A Modern Christian

Progressive Christian, Congregationalist, Atheist, Intersectional Feminist, Anti-Racist

[a-modern-christian]

I’ve been noticing a trend of conservative christians reacting negatively to the colloquial use of the word ‘sacred’ as it has been applied to the US Senate floor following Wednesday’s occupation of the Capitol Building and I honestly can’t tell if the ignorance in that reaction is willful or not.

[a-modern-christian]

How we read the Bible, like our understanding of life itself, is affected by many dimensions, including or age, gender, race, culture, socio-economic class, religion, ability, sexual orientation, and nation of origin... Studying the Bible with only one's own set of lived experiences or educational viewpoints limits the possibilities for gaining meaning from biblical texts.

“Preface”. ‘The People’s Companion to the Bible’, Fortress Press, 2010. (xviii)

[a-modern-christian]

My ‘The People’s Companion to the Bible’ came today and I am pumped to dive in this weekend.

[a-modern-christian]

It’s interesting to me how some christians believe that they have the authority to definitively speak for the beliefs of all christians despite plenty of evidence that different christians believe different things. 

The reason noun qualifiers are used to distinguish between different christian perspectives and denominations is because there is a distinguishable difference between those groups that provides the modifying terms their meaning.  If all christians believed exactly the same things, we wouldn’t need, or find useful, terms like evangelical, congregational, methodist, non-denominational, etc.

As a language nerd, I am humbly asking you to reflect next time you make a definitive statement about ‘christians’, and consider whether you can knowingly assert that what you are stating is true for all christians, or whether it’s a truth based in a particular form of christianity.

[a-modern-christian]

A-Modern-Christian Bible Study: The Creation of the World

Entry 1 of the A-Modern-Christian Bible Study series is my interpretation of the the biblical world creation stories using a reader-response critical approach informed by my progressive christian background.

Biblical Reference Material: “Six Days of the Creation and the Sabbath” (Gen. 1:1 - 2:4) & “Another Account of the Creation” (Gen. 2:4-2:25)

‘The Holy Bible’. The New Revised Standard Edition, Hendrickson Publishers Edition, 2004.

What is my initial reaction to the text, as a reader?

As a reader raised in a christian faith, the story of how ‘God’ created the world and all it’s creatures in the span of 7 days is, of course familiar to me. And, in that familiarity, there is a certain level of comfort.

As a reader with a general knowledge of creation myths from across the world, I am interested to notice how the christian creation myth aligns in so many ways with the creation myths of other cultures that I have learned. It is reassuring to see that what is now such a powerful religion has it’s roots in the same basic understanding of world creation that many indigenous cultures held because it is a reminder that christianity is not an inherently superior worldview regardless of what many would say about its place in the world.

I recognize the ways in which these stories conflict with the scientific understanding of the world’s place in the wider universe by referring the the sky as a dome that separates the water of the earth form the water of the skies (”Six Days of Creation and the Sabbath” Gen. 1:7), and the moon as a light source in-and-of-itself (”Six Days of Creation And the Sabbath” Gen. 1:16), and human as pre-existing all other creatures (”Another Account of the Creation” Gen. 2:19-2:20).

What can I interpret about the author’s purpose?

While the ‘authors’ of these particular pieces of scripture are not accredited, I can reasonably deduce a few things about these authors and the purpose of their writings using my background as a former Language & Literature major.

1. These stories, as they were included in ‘The Bible’ were clearly ‘authored’ by different people. Not only do these two accounts of the world’s creation directly contradict each other, but the writing styles of these pieces are completely different in language, and in format.

The exclusive use of the name “God” in “Six Days of the Creation and the Sabbath” (Gen. 1:1-2:4) versus the exclusive use of “Lord God” in "Another Account of the Creation” (Gen. 2:4-2:25).

The consistent use of parallel structure with “God said” introducing each new daily endeavor in “Six Days of Creation and the Sabbath” (Gen. 1:1-2:4) versus the lack of that same consistent parallel structure in “Another Account of the Creation” (Gen. 2:4-2:25)

2. These stories fall neatly within the genre of creation myths in both their content and their formats. 

Both stories seek to provide a comprehensive story of how the world came to be, including the relationship between humans and the larger passage of time (”Six Days of the Creation and the Sabbath” Gen. 1:1-1:8; 1:14-1:19) and humans and the natural world (”Six Days of the Creation and the Sabbath” Gen. 1:9-1:13; 1:20-1:31)(”Another Account of the Creation” Gen. 2:4-2:21).

