MID-AUGUST CONVERSATION

HEY, WAKE UP! I NEED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING.

About something? Remember, I know what’s going on in your head. I live there, too. You’ve got yourself really worked up about what’s happening between the church and the world.

I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S FAIR TO SPEAK OF SOMETHING HAPPENING “BETWEEN” THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD. ISN’T IT MORE APPROPRIATE TO SPEAK OF IT AS SOMETHING HAPPENING IN THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD, NOT BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD?

Maybe. The almost two-thousand year history of the church is a story of constant conflict and compromise, of separation and reconciliation. What’s bugging you most about the conflict this time? Maybe we’d better focus this time on reconciliation.

FOR SOME TIME, I’VE BEEN TRYING TO RECONCILE WHAT I THOUGHT AS A CHILD... ACTUALLY WHAT I THINK I WAS TAUGHT, AND WHAT I NOW THINK I KNOW TO BE TRUE. THERE’S A BIG DIFFERENCE. MAYBE IT’S A MISUNDERSTANDING... INTERESTING WORD, “MISUNDERSTANDING.”

Some misunderstandings are very hard to set right. What’s the big misunderstanding that’s bothering you?

WHEN I WAS A CHILD, I GOT THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION FROM SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PREACHERS AND FROM MY OWN PARENTS AND THE PARENTS OF MY FRIENDS THAT THE BIBLE WAS AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL, A BOOK THAT WOULD ALWAYS INFORM ME, CHAPTER AND VERSE, HOW TO DO ANYTHING... AT LEAST, ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH PEOPLE. IN FAIRNESS I COULD SAY THEY MEANT RIGHT, BUT THEY WERE WRONG. I’M CERTAINLY NOT THE FIRST CHRISTIAN TO NOTICE THAT A LOT OF THAT STUFF WE WERE TAUGHT JUST ISN’T TRUE; AND I DON’T REMEMBER ANY VOICES THAT SAID, “IT ISN’T SO.” I THINK OUR PARENTS DIDN’T LET US GET NEAR ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INCLINED TO SAY IT ISN’T SO.

You’re being harsh. The Bible itself doesn’t claim all its stories literally happened. The Church does that. It has been The Church in its many forms over the centuries that has insisted the angels and the devils and the forms of God in its Bible stories are all absolutely accurate descriptions of real beings; so don’t go gettting angry at the Bible. There are many books that inform us on how to relate to others. The Bible is one of the best. You’re thinking the people who taught you believed the stories are all true. In a sense perhaps they are true; but maybe it would be more accurate to say they deal with truth. A story doesn’t have have happened, it doesn’t have to be biographical have truth in it. The stories I love most from great literature of the world are in a sense true. Alexander Solzhenitzyn died this month. He told stories that had in them so much truth about religion, philosophy and spirituality that they will always be read by people who are truth seekers. Вичная Памят. It doesn’t matter if Ivan Denisovich was an actual person any more than it matters if the woman drawing water at a well in a Jesus story was a real, live person. The truth of Ivan’s experience informs me and helps me know something about how I may get through rough days with honor. Jesus' stories are built around important kernels of truth. The stories inform me. So I don’t agree that we were deceived by those people who taught us when we were children.


DON’T GET ME WRONG. I HAVEN’T FALLEN OUT OF LOVE WITH THE BIBLE. WHEN I GOT HOME FROM CHURCH ONE SUNDAY RECENTLY, I REREAD THE STORIES IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS ABOUT ABRAHAM AND ISAAC AND ISHMAEL AND JACOB AND ESAU AND JOSEPH AND HIS BROTHERS. WOW! WHAT POWERFUL LITERATURE! I LOVE THOSE STORIES. I LOVE READING AND HEARING THEM.

The people you mention from the Book of Genesis are all men. What about the women?

