Quod Scripsi, Scripsi

Religion and Politics

It occurred to me today, while pondering further some of the salvos being fired in the Health Care “debate”, that Jesus was crucified by a majority vote in a two-party system. I really think Democracy in the West has given western Christians a false sense of power and control. Rome was a republic, but Paul did not go there to run for the Senate. When Christians vote and win, they practically declare a Theocracy. When the “wrong” candidate wins, you’d think they were using us as torches in the Rose Garden. It seems like a most excellent distraction from the things we were told actually matter. ”I was hungry…I was thirsty…”

False Dichotomies

I take some heat from family and friends for not being heavily engaged in the public debates of our day. One reason for that is my firm believe that ethical politicians are mythical beasts. A vote is an endorsement, it says “I want this person to hold this position, and I will share the responsibility for putting them there”. Considered that way, how many politicians can you say that about?

The main reason I’m not as engaged though is because almost every issue has been reduced to a false either/or and it’s nearly impossible to convince either side that it’s not a two-way argument. I’m seeing things like “no one should die because they cannot afford health care”. Can you spot the false choice?

Should someone die because they refuse health care willingly? Should someone die because they willingly made choices that precluded or restricted their access to health care? Examination of the terms used, the meanings and implications of the words, is difficult. People die every day because there aren’t sufficient organs for transplants, because there aren’t sufficient health care professionals to treat everyone who needs treatment, because they chose to live in a place where emergency medicine is nearly impossible. All of these can be bound up in the concept of  ”afford”, but it’s much more inflammatory when it just means “money”.

Even the miraculous healing of Jesus had a price, and in my opinion it was incredibly expensive by today’s standards. He healed people who had faith, sometimes almost unknowingly. Matthew 9:20-22 I’m not saying that human life should be weighed in gold, or that only the middle-class and above should have medicine and treatment. I am saying that this debate, like many others today, is too often reduced to either/or choices that make no sense and only serve to alienate and enrage. It’s hard to think about the details and intricacies though, it’s hard to consider what our words mean and how others might hear them. It’s easy to shout slogans and demonize the “other side”.

Worship in Spirit and Truth

I had an interesting discussion on Sunday with my wife and a friend. They had been to a worship service at the church we currently belong to that was very moving. It involved testimony on signs and audience participation. Evidently it was very moving.

My wife said that she kept thinking about how unimpressed I would be. She even mentioned something about wearing a Pharisee hat.

I’m not opposed to emotion in worship. I just don’t believe that it should be about emotional reaction, that it should be crafted specifically to elicit emotion as if that were some measure of “spirit and truth”. I think the Pharisee remark was based on my assertion that there is a right way and a wrong way to worship God. I’m just becoming more and more cynical about the whole concept of “personal” religion and the American “roll your own” mentality. I object to the idea that it’s your intent that matters, not your actions or words or forms. Where’s that scriptural precedent? Intent does matter, but so does what we do. Christ did not abolish the law and prophets, nor did he say that any of the ancient forms were wrong. He said that the forms and actions are not enough.

I think it does matter what we do when we say we’re “worshipping”. For what it’s worth, the Pharisees weren’t necessarily wrong, their doctrine was simply insufficient. You can get to Heaven by following every rule and law, but no human being other than Christ was able to do it.

Worship is about pleasing God, not us. Sermons aren’t worship. Fellowship isn’t worship. I don’t think we get to tell God what worship should be. I’ll need to read more on this issue, too.

Heaven’s Blog

In my continuing exploration of Orthodox Christianity, I have browsed various web sites related to Orthodoxy in America. Starting from the OCA site I found the site for the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church which is under the Church of Constantinople. Apparently.

From there, I found a page for the church I attended for a time many years ago. I’m not Russian, it’s a story for another time, but I attended and sang in the choir. The new priest there has a blog, and I’m certain that if I still lived in Pittsburgh I would seek him out as a spiritual guide. His blog is brilliant. As I’ve read I’ve found myself agreeing over and over with him and learning new and fascinating things.

I’m very wary of following people. However, if I could find a person like this to talk to it would go a long way to restoring some sanity for me.

Orthodoxy and Long Hair

I’ve been reading the epistles again, and I came across I Corinthians 11:16:

If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

The section quoted is about propriety in worship, and I’ve read several translations and heard it “interpreted” many ways. My point is not about long hair and who should pray. What I find interesting is that in verse 16 Paul appeals to orthodoxy (or orthopraxy) in order to justify his position. In verse 14 he appeals to “the very nature of things” (NIV) to justify short-haired men and long-haired women. Now, I know that there’s much more going on here than a discussion of hairstyles. What I’m pointing out is that Paul appeals to common sense and the practice of all other churches to settle a dispute.

So why don’t we? Protestants simply form a new denomination – the “Short-haired Women Church of God”. I’m wondering how we will justify these divisions in the end. Paul goes on in verses 18 & 19:

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

Paul doesn’t elaborate on how the differences will show God’s approval. I for one would love to know that.