Both stories start with the setting of time and place outside of human conception: “In the beginning when god created the heaves and the earth, the earth was a formless void” (”Six Days of Creation and the Sabbath Gen. 1:1-1:2); “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of field was yet in the earth” (”Another Account of the Creation” Gen. 2:4-2:5) 

Both stories end with a short one-sentence reprieve of the purpose of the story: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (”Six Days of Creation and the Sabbath” Gen. 2:4); “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (”Another Account of the Creation” Gen. 2:24) 

Taking these two factors into account, I can reasonably conclude that these are two separately-sourced written accounts of traditional oral stories told to explain the phenomena that was world creation in the regions where Judaism originated. 

Based on my understanding of history and how the timelines of scientific discovery aligned with the timelines of ‘The Bible’’s construction, I know that the ‘complete’ version of ‘The Bible’ that we know today was fully constructed long before scientists like Copernicus and Darwin had introduced the concepts of Earth’s rotation of the Sun and Evolution to the world, so I can assume that the original authors of ‘The Bible’ included these stories in their doctrinal text because these were still the best explanations they had as to how the world existed in relation to the cycles of day/night and the seasons as well as to how human being came to operate significantly different than other animals.

Taking these factors into account, what is my response to this text?

While I can see the value in reading these stories as historical records of how the people of the fertile crescent (and the many people across the world that they influenced through their religions) originally believed their world was created, I do not consider the biblical creation stories to be useful influences for my own modern-day understanding of the world because modern-science has provided us with a fuller understanding of how the world we live in came to be.

[a-modern-christian]

@ignorant-against-christians I am making a new post here because I think this is a potentially worthwhile conversation to be had (assuming it’s a conversation that both parties are willing to have in good faith), but it just doesn’t fit my blog aesthetic to consistently reblog newer versions of the same post and you have the comments turned off on your posts, so I am not able to reply to what you’re saying without doing so on the original post thread.

I don’t disagree that a person asserting that they know what Jesus’s internal thoughts on queerness were - whether that assertion is that he was silently pro-queerness or silently anti-queerness - would be a reach that is better not attempted. The fact that Jesus didn’t share his personal feelings about the morality of queerness just means that individuals will have to find a different source to inform their personal feelings on the topic.

I agree that Jesus had a documented history of naming actions he considered to be immoral. His targets were specific actions, they were not general groups of people. I agree that Jesus was a very confrontational figure, but I don’t agree that he was an offensive figure.

I am wondering what your definition of ‘offend’ is. Because, as someone who could easily be referred to as a ‘social justice warrior’ (and, by the way, one of the main tenants of the christianity I was brought up in is a seeking of justice, so my christian values highly inform my social justice advocacy) I use the word ‘offend’ differently than I think you do. When I identify a comment as ‘offensive’, I do so because I interpreted it as a degrading, dehumanizing, or dismissive attack on an intrinsic identity group (ex. queerness, gender, race, etc.) not because it upsets me for an undetermined reason or because it questions my own personal conceptions.

[ignorant-against-christians]

Hey everyone! I just came up with a really fun game!

You all have read the Bible, right? I know you have, since every person on this website always reminds me everyday about how they "grew up in an extremely Christian household" and fell asleep in Sunday School read the entire Bible cover to cover.

So, here is the game: Name a time when Jesus wanted to say something to someone, but then decided not to say anything because he was concerned that...

1...what he was going to say would seem "unloving" or "intolerant."

2...what he was going to say would hurt the person's feelings.

3...what he was going to say wouldn't meet the approval of the religious or political leaders of his time.

Seriously! All you have to do is name ONE time Jesus didn't say something because of one of those reasons. Given what expert Bible scholars you all are, this should be easy, right?

I'll wait.