THE STORIES COME FROM A DISTINCTLY PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY, SO THE MEN ARE THE HEROES. HOWEVER, THE WOMEN IN THE STORIES ARE AMAZING. MOSTLY YOU HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES TO DISCOVER JUST HOW AMAZING THEY WERE. THE EMPHASIS IS ON THE MEN, BUT THERE’S A LOT TO LEARN ABOUT LIVING FROM THOSE WOMEN... FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE THE STORY OF ESAU AND JACOB: WHAT’S BEST TO DO OR NOT TO DO IN A CRITICAL SITUATION INVOLVING SIBLING RIVALRY? A MOTHER WHO FAVORS ONE OF THE SONS OVER THE OTHER MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE... A DIFFERENCE IN THE HISTORY OF A NATION THAT IS STILL STRUGGLING TO KNOW ITS IDENTITY EVEN TODAY ALMOST FOUR THOUSANDS AFTER ESAU AND JACOB AND REBECCA WERE SAID TO HAVE LIVED. SO... O.K., THERE’S TRUTH IN THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY’RE NOT NECESSARILY TRUE STORIES.

I like to think those stories are not given to us so we can go out and do things the way Jacob did. I don’t like to think of you going to meet an angel or anybody else for a wrestling match down by the river... because under our special circumstance, I’d have to go with you; and I don’t want to wrestle an angel or god or whoever it was Jacob tussled with all night. The State of Israel today gets its name from the Jacob story, so it must be important. No wonder he got his hip out of joint. I’ve got my nose out of joint just thinking about it. I think it’s important for us to look closely at the story of Jacob getting the birthright and the blessing even though he was not the eldest son of his father and his father’s principal wife. There’s a lot to be learned from that story. For one thing, we are reminded that there are better ways of getting a blessing than by cheating and lying. I think it’s important to know that Esau got screwed, and to see that it wasn’t right...even if their mother was Jacob’s accomplice in the matter.

I can guess where you’re going with this discussion today. Remember I was with you yesterday when the group at church met to talk about the confusion over same-gender marriage... and I’ve been with you every second for seventy-three years, so I can tell when you’re determined not to let an issue drop.

YEP! I CAME AWAY FROM THAT DISCUSSION WITH A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE. I CAN SEE MORE CLEARLY NOW THAT CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT IS NOT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY AT ALL. THE SUPERIOR COURT JUSTICES AREN’T TALKING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. THEY AREN’T TALKING ABOUT SEX AT ALL. SO WHY DOES THE CHURCH CONTINUE TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IT’S PROBLEM WITH SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE IS THAT BY OPPOSING PROPOSITION EIGHT IT WOULD IMPLICITLY GIVE APPROVAL AND PERMISSION FOR MEN TO BUGGER EACH OTHER AND FOR WOMEN TO DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY DO TOGETHER IN BED. FOR PETE’S SAKE, NO FOR GOD’S SAKE, WHEN ARE THE BEARDED FATHERS AND SAINTLY MOTHERS WHO MAKE THE RULES GOING TO SEE THAT WEDDINGS AND MARRIAGE ARE NOT ABOUT SEX AT ALL.

Maybe that’s where our society has gone most wrong. Maybe people have actually come to believe that weddings and marriage are about sex. It’s probably the easiest way to explain why so many marriages fail.

O.K. So what’s your new insight?

I REREAD THE CALIFORNIA SUPEREME COURT’S RULING THAT GAY COUPLES IN CALIFORNIA MUST BE GRANTED THE RIGHT TO MARRY. THE COURT HAS SAID THAT GAY PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS FIRST AND GAY SECOND, JUST AS HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS FIRST, BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF HOW OR WITH WHOM THEY HAVE SEX. THE COURT’S RULING IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS NOT ABOUT SEX. HERE’S WHAT THE COURT SAID:

“THESE CORE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS INCLUDE, MOST FUNDAMENTALLY, THE OPPORTUNITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO ESTABLISH--WITH THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE INDIVIDUAL HAS CHOSEN TO SHARE HIS OR HER LIFE--AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED FAMILY POSSESSING MUTUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND ENTITLED TO THE SAME RESPECT AND DIGNITY ACCORDED A UNION TRADITIONALLY DESIGNATED AS MARRIAGE.”

