On newspapers, wikis, and the local church

I can think of a few instances over the years where we were instructed in church to get our doctrine from just one place- the local church leaders (and the leaders directly above them, of course). They used some analogy about only drinking from one well- I can't quite remember, but the idea was that it was unhealthy to just take in Biblical teaching from a variety of sources. This was back in pre-internet times.

Now in 2009, with the unprecedented freedom of information the internet brings, and the opportunities to not only listen to others, but to connect and exchange stories online- I wonder if this constitutes the end of the "local church" as we have known it. The local church will surely continue to exist as a bricks-and-mortar location for doing church, but it won't exist anymore as the sole provider of community, teaching, doctrine, leadership, etc.

I've watched with a twinge of loss as the major print newspapers begin to fold (hey that was a pun) one by one. To me, they are one of the most meaningful symbols of the pre-internet era, when the news was written by just a handful of people who were part of a defined institution in society. The newspapers' content carried far more weight back then- it was vital for announcing real events to the people: the end of the war, the election of a new leader, or the state of the economy. But now information, rather than funneling through a few highly-trusted institutions, floods into our lives through endless myriad tributaries, rivers and streams. I rarely buy or read a print newspaper. When I do, it's often just for the experience of slowing down, having a coffee and a quiet moment. It's not because the newspaper is a necessary messenger in my life anymore.

I think the experience of belonging to a local church is trending in the same direction. When I consider the "wells" I drink from, they are numerous: the Bible, leaders/friends in my local church, magazines, websites, blogs, books, podcasts, music, television shows- and those are just the so-called "Christian" sources. In truth, I draw much more deeply from sources in my everyday life: the world around me, my loved ones, my children.

In the past, local churches were much more homogenous. If you were an Anglican, you went to an Anglican Church. You sang only Anglican hymns, you read from Anglican prayer books. You might have been familiar with the history of your particular denomination. You would have been familiar with the doctrine of the Anglican Church. The local church would have been close to that sole, vital source, as the newspaper was.

To draw my instruction, encouragement and even faith community from a variety of sources was always painted as a negative thing, but I think it is not. Perhaps this practice could even hold great promise for the future of the church, to finally escape the divisions that have plagued the church since its beginnings. Allow me just to dream for a moment... if all the separate rivers, the denominations and schools of theology start to pool together in a great ocean of thought, people would increasingly hear the thoughts of "others" and realize they're not all that different. I've seen books, for instance, cross tremendous denominational divides- and when the readers find out that the author was Anglican, or Evangelical, or a Christian peace activist- they think to themselves, well I guess those [insert group name] aren't so bad after all.

I can see two distinct effects occuring in this internet-age proliferation of information sources: 1. People are becoming less discriminating of where they get their information (allowing for the emergence of I-Reporters, for example); and 2. People are less likely to put their trust in the simple face-value of that information.

These effects are evident in the growing popularity of online wiki sources, such as wikipedia and wikinews. A wiki is a more egalitarian way of sharing knowledge- anyone is allowed to contribute. This causes the wiki-users to be more alert and cognizant of the problems surrounding the sharing of information. Everyone contributes, and everyone draws, but with an awareness that there are pitfalls involved in any search for truth, and that every piece of information must be considered and tested, and then incorporated into your life if deemed helpful. It moves us away from blind dependence on a small group of highly-specialized, deeply trusted experts to interpret truth for us.

I think this is a good move.

Problems in our approach to Scripture

1. Over-familiarity:
--so used to reading a passage and glibly finding the meaning. Easy. God meant this, here's the lesson, here's the moral, la-di-dah.

2. Reading Selectively:
How many times have I heard a preacher skim over a bunch of problematic, confusing verses to get to the one palatable verse that he wants to talk about? Or how about whole books of the Bible that are never talked about? Really, we get our working belief system from a very small slice of the Bible.

3. Selective Literalism
--Christian teachers take some passages literally, word for word, and then painstakingly explain why other passages don't literally mean what they seem to be saying.
-- for some passages, preachers/teachers insist that we don't question or challenge one word of the verse- but then those same leaders will "soften" the interpretation of other passages when it seems necessary. For example:
In one passage, Jesus says that the only way a woman could divorce and still be right with God is if her husband is "unfaithful." But how about domestic abuse? And you'd be hard pressed to find a pastor who would counsel a woman to stay with her husband under these circumstances. Clearly the pastor is applying Love and Common Sense to his reading of the scriptures. If we're just to be literal, then "unfaithfulness" is the ONLY justifiable reason for divorce. So pure literalism seems highly problematic as a way of reading the Scriptures...

