, but never a fulfillment. In this sense the telos is forever without an eschaton. The justice of the messiah, too, is kairotic (based in kairos time) and not in chronos time. In this sense it cannot ever "be".

interview with a seminarian

My wife works with a lady that is enrolled at Dallas Theological Seminary and, as part of her coursework, she is interviewing a number of individuals with various worldviews and religious values to write a paper on the findings. This person asked my wife if she or I would be willing to answer a few interview questions and help contribute to her research. After reading over the questions, I thought it would be a fun exercise in reflection and contemplation and wrote down my answers for her. I also thought it would be interesting to post those questions and answers here. 

As a note of disclosure, I would like to say - up front - that the some of the statements expressed here are facts, some of them are my own inferences from the facts, while others still are simply opinions.

---------------------

1. How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

I would describe my religious/church background as both long and complicated. From a very early age I was exposed to the Christian tradition from a variety of different denominational perspectives - mostly Protestant in orientation - ranging from Four Square to Baptist, Methodist and Non-Denominational, Charismatic, Word of Faith and Reformed (Calvinist). I have some firsthand experience with Catholic liturgy but my experience
with the more traditional or orthodox (i.e. Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox) is very limited beyond that. My involvement in those churches has also ranged dramatically from one-time visitor to full covenant membership.

2. To you, what is God like? Describe God. (and if you do not believe in a [god], what is important in life?)

 
I imagine that this is difficult for anyone to answer outside of a traditionally dogmatic worldview, but I have to confess an ambiguous and ill-defined relationship to the divine. In other words, I'm still answering this question for myself and would suggest, perhaps at some level, that we all are regardless of the level of comfort we have achieved with our
conceptualization of God. In my own conceptualization, I might be most comfortable coming to an understanding of the divine that does not exist wholly outside of the natural Universe. I am not only comfortable with this idea of the divine because of my skepticism about the existence of the purely metaphysical (i.e. the realm of the supernatural), but also because of the implications of seeing the divine as removed from the physical
world. Perhaps too often our appreciation of "heaven" and "hell" have led us to neglect the "here and now". Moreover, the fundamental Christian fascination with the "hereafter" seems altogether incompatible with both the narrative of the Gospels as well as the apocalyptic visions formulated in the aftermath of the - alleged - Ascension. Simply put, every time I read the Bible Jesus seems to be talking about the Kingdom of the Heavens being established here on earth. Furthermore, outside of a few vague and ambiguous
references made by Paul in his letters, I see very little evidence of this "rapture" and "going to heaven" when one dies. I see a Resurrection that happens on earth (presumably on earth because it happens after his "return"), talk of "thy Kingdom come" (again, presumably here), a "New Jerusalem" descending from the heavens to earth, etc.

In my days of heterodox Christianity (and some might say "heretical") I visualized an idea of the divine as more akin to how the Hindus understand the Brahman, or akin to how Spinoza described the ocean of the divine and our individual selves being absorbed back into it after death. I am also comfortable with a thoroughly non-metaphysical understanding of the divine with respect to the Universe. Perhaps our eternal life is evident in the cyclical and recycling nature of the Universe with regard to matter. The atoms that make up our bodies assemble and disperse, never being "created" anew nor destroyed... simply changing form and phase forever. It seems more likely to me that the God so many of us were raised to believe does not exist - or exists in such a way that is so radically different from our traditional understanding that we - were we to ever meet "him" - would wish that he did not exist at all.

3. What do you think is important or unimportant to God?
This question relies, perhaps unjustly, on the suggestion that the divine has any kind of will at all. A will implies a need - or, at best, a want - and it seems to be that the God of the Christian tradition is so perfect and so satisfied that he has no needs or wants, thus no will either. I had considered, for a moment, that perhaps what was important to God is what
is important to all living beings: to continue existing. But, again, this is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God since God is incapable of losing his existence. What I imagine is unimportant to the divine is less contingent on what/who God is since I believe it would be true in any case. Whether God is the Christian God or a natural phenomena or non-existent, I do not believe that the divine concerns itself at all with our social convention: language, custom, law, morality or religion. To suggest that the
divine has "a dog in the hunt" among human customs is - at best - superstitious and - at worst - dangerously narcissistic.