That’s straight forward stuff (no pun intended). So the individual citizen is guaranteed rights under the United States Constitution without qualifications or euphemisms, and before any consideration of the individual’s sexual orientation... or race or color or age or gender or... It seems pretty clear.

A PERSON IS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN FIRST BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF ANY OTHER PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS... AND THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES EQUAL RIGHTS WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS. A PERSON EXISTS AS AN INDIVIDUAL BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF HIS OR HER SEXUAL ORIENTATION. WHAT THE CALIFORNIA COURT HAS SAID IS THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO “THE OPPORTUNITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL” TO CHOOSE ANOTHER “PERSON’ TO “ESTABLISH A FAMILY” ...PERIOD. HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES WHO MARRY AREN’T REQUIRED BY LAW TO REPRODUCE IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FAMILY. A FAMILY CAN BE TWO PEOPLE... I KNOW A BEAUTIFUL FAMILY OF JUST TWO PEOPLE, A MOTHER AND HER DAUGHTER. I KNOW COUPLES WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO HAVE NO CHILDREN, AND I KNOW COUPLES WHO HAVE REMAINED JUST TWO-PEOPLE FAMILIES BY CHOICE. ALL OF THEM ARE FAMILIES. ALL OF THEM ARE FAMILIES ACCORDED FULL RIGHTS BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SOME OF THEM ARE PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF AMERICA. THEIR INDIVIDUAL CITIZENSHIP AND THE LEGITIMACY OF THEIR MARRIAGES OR THEIR DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT DETERMINED BY HOW OR WHEN OR WITH WHOM OR IF THEY ARE SEXUALLY ACTIVE INDIVIDUALS. THE NOTION THAT CITIZENSHIP OR LIGITIMACY OF THEIR RELATIONSHIPS MIGHT DEPEND ON THEIR SEXUALITY IS ABSURD.

Oh, I get it! You’re sayng the Church’s ruling in its Book of Discipline is based on a misunderstanding of homosexuality: that the Church sees homosexuality as an activity, that gays are people who have chosen to behave badly. As a hedge the church includes gays in its general membership and even as minor employees (just as women were allowed partial participation before their full emancipation) because it apparently still considers homosexuality a condition that can be fixed if the gay person really puts his/her mind and prayers to it. In a spirit of mercy and openness the Roman Catholic church chooses to call homosexuality an “objective disorder." It's apparently O.K. to be "it" as long as you don't "do" it. The Methodist Book of Discipline doesn't put a specific name to it, but the intention is the same.

I know what you’re thinking. Don’t say it.

O.K. I WON’T SAY IT. I WILL SAY THAT WHEN THE CHURCH SEES GAYS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS WELL-ADJUSTED, NORMAL INDIVIDUALS, THE SAME AS HETEROSEXUALS, THE DISCUSSION BECOMES A DIFFERENT ONE. THE QUESTION IS A MATTER OF HOW WE TREAT INDIVIDUALS WITH AN INVOLUNTARY, DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC ALONG THE LINES OF GENDER OR RACE. FOR ALL MY PROTESTING AND INSISTING ON CHANGE, I'M NOT GOING TO LEAVE THE CHURCH. IT'S AN IMPORTANT INSTITUTION. IF ALL OF US LEAVE WHO ARE DISMAYED BY THE CHURCH'S RELUCTANCE TO CHANGE, IT IS NOT LIKELY EVER TO COME DOWN ON THE MORALLY RIGHT SIDE OF THIS ISSUE. I'M GOING TO HANG IN THERE, EVEN THOUGH I FIND IT DISTASTEFUL, EVEN ABHORRENT, TO CONTINUE MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION THAT PERSISTS IN MAKING SUCH A GRIEVOUS ERROR IN MORAL JUDGMENT... WHEN EVEN THE STATE IN WHICH IT EXISTS HAS CORRECTED ITSELF. IF THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY A MAJORITY VOTE REVERSE THE COURT’S DECISION BY CHANGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, THE METHODIST CHURCH WILL HAVE BEEN COMPLICIT IN THAT REVERSAL. HEAVEN FORBID!

