There were many responses at this blog to my “Open Letter to Anne Rice.”  A good bit over 100. I read all of them, though not every one of them was posted.**  I responded to most of those I read, particularly because I kept seeing the same set of basic assumptions popping up. I promise not to squeeze any more life out of this moment than there is, but below is a short(ish) response to two of the more prevalent assumptions underlying many reader comments. (PLEASE NOTE: this is not a further commentary on Anne Rice’s announcement; it is a response to common assumptions found in the reader comments on my initial letter)

The first prevalent assumption among those who commented on my previous post was that I am “an idiot.” Pffssst… chyeah, right.  Am not.

The second is that I am “a jackass.”  Now, that I can buy.

Actual Assumption #1:
The “Human Element” of Religion

There was, present in many of the comments posted, the assumption that one can remove the “human element” from religion.  It’s an immensely problematic idea and here is why I think so:  Many, if not most, would agree that religion is a human construct; that we made it up. Religion is either the way we go about seeking some Divine Source we can only hope and believe is really there underneath it all or it is our poetic and philosophical effort to make lemonade from the lemons of life.  Therefore, if one ascribes to this idea of religion, then all there is to it is the human element.  We are either reaching out for “God” who couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with this circus of dogmas and funny robes or we’re deluding ourselves in order to cope with the absurdity of life.

In that light, let’s suppose that one’s entire religious practice was made up of silent meditation alone in a room in an empty building in an abandoned city whose residents had been eaten by zombies who then, themselves died from side effects of the 5-Hour Energy Drink stored in the blood streams of the very alert people they had eaten (I’m just trying to paint a picture of isolation here… stick with me). Even in that very isolated scenario, the practice of meditation would have had to be learned from someone else.  Be it face to face or in written form or by instructional video, the transference of religious knowledge or spiritual practice is always a human process; People teaching people to be (ostensibly) better people. Religion is people.

So, if religion is a human construct and you remove the “human element” from it you are left with nothing.. which would make many among us just as happy… until the zombies show up.

But what if you are just crazy enough to believe that The Divine communicates directly to people?  Luckily, I am just such a nut. So is Anne Rice. We’re nuts, Anne and I!  You see, I believe, along with Anne Rice, that God has revealed Himself to His Creation over many, many years.  We believe that the pinnacle in this long history of revelation is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; God becoming man.  This tradition makes the elimination of the “human element” problematic in that God, with every phase of revelation over the course of history, has intentionally and consistently chosen the human element; even to the extreme of becoming human. Prophets, Priests, Teachers, Guides, Rulers, etc.. all human, as was Jesus of Nazareth.  So while we might be a ripe mess, it seems that in some strange way we are the mess God wants.

Furthermore, this same tradition shuns the individualistic practice of faith in which religion is “just between God and me.”  The instructions or teachings that have accompanied each phase of revelation are communal instructions and teachings.   The teachings of Christ in particular are teachings spoken to crowds of people rather than to individuals.  They were/are designed to create a culture of forgiveness, generosity and hope rather than just individuals marked by those traits. Christ’s methods were and are communal: He called a group of twelve people to himself and taught them as a collective. He taught the masses who followed him.  Meanwhile, despite his deep criticism of Judaism, Jesus nonetheless continued to teach within that system; in its synagogues and to the communities gathered there around Torah.  I think it’s safe to say that, even if one is unsure as to His “agenda,” Jesus sought (and seeks) to accomplish his goal by reshaping the way people live, not as individuals, but together… until the  zombies show up.

Actual Assumption #2:
The “End” of Religious Practice

Lastly (I promise) throughout the comments, there seemed to be a further assumption that the practice of religion is intended for the improvement of ones self.  Agreed… but.  That is not it’s end.  A better self is particularly better insofar as that better self can then help other selves become better selves.  There is a responsibility that comes with health, blessing and wisdom; the responsibility to pass it on. The healing of our own lives becomes a gift we have the privilege and responsibility to offer others.  But even that is not the end.

