Reading Scripture Is Not The Ultimate Reading

Christians around the world read scripture. It is a critical spiritual disciple and one that I believe every Christian needs to engage in. The problem is that too often we think reading scripture is the ultimate “reading” - it is not. Reading scripture is important but perhaps you can see that reading scripture places the human being at the center of the action, and that is problematic.

Another limitation to reading scripture is that it is a practice that engages and is focused on the mind. When we read scripture we are seeking information. We will engage in study and research like we are doing some sort of term paper for school. It is popular to think that if you know when Romans was written, have a grasp on two source source hypothesis, and know what trito-Isaiah is then you “really know your Bible.” And you do. You know a lot of information about the Bible. Generally those who elevate orthodoxy and the mind are those who elevate reading scripture or sometimes it is expressed as “read your Bible”. This is all well and good, but limiting to the Christian life.

Many people have seen the deficiency in just reading scriptures. The argument is that it is not enough to engage the mind with reading scripture we must engage the hands. Orthodoxy is nice and all, but there is no orthodoxy without orthopraxy (right action). This group tends to elevate the morality and ethics of the Bible. The concern is less with engaging the mind than it is engaging the hands. Rather than ask people to read scriptures, you might hear this group speak about the scripture reading for the day. It is a little shift in the focus from reading scripture to scripture reading. It is not the human reading the sacred words, but that the sacred words are reading the human. it is the scripture that is doing the act of reading so that in time the human identifies the story of the Bible as their own story and not just a tale of the past.

Up until about five years ago, I assumed that this was the way to engage with scripture. I ask about the scripture reading in worship more than I ask what verses were read or quoted in the sermon. I had been one who understood the limitations to engage in the head and thought hand engagement was better. Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but five years ago it was revealed to me that scripture reading, othopraxy and ethics/morality focus is limited. Which leads me to the third way to engage with scripture.

You may know it as Lectio Divina, but this is the way that I now engage with scripture. It is not a practice where I read scripture (although passages are read). It is not a practice that demands a scripture reading (but scripture is used). Lectio Divina is Latin for "Divine Reading.” Notice the actual words and order - Divine Reading. It is not about the human reading scripture, nor is it about scripture reading the human, it is the Divine doing the reading. It is the Divine who is the main actor. It is the work of the Divine that is paramount in this practice. As such, Lectio Divina is less about information or ethics/morality as it is about formation. It is less about head or hands and more about heart. It is less about orthodoxy or orthopraxy but about orthocardia - right heart.

If you are interested to experience the difference between reading scripture, scripture reading and Lectio Divina, call your pastor and I am sure they can help. I know pastors can help because it was pastors who helped me - Nancy Allen, Bob and Judy Holloway, Estee Valendy, Jerry Hass, Rabbi Chava Bahle, Joretta Marshall, Grace Imathiu and Loyd Allen.

Frontier and the UMC

In my undergraduate studies I was introduced to this idea called “Frontier Thesis”. Upon reflection, I wish we spent more time unpacking the thesis, but we did not. Taken from the Wiki on the subject the thesis in a nutshell:

In the thesis, the American frontier established liberty by releasing Americans from European mindsets and eroding old, dysfunctional customs. The frontier had no need for standing armies, established churches, aristocrats or nobles. There was no landed gentry who controlled most of the land and charged heavy rents and fees. Frontier land was practically free for the taking. 

This thesis promoted by Frederick Jackson Turner suggests that the frontier provides a vision for a utopia. In the frontier there would be no need for bureaucracies, rent, institutions or even standing armies because the land was “practically free for the taking”. Of course the land was not free for the taking. There were millions of people living on those lands, and they were not “free for the taking.” These lands were conquered through enslavement, killing and displacement. The frontier continued to be the draw for so many people because of the perception that there would be more land and resources for everyone. If you arrived somewhere and there were already people on the land, you could kick them off with a guilt free conscious not only because of racism but also with a sense that there was more land “out there” they could go to.