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8.

Kaunos Second Century Church in Turkey
ABOUT RELIGION AND THE CHURCH
A CONVERSATION WITH MYSELF

--from the Union Tribune Special Report, July 13, 2008

“If you think paying $4.50 a gqllon for gasoline is too much, think again. A growing chorus of economists and market analysts warns that prices could hit $7 a gallon by 2010. Some say prices could shoot to $12 to $15 a gallon by 2013.”
--Dean Calbreath, Staff Writer

“Some people are already going into debt month by month, and now if their expenses were to increase substantially and they’re paying twice as much for their gas, something will have to give.”
--Dean Baker, Economist
Center for Economic Policy and Research

“This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.”

--T.S. Eliot
“The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought we were going to talk about religion... and the church. What does the price of gasoline have to do with the church?

MORE THAN MOST PEOPLE WHO WARM THE PEWS ARE AWARE, AND DEFINITELY MORE THAN ANYBODY HAS SAID IN ANY OF THE SERMONS I’VE HEARD LATELY. A RECENT SUNDAY MORNING SERMON WAS A CONGLOMERATION OF TEXTS, IMAGES, AND IDEAS. LISTENERS WERE ASKED TO PICTURE JACOB BEING BORN HOLDING ONTO THE HEAL OF HIS TWIN ESAU. THE CONGREGATION WAS REMINDED THAT JACOB TRADED A BOWL OF SOUP FOR HIS BROTHER’S BIRTHRIGHT. ESAU WAS THE FIRST BORN BY ONLY A FEW SECONDS. TRADITION DICTATED THAT THE BIRTHRIGHT WAS HIS EVEN IF HE WAS BORN ONLY MINUTES BEFORE HIS BROTHER. BOTH OF THESE STORIES COULD BE THE BASIS FOR MEANINGFUL SERMONS.

I still don’t see what any of that has to do with the price of gasoline.

WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET AT IS THAT THE TWO STORIES PRESENTED POWERFUL IMAGES, BUT IN THE SERMON THEY DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF ANYTHING; THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STORIES WASN’T CLEAR. FAILING TO MAKE CLEAR THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE OLD TESTAMENT STORIES, THE PREACHER MOVED ON TO ANOTHER STRIKING IMAGE, THIS TIME THE STORY FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. A FARMER IS PLANTING HIS SEEDS IN SPRINGTIME. HE WALKS AROUND SCATTERING SEEDS FIRST ON A WORN PATH TOO HARD FOR THEM TO TAKE ROOT AND THEN HE FLINGS THE SEEDS AMONG ROCKS AND THORNS. FINALLY THE SOWER SCATTERS THE REMAINING SEEDS ONTO GOOD SOIL WHERE THEY CAN TAKE ROOT AND GROW INTO A CROP THAT CAN BE HARVESTED.

You obviously didn’t get the preacher’s point... What’s yours?

MAYBE THE PREACHER’S INTENTION WAS TO LET EACH CONGREGANT PICK ONE OF THE THREE STORIES AND BUILD HIS OWN SERMON. INSTANT SERMON: JUST ADD WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND MIX WITH YOUR OLD IDEAS AND PREJUDICES. ACTUALLY HE DID MENTION SCARCITY SOMEWHERE IN THERE, AND FOR A MINUTE I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BECOME A SIGNIFICANT IDEA... I THINK IT WAS IN RELATION TO THE STORY OF ESAU SELLING HIS BIRTHRIGHT. I ADMIT THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A STRETCH FOR HIM TO HAVE MENTIONED THE RISING COST OF GASOLINE.

Will you get to the point!