4. Schooled only to understand, appreciate, revere and obey the Scriptures- not how to ask questions- real questions.
-- I think the practice of asking questions, of being confused by what the Scriptures say, is a healthy practice. The more we open our eyes and acknowledge how difficult and complex the Scriptures can be- this will help us avoid over-familiarity, and over-simplifying of God, and perhaps also over-simplifying other religions as just "wrong" and Christianity as so "right"

So how am I supposed to approach the Scriptures?

I don't know.

Labels vs. Substance

I think it's important in this process of questioning to rigorously separate the label of a thing from its substance.
For example- to separate the label "Christian" or "Christianity" from what I was doing, and what I was being.
It is only clear that I was being Something, living out a certain set of rituals/practices/beliefs- but was that (living and being) really being a Christian?
By separating label from substance, I give myself a new freedom to question with abandon, without fear. ie. perhaps I'm not leaving Christianity- I'm just dismantling that particular framework of beliefs I've practiced for most of my life. Perhaps that wasn't "real" Christianity at all- if such a thing exists.
Can now freely ask: What do I think of what I practiced now that I'm looking at it without the sanctifying label of "Christianity?" Does it look good?
Or ie. questioning the god of my belief system vs. a "real" God, who may or may not be similar to the idea I had in my head.
Separating label from substance allows for subjectivity- "God" and "Christianity" might be Absolute in nature, but our knowledge of them will always be subjective and limited at best.

A Bad Christian Habit

It is a bad Christian habit to have "answers" for things I couldn't possibly have answers for (as a mere human being). We feel free to have "answers" for all kinds of complex subjects which we know nothing about.

"Frankly, I'm suspicious of anyone who has a strong opinion on a complicated issue." -Scott Adams

I don't see how/why I should "speak out" at all, or have some concrete standpoint, in complicated issues (ie abortion, homosexuality, evolution, other religions)- because I would immediately set myself up as both "Expert" and "Judge;" two roles I do NOT want to find myself in. Not sure that any human being should actually occupy those roles.

Actively Choosing vs. Just Obeying

"In a sense, the religious person must have no real views of his own and it is presumptuous of him, in fact, to have any. In regard to sex-love affairs, relations, to business, to politics and to virtually everything else in his life, he must try to discover what his god and his clergy would like him to do; and he must primarily do their bidding." -Albert Ellis

This religion kept me as a Note Taker in life- here, read this, study this, learn this, this is what God is like, this is what you should be like, etc. Everything was Absolute; none of this "knowledge" was viewed as Subjective.

I don't want to be a Note Taker. I want- and have already begun- to be a Doer, a Creator, a Progressor; dynamic, alive, thinking, engaging, the agent of my life, the actor, the driver.

"Just put Jesus in the driver's seat of your life." A metaphor commonly used to describe to "unbelievers" what "submission to Christ" means. But is that really what God wants? To be the driver in our lives? I'm not so sure.

If He really intended that every choice should be His, why did he give us wisdom, common sense, prudence, intelligence, the capacity for logic, etc. etc.? Just so we can turn to Him at every juncture and say piously, "What do YOU want me to do?"
He's probably just looking at us, going, "Ummm, hello? Put your hands on the steering wheel and DRIVE for crying out loud!!"

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use." -Gallileo

I think He meant for US to be the actors, the drivers of our lives. He has a different role. And then we will answer for how we conducted our lives; to what end did we exercise our free wills.

Absolutes vs. Subjectivity

Have always approached God and my faith as Absolute.
Was in an absolute environment: ie. THIS is what God is like- I just need to learn it, absorb it, take notes, get in line with it.
God is who He is- He doesn't change; I must change and become more like Him.

Now I'm thinking, God may indeed be "absolute" in His character- but our understanding of God, our ideas of him are not absolute.
I hadn't separated God from our ideas of God. I treated the teaching of my church leaders as somehow absolute; their ideas of God as being one and the same with God.
That's why it's so important to question.
Same with my faith- there is no one way to practice faith, or Christianity

I need to start thinking as though my faith is mine to shape-- what kind of faith do I want to practice? I should think this way, because when I do, I ask much better and more probing questions- and I get to know my real self, my own mind

So from here on in- there are no absolutes, no sacred cows in how I will practice faith, nothing I HAVE TO do; everything can be questioned

I don't feel that I am actually questioning God himself, but rather, my idea of God.

Setting the subjectivity of our knowledge at the forefront of my mind