Let us, for a moment, imagine that the "glory of God" is reflected in his creation, as so many texts in the Tanakh suggest. I would ask, then, where one might find evidence of God's premium on morality and obedience to "his law" in the behavior of his creation? Does any natural behavior suggest that there is a moral imperative inherent to us? Does Hurricane Katrina apologize for murdering so many people, destroying so many homes? Indeed, do we even call it murder when nature steals life from humans, animals or plants?
Indeed, do we even suggest a theft of life as though nature has no superseding ownership of it? The natural world acts without regard to Christian morals and, in the aftermath of breaking those morals, it continues to act with impunity! We call these things tragedy, but we do ourselves a disservice: nature's behavior is just. Yet it is not just because it does what it *should* do (as though it is ordained by the divine), but it is just simply because it does what it does. The world builds up energy, stores it and releases it as it requires. This, too, is how humans are. We build up energy, store it and release it. Whatever conventions we decide upon about an equitable or "ethical" way to go about this business is ours alone. To interject the trump card of divine imposition onto these ethics and conventions is inappropriate and counterproductive.

4. What do you think it takes to be straightened out with God?

This, again, suggests a Christian supposition that "we" are not already "straight"; that there is some kind of a "should", a metaphysical ideal, to which we do not adhere to. This may be the case, but it also may not be the case. The tension built up in the dialectic between determinism and free agency is not a settled one, but even if it were, we cannot suggest that God "is in control" and yet free him of his responsibility for our "sinful" state. In other words, God cannot receive all of the credit and none of the blame. He must be blameless of our sin - and yet admit to limited or no control over the world we live in - or claim control and be blamed for it! Or, at least, this is what the non-contradiction of Aristotelian logic insists on. Heraclitus might suggest differently.

It may very well be that our existence alone is what is required to be "straight" with God. Perhaps he has ordained our condition and confined us to a physical world to quarantine us from the rest of the supernatural realm? Perhaps you and I are those rebellious spirits that the Revelation speaks of and we have been cast to the earth - as though the earth was
God's washing machine - to be laundered and made wearable again by the divine? Perhaps you and I are the "devil". If we are to believe the Bible, we must already consider that we are the "Satan", since - as Paul reminds us - we are the enemies of God and, even in this condition, God saw fit to leave his place in "heaven" and inject within us the cure for our sinfulness in the form of Jesus. These ideas might seem outlandish and heretical, but they
must be considered and explored as diligently as the apostles explored the heresy of a transcendent YHVH made immanent in human form. To suggest that God does not want the mind to ask questions is laughably absurd! If God is who the Christians say he is, then he is undaunted by ontological investigation. If he is threatened by it, then he is not God and you needn't fear him.

5. Describe what the term "Jesus Christ" means to you.

Jesus Christ or, more appropriately, Y'shua HaMashiach conjures up a number of images, ideas and emotions in my imagination. Because of the cultural context in which I was raised, the personage and the narrative of Y'shua is - at some level - inescapable. I think that this must be true of most people that share our culture insofar as we all are forced to come to some kind of comfortable understanding of him. I have two distinct modes of reference to him: 1. The devout and reverent child and, 2. The classically skeptical historian. The first mode of reference should be fairly obvious to understand. The second may require some explanation. As a historian, I get no mileage out of the traditionally reverent attitude that used to define my relationship to Jesus so acutely. I am unable to look past the blatantly obvious holes in the narrative that forms the synoptic gospel tradition, nor lay down the methodological and disciplinary perspectives that challenge (for me, successfully) the Gospels' credibility.

It would be a cliche to refer to Jesus as a "good teacher", and I hate cliches as much as I hate platitudes (which are related but different). In the historical perspective, Jesus was a teacher - obviously. He taught... that's what he did. I do not, like some, believe that I see any kind of morality in the teachings attributed to him in the gospels. He gave almost no direction on questions of either absolute or relative morality. What I do see in his teachings is a particular emphasis on the creation, maintenance and reparation of ethical relations between people. One needs look no further than Matthew 5, 6 and 7 for a robust synthesis of these ethics. I believe that he also provided the oppressed peoples under his ministry a
path to assert their dignity and value without resorting to violent behavior (which, he rightly understood, would only worsen their situation both in the short and long term). His, mostly misunderstood, directives on "turning the other cheek", "giving the coat as well as the shirt" and "walking the extra mile" are historically specific teachings on how to endure the Roman occupation in a Jewish cultural context. Treating these teachings as ahistorical and removing them to the realm of universally divine truths only obscures his intentions in teaching them - while also opening them up to grave misinterpretation.