[a-modern-christian]

@ignorant-against-christians​ I find it interesting that you have set up this ‘game’ as if it couldn’t be equally proposed with assumed failure to ‘both sides’ of the argument you are nodding at (correct my if I’m wrong, but this seems to be targeting the progressive christianity perspective that ‘loving thy neighbor’ can reasonably be applied in today’s world to extending love, respect, and acceptance to those who weren’t traditionally accepted or tolerated within christian doctrine ex. queer people). It feels purposefully ignorant to me to propose that someone produce proof of a specific instance in which Jesus considered saying something that might have been hurtful or been interpreted as hurtful to another person, but then chose not to do so because he privileged the emotional well-being of the other person and/or the other spectators over the worth of what he had considered saying. While there is debate within wider christianity about whether ‘The Bible’ is made up of the words of humans or ‘the word of God’ - the distinction between the two would certainly impact how one might interpret the biblical accounts of Jesus’s teachings, there is no question that those accounts cannot have been a complete account of Jesus’s life, so a lack of an event’s inclusion in the biblical accounts cannot be prove that said account could not or did not happen.  Furthermore, the third-person writing style of ‘The Bible’ makes it clear that the biblical texts are not accounts of Jesus’s internal thoughts - so they cannot reasonably be used to speak to what his internal thoughts and decision-making processes might have been, they can only be used as representations of the thoughts he chose to speak out loud.  You cannot prove that Jesus didn’t ever choose not to speak his thoughts because he knew they might hurt any more than anyone else can prove that he did. And quite frankly, I think it’s bold of you to imply that you hold a greater understanding of Jesus’s internal motivations than other christians who have access to all the same texts as you do.

[a-modern-christian]

A-Modern-Christian Bible Study: An Introduction

As part of my mission in my public ‘coming-out’ (so to say) as a christian, I am seeking to represent the religious and theological background my own christian identity is rooted in.  As I am addressing my own lack of knowledge about the wider spectrum of christianity by seeking out the experiences and perspectives of christians from more conservative and fundamentalist christian denominations, I am also learning that there seems to be a similar lack of knowledge about progressive christianity within those communities. As the topic of biblical interpretation has often come up in the conversations I’ve had with christians whose readings of the texts included in ‘The Bible’ are different than my own, I figured it might be interesting to launch my own public bible study as an example of how biblical interpretation functions in my religious tradition.

My understanding of how ‘The Bible’ functions within christian practice is wholly informed by my upbringing in a progressive* Congregational* church, so it is very likely that it will not align perfectly with how many prospective readers are used to ‘The Bible’ being discussed. Because of this, I will start this project by defining my approach below so that my content can be interpreted in an informed manner:

I was taught that ‘The Bible’  was a product of its time that it should be read “seriously, but not literally”. Because of that, when I read ‘The Bible’, I do so with the lens that it is a text written and constructed by men at certain times in history to represent christianity as they sought to have it understood rather than the literal and complete ‘word of God’.

I was taught that one’s relationship with christianity, as a whole and the individual aspects of christianity in-and-of-themselves, is individual and personal, so when I interpret text from ‘The Bible’, I do so from my own individual perspective, not from a position of universality. 

Because of these two major aspects of my own perception of ‘The Bible’s position within christianity, the approach I tend to take when engaging in biblical criticism is a reader-response* approach. That is the primary approach I will be taking during this bible study. If/when I bring other critical approaches into my interpretation, I will plan to explicitly introduce them.

I will be interested to hear, as I take this project on, how my interpretations relate to others’ interpretations - especially those who are approaching biblical study from different frameworks and critical approaches.

*  if you are not familiar with those terms, I have linked the Wikipedia pages for them so that you can easily access a basic overview/find source links to learn more about them

[a-modern-christian]

As I am starting to explore the various ways in which different christian communities practice their christianity differently, I’ve realized that something I consider to be norm might not be a larger norm within christianity. 

So I figured I’d just ask. In your christian worship services, how often are non-biblical texts and/or non-religious thought leaders cited as sources of moral knowledge and guidance?

[a-modern-christian]

As a former Language & Literature major who spent the majority of my higher education learning how to analyze and criticize texts, it can be very frustrating to read how comfortable most people are putting forward their own biblical analyses and interpretations as the 'right' analysis or interpretation without even attempting to define their analytical approaches.

And yes, I know this pet peeves of mine is my own educational privilege showing and that those without the educational background that would have provided them with the analytical and critical tools don't know they're breaking all the rules. But maybe we can starting normalizing things like defining your terms and establishing your approach and naming your secondary sources?

