God in a box

This is the "another rant for another time" I talked about. I'm still not entirely sure I have all of my thoughts in order. And this is kind of a difficult post for me to write, for two reasons:

1. I'm not all that comfortable talking about "God-stuff" - I mean the really deeply felt stuff I have.

2. I realize some of the things I say may offend a few people. If I do, I apologize in advance; some of it may be the result of my taking an "outside looking in" stance on some things.

First off, an explanation: I am a member of what's generally regarded as a "mainline" denomination - Disciples of Christ. I've been one all my life; it's generally a good fit for me. (The congregations I've belonged to have mostly been more conservative - or at least less politicized - than the stereotype or what the National Office promotes. I actually like a non-politicized church setting; politics is something temporary, not eternal, and people CAN disagree on politics for principled reasons even if they agree on the tenets of faith).

But I have to write about some trends in American Protestant Christianity that bother me a little bit.

I referred to one of these in my commentary on Priorities - about how we were all asked at this retreat to read about certain Biblical woman, and then write out (thankfully, we were not expected to discuss) how our lives were "similar" to theirs.

Uh? Buh?

I mean - yeah, I think Lydia was cool and all that, and I think it's an interesting observation that one of the early strong followers who converted because of Paul's teaching of the gospel was a widowed businesswoman, and I guess I can kind of think of her as kind of a touchstone type person because I'm also a single woman making a living for myself. But. I am not Lydia! I don't see how shoehorning my life or her story so one fits the other does any good.

One of the other women we were asked to visualize was the woman at the well. Um. Yeah. No five husbands here, no living-with-a-man-who's-not-my-husband.

However, a couple of the women jumped at that. "Oh, I HAVE my past" said one (thankfully she did not elaborate.)

I guess...I suppose...for some people, people who might feel marginalized, there's some value in it, being reminded that Jesus welcomed even people who were rejected within their communities. But there's something I can't quite put my finger on that makes me uncomfortable with a modern woman declaring how she's "Just like!" Elisabeth or Naomi or something like that....maybe it's similar to the way I feel about identity politics, where shoehorning yourself into some group and then claiming that the abuses the group suffered are ones you suffered too (even if you really haven't).

I don't know. But to me, it seems like trying to find a very close correspondence between the lives of first-century women in the Middle East and our modern lives is kind of bathetic...it seems like ordinary people today are trying to elevate themselves to the special status that those Biblical women were given (and I assume they have some special status as they were written about). I mean - I do my best. I try to follow Christ. But I don't think anything I do is all that special or all that different from what thousands of people - maybe tens of thousands of people - are doing in this country, and are maybe even doing better than I.

I guess what bugs me about it is it seems to go against the idea of humility...it seems aimed at making people elevate themselves, see themselves as "unique and special." Don't get me wrong - we are all "special" of course, and we are all precious to God. But I think there are too many people in this nation who see their stories as somehow extra-special-unique, and needing to be shared with any and all they encounter. Even if their "story" is neither a good example nor a terrible warning.

That's one thing that bugs me.

Another thing that bugs me is the phrase I used in the title - God in a box. Too many people seem to want to put God in a box. God is God. I don't understand God. I use "he" to refer to God as a pronoun because that's what I grew up doing and what I'm comfortable with, but I do understand that God transcends our human distinctions.

I don't fully understand God, and you know? I kind of like that. I need for there to be something out there that's bigger than my comprehension or understanding.

But too many people I've seen - it's as if they visualize God as sort of a cosmic gumball machine...you know, you put your prayer in the slot and what you want comes out the chute. In my experience, it doesn't work that way.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I offer up prayers for the health of people who need their health restored, or I offer prayers for comfort for those facing difficulty. But somehow that seems different to me than doing what I've seen some folks do:

pray for a good parking space
pray to win the lottery
pray to get a new car
pray that somehow, even though it doesn't look possible, they will get that really great material thing they want, because deep down they believe they deserve it.

Perhaps that's the difference - praying for alleviation of suffering versus praying for some kind of "goodie" because deep down you think you deserve it.

I've also come to believe that prayer often benefits the person praying as much, if not more, than the person being prayed for.