WHAT’S MY POINT? IT’S THIS: THE PEOPLE WHO COME TO CHURCH IN 2008 NEED MORE THAN FAMILIAR DISCONNECTED STORIES AND IMAGES. OF COURSE, THE STORIES HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT IN THE PAST; THEY ARE IMPORTANT NOW AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE IMPORTANT. THEY CAN BE USEFUL IN CONSTRUCTING A VISION STATEMENT FOR THE CHURCH IN THIS TIME OF CHANGE. THE NEXT FIVE YEARS ARE CERTAIN TO BE A DEFINING TIME FOR THE CHURCH. AMERICAN CULTURE AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT IS ABOUT TO CHANGE QUICKLY AND DRAMATICALLY. IF GASOLINE IS INDEED $14-A-GALLON JUST FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, EVERYTHING ELSE OUR CONSUMER SOCIETY CONSUMES WILL HAVE GONE UP IN PRICE AS WELL. PERSONAL AND CIVIL SERVICES WILL COST MORE. IT’S SIGNIFICANT THAT WE CALL WHAT HAPPENS IN CHURCH ON SUNDAY MORNING BY THE NAME OF “SERVICE.” SUNDAY SERVICES COME AT A PRICE. THAT PRICE IS ABOUT TO CHANGE. INEVITABLY, THE SERVICE WILL CHANGE.

You make it sound as if the world as we know it is coming to an end. Millions of people in the world have already been coping with shortages for a long time. Millions go to bed hungry every night. You’ve often expressed concern about the flood of homeless people spreading into our part of the world. The streets of San Diego are full of them. Vacant spaces aren’t vacant any more. These aren’t new conditions. The big world outside our little paradise has had millions of people in it who have been homeless for a long time. China and India didn’t grow to make up almost half the world’s population overnight. We’ve seen this time coming. Scarcity of food and shelter has been a way of life even for some Americans for a long time. Churches and schools have been going on with their programs with these conditions all around them. The church has managed to survive in past times of change. So what’s different this time. Why is this the end?

I PREFER TO THINK OF IT AS A BEGINNING. IN THE BEGINNING AN INSTITUTION LIKE THE CHURCH HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REINVENT ITSELF. A BEGINNING IS A PERFECT TIME TO RETHINK EVERYTHING, TO DEVELOP A VISION STATEMENT THAT IS RELEVANT TO NEW CONDITIONS.

Churches and other institutions have been playing the vision development game for a long time, too. There’s nothing new in that.

TO HAVE VISION IS TO BE ABLE TO SEE. ANOTHER DEFINITION IS TO BE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT AND TO PLAN THE FUTURE WITH IMAGINATION AND WISDOM. OUR CULTURE IS ABOUT TO CHANGE. DOESN’T IT MAKE SENSE TO TRY TO LOOK AHEAD, TO HAVE VISION, TO PLAN THE FUTURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SHOULDN'T THE CHURCH TAKE THE LEAD IN TRYING TO SEE WHAT THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO BECOME AND WHAT OUR CULTURE WILL BECOME AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THESE DRAMATIC CHANGES?

You keep using the word “culture.” What do you mean by culture anyway?

THE SHORTEST AND CLEAREST DEFINITION OF “CULTURE” IS THIS: CULTURE IS THE WAY PEOPLE LIVE.

The way people live is always changing. It was changing even before we approached this new developing energy crisis. Many people have been living in a new place called cyber space for several years now. The Internet has changed and is continuing to change dramatically the way we all live. Cyber space is not theoretical. It’s real. Some people spend a lot of real time there. As a matter of fact, it’s the place where you and I are having this conversation. It’s not a park bench or a coffee shop, but it’s real. But let’s get back to the church and the price of gasoline.

O.K. LET’S TRY AGAIN. I THINK THE CHURCH WILL FIND ITSELF WITHOUT SOME OF THE RESOURCES IT HAS HAD IN THE PAST. IT’S A MATTER OF TIME AND MONEY. THE CHURCH AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT NEEDS BOTH. BOTH RESOURCES ARE LIKELY TO BECOME SCARCE. PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUPPORTED THE CHURCH MAY FIND THEMSELVES WITHOUT AS MUCH DISCRETIONARY TIME AND AS MUCH DISCRETIONARY INCOME AS THEY HAVE HAD IN THE PAST. AT FOURTEEN DOLLARS A GALLON FOR GASOLINE, A TRIP TO THE CHURCH WILL COST THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS IT COSTS NOW. IT’S MY GUESS THAT PEOPLE WON’T SPEND AS MUCH OF THEIR DISCRETIONARY TIME AT CHURCH AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST. BECAUSE OTHER COSTS OF LIVING WILL INCREASE, PEOPLE MAY FIND THEY HAVE LESS DISCRETIONARY MONEY; AND BECAUSE THEY WILL BE SPENDING LESS TIME AT THE CHURCH, THEY MAY CHOOSE WAYS OF SPENDING DISCRETIONARY MONEY OTHER THAN GIVING IT TO THE CHURCH.