[a-modern-christian]

When I opened my door this morning, a ‘The Reason for the Season?’ pamphlet fell out, which means that someone took it upon themselves to ignore our condo complex’s clearly posted ‘no solicitation’ policy (which was enacted primarily as a reaction to the rash of door-to-door proselytizers a few years ago) to criticize the way that Christmas is culturally celebrated.

Not only is it obnoxious to do this in a community that has clearly stated they do not wish to be proselytized to, and potentially harmful because the doors with these pamphlets still in them after today will be clearly marked as uninhabited and may become a target for breaking and entering, but it’s also disrespectful because it follows a false assumption that everyone who lives in this community celebrates Christmas. Not to mention that the content of the pamphlet itself cringely sets up a equivalence between the powers God and Santa that I am sure was unintentional.

[a-modern-christian]

An excerpt from my pastor’s opening meditation to tonight’s Christmas Eve service: 

“We stand with generations of the faithful yearning for hope, for peace, for justice, and for truth. And, on this night, we begin by feeling the groaning of a weary world longing just as much as it was many years ago.”

You do not have to be a holy or deified figure to create progress in the world. You can continue the practice of progress that Jesus participated in by being a force of source of hope, peace, justice, and truth in today’s world.

[a-modern-christian]

The most meaningful thing about the Christmas story to me is how many privileged white people are willing to listen to and empathize with the story of a poor unwed teenage Jewish Palestinian refugee mother and her child when they have been primed to identify with them. This gives me hope that, if we continue to do our part in creating a world that re-centers the stories of the marginalized and the oppressed, we will create a world that increasingly values those stories and those peoples. And, as a christian - a member of a group who is defined by their dedication to follow the teachings of that poor Jewish Palestinian refugee baby born to an unwed teenage mother (who was clearly a more-than-capable parent because she raised a child with a moral compass so many feel is worth emulating), I feel that a central part my christian practice is to name and dismantle the barriers to creating that world.

[a-modern-christian]

Before this week, I had never heard of Pascal’s Wager, but I’ve now encountered the topic multiple times in the last few days. Since being exposed to it, it’s been interesting to contemplate the logic behind this theory.

I feel like proposing Pascal’s Wager as an honest conundrum is telling about a person’s conception of their god.  I don’t believe in gods or afterlives of any kind (nor do I believe that believing in one demands believing in the other), so I don’t to make my life decisions based on the impact they could have on my experience of an afterlife.

However, if I did believe in a god, it would be the god of my christian upbringing - a god who: 

A) does not damn people, and 

B) is far more concerned with the impacts of people’s actions than the religious motivation behind those actions.

To me, a god who is more concerned with people worshipping them than with people creating good in the world is a god of hubris, not a god of righteousness.

[a-modern-christian]

Adding the words “I believe” before a statement of opinion costs very little, but is worth a lot in honesty and transparency.

[a-modern-christian]

I think it's more important that we teach our kids how to properly evaluate information and make decisions on their own [than it is to teach them to follow our beliefs about religion].

Taylor @ The Antibot. “Answering (Mostly) Personal Questions with My Wife”. January 1, 2020.

[a-modern-christian]

There is so much atheist content out there made by people who were socialized in conservative and/or fundamentalist religious environments whose atheism seems directly tied to their experiences of religious trauma. Because of that, there’s so much atheist content out there that is either explicitly or implicitly anti-theist (shout out to @so-sweet-so-cold for teaching me that term) in tone.

And I get it - anti-theism is a totally logical position for someone to take after having theism used as a tool of their traumatizers. Part of processing and healing from traumatic experiences is relearning if or how you can engage with the tools that were used inflict that trauma in a safe and healthy manner. But, as someone whose own atheist realizations were completely void of traumatic experiences, deprogramming, deconversion, etc., I hope I can help represent a form of atheism that exists not in competition or conflict with theism, but simply alongside it.

No, I do not believe in the existence of deities. But I have no stake in whether or not other people believe in deities and no desire to influence other people’s opinion on the matter. I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong, illogical, or silly to believe in deities and I don’t see any purpose of debating the topic with those who do. As long as people aren’t weaponizing their belief in deities to harm others, I see no reason to criticize that belief. And if they are weaponizing that belief to harm others, I see no purpose in criticizing the belief rather than addressing the harm.