A short example: back in 2004, my father went in for a checkup. In his bloodwork, they found a "funny" result - something not expected. So they started ruling things out. Every week when he called he told me what tests had been done, and what things had been ruled out. (I think every single part of his body that could be visualized using an MRI, was). One week the concern was that the blood result suggested the very early stages of Lou Gehrig's disease. Then that was ruled out. Then, an MRI revealed a "spot" on one of his kidneys. Then that was determined to be nothing to worry about, a part of normal aging. And on, and on.

I suppose if you've read this blog long, you may be aware that I am, by nature, a worrier. The fall of 2004 was not a fun time for me. Every week I walked around carrying around in the back of my head another vision of how my father might be carried off from this life. (And dangit, I'm NOT READY for that to happen.)

So I started praying every evening specifically about my father and his issues. During the day, when I'd start to worry, I'd sternly tell myself I COULD NOT worry about it now, but I COULD pray about it in the evening. (Sometimes, that even worked).

Eventually, the praying began to work on me. I was calmer, I was less worried; I took on more of a sense of "what will happen, will happen, and I will be able to live with it." One of the oddest things was that one night, as I was praying, I got this sense of calm - it was as if someone said to me (but without saying, without words): It's all going to be all right. He's going to come through this.

I found out in December of 2004 - after he had some final testing done - my dad had the very earliest stages of prostate cancer. So early that the doctors referred to a "cure rate" rather than a "five year survival rate." He went in for radiation in the spring, and so far, every checkup has turned out cancer free since then.

I do not think I would have made it through the fall as well without the praying. Do I think it changed the tide of my dad's illness? Not really. Unless the world really does work like Schroedinger's cat (and heck, maybe it does, for all we know). The cancer was probably already there, growing very slowly, and it would be found eventually...what I'm saying is, I don't think my dad had anything WORSE that prayer made "go away." I think the main effect of that practice was that it helped ME cope with a challenging situation.

I do think in some cases maybe prayer is like an "invisible net" that forms under the person or people being prayed for - that somehow people maybe can find strength they didn't know they had, or they feel a sense of comfort without knowing why, and that may be the result of it. But I'm not so sure of the possibility of prayer to change future outcomes. It may be more that it changes the PRESENT rather than that it changes the FUTURE - that it makes whatever's happening easier to bear.

So, I don't like the Prayer of Jabez books and the Prosperity Gospel stuff and all that. I tend to think that's not what God's about...God's more about, I think, the 'why' of life or "how to make your way through life." Not "how to get stuff you want."

I tend to think that that attitude - that you can pray for "stuff" and then you get that "stuff" kind of puts God in a box. Because sometimes God's answer is totally different than what you anticipated. I know sometimes in my life things have turned out completely differently from what I thought they would - or from what I might have wanted at the time. But then I look back and realize that what really DID happen was probably better for me than what I wanted would have been.

Not unlike, I think, the fact that if you left children to their own dietary devices, they'd probably eat nothing but candy and cookies; it is part of the duty of a parent to see to it that they get balanced meals.

I also don't like - and this is part of the God in a box phenomenon - the whole "Jesus is my BFF!" attitude that some have.

I don't think "Friend" would be the first descriptor I'd come up with if I were asked to describe who Jesus was to me. ("Savior" would probably be the best fit). Yes, I suppose, you could see Jesus as a Friend. But I tend to think of Him as more than that. Yeah, the Friend who will give you the toughest tough love of your tough-love needing life. That's part of my objection to the Jesus is my BFF! attitude. Because Jesus said and did some pretty tough stuff.

One of the questions that's interesting to ask a kids' Sunday school class, or a youth group is, Did Jesus ever get angry?

A lot of the kids, brought up to believe that anger = bad, are aghast at the question ever being asked.

But then you read them the passage where He goes OFF on the moneychangers...and the kids begin to understand a little bit. Anger, and harsh reaction in the face of injustice is not wrong...in fact, it is probably the most right use of that emotion.

And Jesus also talked about people who harm children, that they'd be better off with a millstone hung around their neck and dropped in the ocean. He could talk tough. He wasn't the cute, cuddly Jesus that some people want to believe in, or at least that some people seem to want to believe in.

What's the phrase C. S. Lewis used? "Not a tame lion"? Exactly.

And I think that people who go for the "cuddly" version of Jesus kind of miss a lot of His power. They miss what I think is part of Jesus that is so different and so exciting - that He told it like it was, that He didn't mince words or try to make things soft and easy for people.

I wonder if maybe some people - especially men - are turned off by the "cuddly" Jesus. That they don't see that following Jesus can be an adventure - and a very challenging one at that.