We hear echos of this today when someone says, “This is America and if you don’t like it you can go somewhere else.” Even if it were possible to easily move from your home, which it is not, the assumption is that there is always “another” place that you can go. There is always a frontier, there is another place that we (or you) can expand to in order to allow for a utopia.

Frontierism, at it’s core, suggests that there is no problem that cannot be fix through expanding. Putting the double negatives aside, it assumes that every problem can be fixed by expanding. Of course there are some problems that can be addressed by expanding. For instance, expanding access to the ballot box by expanding voting measures. However, not every problem can be addressed by expanding. Additionally, expanding creates more problems than we care to admit.

In the UMC we face a set of denominational issues before us: declining of membership, aging membership, decline of finances, etc. As it stands now, the solution being offered is some version of the frontier myth. If we expanded our market then our problems would be resolved. If we had more disciples. If we had more money. If we had more churches. If we had better and more leaders. If we had more robust theological education. The assumption is that if we had more then we would not be in the trouble we are in.

It is argued that expanding can solve problems, but if we are honest we might come to see that expanding is constantly good at one thing - masking.

Expanding masks problems rather than address or fixes them. For instance, if the UMC had growing membership and bank accounts to the brim, our problems would still exist. We would not see the structural and systemic problems of our denomination. We would be too juiced up on all the new and expanding churches, and not have time or interest to the underlying and hidden problems. And here is perhaps the greatest problems that needs to be addressed:

The mythology that expanding is the solution is part of the problem because it masks.

I am reminded of the late Carlo Carretto who wrote:

How baffling you are, oh Church, and yet how I love you! How you have made me suffer, and yet how much I owe you! I would like to see you destroyed, and yet I need your presence. You have given me so much scandal and yet you have made me understand what sanctity is. I have seen nothing in the world more devoted to obscurity, more compromised, more false, and yet I have touched nothing more pure, more generous, more beautiful. How often I have wanted to shut the doors of my soul in your face, and how often I have prayed to die in the safety of your arms. No, I cannot free myself from you, because I am you, though not completely. And besides, where would I go? Would I establish another? I would not be able to establish it without the same faults, for they are the same faults I carry in me. And if I did establish another, it would be my Church, not the Church of Christ. I am old enough to know that I am no better than anyone else.

We can expand by starting new denominations, but we are only continuing to mask the reality that expanding (which is a form of expulsion) only continues to divide the house. And as we know, a house divided cannot stand. The house is the myth of expanding and one of these days that myth will fall. Until we repent of our addiction to the frontier myth we will always be willing to divide the world with the false belief that the divisions will bring utopia.

Maranatha!

“Jetsonsing” the UMC

Have you ever seen the Jetsons? It is a cartoon set in the future and has teleconference. The protagonist is a heterosexual, cisgender Anglo male, George Jetson who literally works to make mindless sprockets. He works a couple hours a week, has two kids, a sassy robot maid, an a wife who has “future” version of white pearls around her neck. The mother is still the primary keeper of the home and the father is still the primary breadwinner. Se even if there is flying cars that fold up in brief cases, the Jetsons is the idealized version of the current values of the day it was created.

The Jetsons is still consumeristic, patriarchal, monochromatic, with very invasive technology. The imagination that made the Jetsons was limited in imagination because even as the facade is different the underlying values and assumptions are still present.

That is the trouble with being a futurist. Those who think about the future tend to think about the future as an idealized version of the present. Without addressing the underlying conditions of the moment, in due time the future will look like the Jetsons.

There are many in the UMC who believe that the UMC is broken on all fronts. It is an organization that is top heavy and too stuck for it to do much of anything. For many, the future of the UMC is being painted as a future that will be better, shiner, sleek, streamlined, and efficient - it may even have flying cars!

There are many who want to jettison the denomination for a future that seem rosier (fans of the Jetons will know that the robot in the home is named “Rosey”).. Ironically, the desire to jettison the denomination for an idealized version of the present is not a progressive or traditional temptation - it is thinking that impacts all.

Beware that a desire to jettison is not just ""Jetsonsing.”.