I respect and admire Jesus and he stands out in my historical imagination as a paragon of human ideals - whether real or fabricated by tradition. To the best of my abilities I try to remember that he was a historical figure that was wrestling with a complicated social situation on the ground. To the extent possible, I try to remove the mythological aura that surrounds him, an aura that - I believe - cheapens him and his contributions to human
development. His beauty, to me, derives from his humanity and the brilliance that is attributed to him, not the suggested divine narrative that is superimposed over his collection of teachings. To this perspective, many Christians have answered that - as C.S. Lewis once brilliantly summarized - "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." What I mean to say about this argument is that it is a brilliant syllogism: the truth of this claim relies totally on the assumption that Jesus *actually said* that he was/is the Son of God, which cannot be verified (independently or otherwise). The credibility of the passages that suggest he claimed this, within the oldest copies of the
Gospels, is also suspect with respect to literary device, epistemological analysis and historiotextual evidence brought to light by the discovery of the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls. In other words, we can't be totally certain that Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God", no matter how much we want to believe it. And because we can't be certain, the possibility of
who/what/how Jesus is/was is as open-ended as any other question of significance.

6. From your perspective, what are the major problems of churches
today?

Where to start?! I might say that the largest problem of "the Church" and individual churches is the unwillingness to entertain, sanction or explore heterodoxical interpretations of Jesus and the divine. Many of the ideas I've expressed in the previous questions would be - at best - unwelcome at church and - at worst - would be treated with hostility (and, in some extreme cases, with violence). Churches, from my experience, rely too much on dogmatism, assumption, indoctrination and hierarchical reverence for authority and the authoritative treatment of source material. Partly because
of the nature of church leadership - and partly due to the rich abundance of churches in America - there is no avenue for respectful dissent within a church. If you have a doctrinal difference with the leadership, you are expected to either change your beliefs to match those of the leadership (and the church's statement of beliefs) or encouraged to leave fellowship. For most churches, it would be wholly unacceptable to challenge the
interpretation and doctrine provided by the pastor and the elders (if elders exist). Most programs funded by the church are intended to reinforce the doctrine of the church - none funded to engage the doctrine in scholarly criticism. This, also, I believe comes from an epidemic of insecure pastors, many of whom treat their churches as capitalistic markets and fear having any shadow cast over them that might insinuate a lack of divine
discernment. Simply put, if anyone successfully challenges a pastor's interpretation of scripture the people may think that he doesn't have the Holy Spirit leading him and may leave the church and take their tithes with him. Furthermore, the superstitiously false belief that one can have no education, no understanding of Hebrew/Greek (and not seminary Greek, which teaches a bastardized form of Greek that intentionally dismisses any pre-Christian meanings to the vocabulary and relies too heavily on ultimately
insufficient Latinisms to provide directional quality to definitions), no highly
rigorous historical/literary training, or a broader knowledge of anthropological and sociological research, and can interpret the texts of the Bible without any error via the "Holy Spirit" is both ridiculous and, to me, disgustingly outrageous. In other words, interpretation by revelation is no interpretation at all... it is ignorant opinion masquerading as exegetical discipline and has produced some of the most mind-numbing and repugnant doctrine ever conceived.

Moreover, American churches have become too invested in the socio-political framework of American culture. Advocacy on social issues, translated to political activism, has become the modus operandi of more churches than not, particularly evangelical churches in the so-called "Bible Belt". The perpetual harping from the pulpit on "issues" such as abortion,
homosexuality, immigration, healthcare and the laughably alleged "moral decline" of America is a major problem for the church-at-large. While individuals such as Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell may immediately come to mind in the imagination, they are simply caricatures of a much more pervasive and entrenched attitude among evangelical ministers and their congregants. The credibility (say nothing of its relevance) of Christianity
is in a crisis phase, whether Christians want to acknowledge it or not. In generations and centuries past, the institutional quality of churches (particularly among denominations) was large enough to steer Christianity in one direction or another and navigate it into evolving cultural relevance. Now, in the aftermath of a democratization process in America, churches are so isolated, fragmented and generally unaccountable that the cultural compass is no longer in the hands of capable, august and deliberate leaders but the vulgar mob. Doctrine is not judged on the merits of the scholastic rigor that produced it, but by its popularity and exposure on Fox News. This is another degenerative issue for the church to address.

--------------------------

Feel free to ask questions or comment as you see fit.