Maybe a little review of the history of the church would be useful. Christianity was born into a world in which religion was already well established. Most people in the ancient world believed there was a world that exists parallel to the world of humans, a world where gods and other supernatural beings lived and could, if they chose to do so, change conditions and events in the world of man. They believed in the existence of a power, or of powers, that controlled human destiny. For hundreds of years before the first century A.D. everybody except a few philosophers believed these supernatural powers were invisible, superhuman, and eternal. They believed the supernatural powers had to be worshiped and placated by prayer, ritual and sacrifice. The earth was thought to be the center of the universe. Around it the sun and moon and stars were thought to revolve. Somewhere above the earth was heaven and below it was an abode of departed spirits or of the powers of wickedness. The “laws of nature” had not yet been conceived, and people believed that everything that happens in nature was the work of invisible powers of good and evil. The powers of good and evil were entities, personalities, who could use the forces of nature to bless and favor or to damn and destroy. For early humans the world was a place visited by innumerable spirits, righteous and malevolent, who touched human lives in all its aspects. These spirits were thought to be able to enter into and control human beings for good and evil, so it was reasonable to be suspicious of everybody, even neighbors and family members.

NOW IT’S MY TURN TO ASK, “WHAT ARE YOU GETTING AT?” WHAT HAS EARLY HISTORY GOT TO DO WITH THE COMING CRISIS?

Of course, we know much more today about the universe and the way the natural world works, but people who attend church on Sunday mornings are often being addressed from the pulpit as if they know little more about why and how things happen in the natural world than did people who lived three thousand years ago. For early human beings coping with a natural world which they thought to be managed by spirits who mostly cared very little for their long-term welfare left them with a profound sense of unworthiness, of dissatisfaction with the conditions of life that characterized the mass of mankind as they knew it. It was out of these conditions that religions were born. The Christian church was born in such a world. The foundation religions on which Christianity was built came out of such a world. To a great extent, the church in all its permutations over the centuries has continued to reflect the ancient, primitive world. Despite what we now know about natural laws, even today many devout church people order their lives around notions based in a belief that there are powers of good and evil that must be placated by worship, prayer and ritual. They apparently believe that there are certain things they must do in order to keep the supernatural powers on their side. They ask the church to assist them in performing the necessary magic. If they are unsuccessful in getting the world to order itself according to their magical thinking, they expect bad things to happen.

WELL, BAD THINGS DO HAPPEN. THAT’S PART OF THE HUMAN CONDITION. IT’S HOW WE RESPOND TO THE BAD THINGS THAT MAKES US NOBLE OR NOT. WE DO INDEED NEED SOMETHING FROM THE CHURCH, AND WHAT WE NEED HAS BEEN IN SHORT SUPPLY FOR QUITE A WHILE. WE NEED VISION, NOT THE APOCALYPTIC KIND THAT SOME PEOPLE GET FROM THE BOOK OF “REVELATION.”

I agree, and so did the writer of Proverbs 29:18: “Where there is no vision, the people perish. Without vision the Christian church may not survive. Without reasoned prophetic vision, perhaps the church shouldn’t survive. It will only get in the way. We need to be able to see as clearly as possible what American culture will look like in the future, and we need to gain a sense of what the church should look like in order to be relevant to that future time. That’s vision. The history of the Christian church is a story of survival, of change and survival in spite of or because of changes in the way people live.

WE'VE GOT MORE TO TALK ABOUT ON THIS SUBJECT. I'LL SEE YOU ANOTHER DAY.