Following Jesus - trying to be a "good Christian" - is HARD. I don't succeed at it a lot of the time. But I keep trying.

It's like the former Army slogan - the toughest job you'll ever love. Because even though it's hard, it's also ultimately rewarding in ways you can't imagine when you're stuck in the pastel world of "cuddly" Jesus.

(I used to be much more of a "cuddly" Jesus person. I think I've changed now, and my experience is a lot richer now that I'm willing to see the tough side of Him.)

The last thing - and I know this is extremely long, even for one of my posts - is that I'm uncomfortable with the trend towards Christians closing themselves off from the world, being unwilling to engage it, writing off Hollywood or New York or corporations as "hopelessly fallen," and therefore making their own new "shadow world" of Christian run businesses and entertainment outlets.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't use discernment - there are certain things I don't want going in my head, so there are certain movies and entertainments I avoid. But there are an awful lot of "secular" movies that have fascinating messages - or are just darn good entertaining movies - or that take you to an interesting time or place.

And I've watched some of the 70s era "Christian" movies....I can't really give a better description of these, but a lot of them are kind of apocalyptic in theme, and there's this horrible, urgent need for the earnest young teenagers in them to convert their pagan friends before the Bad Thing happens...and the movies are, I'm sorry to say, just BAD. In some cases, laughably bad, in other cases, simply kind of unwatchable.

And if that's the only entertainment viable for "Christians," then I don't want entertainment. But it seems that some people do believe that - that if God or Jesus aren't mentioned in strong positive ways, if people who are non-Christians don't either convert or die a horrible death, then the movie isn't "correct" for Christians to watch.

And, meh. Those movies are as uncomfortable for me to watch as ones with explicit sex scenes. (And I suppose it could be argued that those movies - the apocalyptic ones - are almost in their own way a form of p0rnogr*phy, because of how they make the Message cheap and sort of tawdry: "Follow God or be damned!" not, "Follow God, and find joy!" Which actually would make for, I think, an interesting movie if it were done right - the struggles and small victories of a person as they try to lead an ethical life, as they try to understand what God means for them - and throughout the movie, you slowly see the person's life change, their joy increase. I mean, it could be heavy-handed and terrible if done wrong, but if done right, it could be remarkable.)

But there is that whole "shadow world." Transformers too secular? Then get a Heroes of the Bible Action Figure for your child. Don't like the message of Bugs Bunny? Then get dvds of the Christian Bugs cartoons (There are a couple series out there - one is Australian, I think, and one a US knockoff - of "moral lessons" with bugs as the main characters).

I also have to close by commenting on something I saw at last weekend's retreat - they had a "book table" up (Mostly "romance" novels written from a Christian perspective. I suppose that's great if you like romance novels, but I particularly don't, so I was kind of disappointed). They had some kid's books. Including a gender-themed series:

Will, God's Mighty Warrior (for little boys - it featured the adventures of a little boy)

and

Gigi, God's Little Princess (for little girls.)

But - "God's Little Princess." WTF? I'm sorry, but WTF? Do we WANT to be telling more little girls they're "princesses," even if they ARE "God's Princess"?

Maybe it's just me and my Bad Attitude - but in my experience, people who self-describe as "princess" tend to act more like another type of person, one who can be described by a five letter word that begins with a B.

And the dichotomy there makes me sad. Okay, yes, I get it, boys and girls ARE different, and girls shouldn't necessarily be "warriors." But isn't there something more exciting for a little girl - and more appropriate to the following-of-God - than being a "princess"?

I don't know. "God's Cheerful Servant" doesn't have that ring to it. "God's Powerful Pray-er"? Maybe. But the dichotomy of warrior/princess bugs me. I think part of it is that "warrior" to me connotes activity, and "princess" connotes passivity. Girls should be active in their faith, too.

(And for that matter - why not have stories out of the Bible? Teach the kids the history of their faith. Like "Esther - Brave Hebrew Queen" or something, to inspire the kids. I think it's important - even if girls aren't "warriors" - that they need to know that girls CAN be brave and wise and hardworking. And "princess," to me, doesn't really connote any of those things.)

So, there you have it - ricki's cranky take on Modern Christianity. Take it or leave it. Let me know where I'm wrong - but please, no ad hominem attacks if you disagree, I tend not to listen to those.