The better self helps others be better selves and they, together, become better communities which, in turn, create better neighborhoods, better cities and better cultures which eventually, hopefully and prayerfully transform the face of nations and the globe into the shape and pattern of what Jesus called “the Kingdom.” Christ’s “end” from the very beginning was to redeem all things and all people, reconciling them to the Father and instating His Kingdom on earth as a dwelling place for all of God’s creation. A dwelling place with the foundations of Justice, Mercy and Love.  Any religious (or irreligious) idea which excludes an entire people group from this vision is out of line with that vision and its Architect.  In this light, if someone really “gets it,” the last thing one ought to do is disconnect themselves from those who don’t get it. George Bernard Shaw said it thusly: ”I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die.”

DISCLAIMER: All this is only my opinion, which I will continue to force down peoples’ throats by posting it here on my own blog where you are all morally and legally obliged to click and scroll until I am through controlling you; after which point you are free to move on and linger at the far more entertaining and informative Daily Show page.. That is, of course.. until the zombies show up.

**(comments I did not post were generally those that were only insulting without offering content… also ignored were any comments submitted by Yankee fans.)

I stumbled across Anne Rice’s decision to “give up” on christianity through the PatrolMag.com posting.  She had originally made the declaration on her Facebook Fan Page. After reading her statement, I felt compelled to write the below letter:

Dear Anne,

I am sure that this post is one among many responding to your announcement that you are disassociating yourself from Christianity.  You wrote that your disgust with “this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group” has led you to the conclusion that you “simply cannot belong” to us.

I feel you,  Anne. I really do.  I’ve had similar thoughts and even expressed them publicly. I don’t mind at all the desire or even the need to stand at some distance from the label of christianity.  It may well have been worn through.  But I take issue with the notion that you must disassociate  yourself from ‘christian’ people. I mean sure, we’re a motley lot.  Belonging to this family can often feel like you’ve adopted a few thousand drunk uncles.  It’s incredibly embarrassing at times and frustrating at least as often. I get it.  But I also read that you’re making your move “in the name of Christ” and that presents a rather perplexing dilemma for someone who wants to quit on people.  You see, Christ hasn’t quit on us and if you choose to align yourself with Him, then neither can you.

Aligning yourself with Christ means aligning yourself with Someone who not only declared his love for all God’s children (believer or not), but suffered and died in order to establish and maintain a relationship with those children.  It is this redemptive sacrifice that defines His love as characteristically His.  Having chosen to follow His example, it seems that at least part of the redemptive sacrifice you are being challenged to make is to associate and identify yourself with this shabby batch of miscreants who are often quite bad at practicing the religion you love.  It comes at the cost of your ego and likely some book sales.  But that’s the nature of sacrifice; it costs you. It will cost you if people see you as being family to those “anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth, anti-Democrat, anti-secular humanism, anti-science” types among us.  Just as it costs Jesus to be seen as their Savior and Lord. Just as it cost him to be seen with prostitutes and whatnot.  It is the same social role-play with a different set of cultural lenses on. All your statement does is trade in “bigots” for “whores” when the heart of Christ is that they’re both beloved of the Father.

It’s simply reasonable that if you set yourself against people who set themselves against people you are only adding to the friction. If part of your issue with christianity is it’s exclusivity, you aren’t helping by only including those who “get it” the way you do.  True christian inclusivity means embracing the homosexual and the gay-basher in the same embrace; working for the release of the oppressed while praying and working for the redemption of their oppressor; loving the beautiful game of baseball and yet, somehow, also loving the Yankees.  It means loving the Lord with all of yourself and also loving those who grossly misrepresent Him.

I think you’re smart, Anne. I think you’ll hear some thoughtful feedback and realize you stepped across a line and might have to retract your statement.  You will also likely have to speak directly with Christ about the way you roughly labeled and dismissed the ones He’s drawn to himself and suffered to love.  Lucky for you, lucky for all of us, He’s incredibly forgiving and eternally patient.

In the name of Christ,
Justin McRoberts

There’s this..

and then there’s this..

Yeah, yeah.. I know it’s easy to write off the “prosperity gospel” as an extreme.  But the importance of knowing just how distorted this brand of christianity is stems not only from our ability to write it off where it is concentrated.  For example.. in the places to which we’ve exported it at the great expense of peoples’ livelihood and development…

It is equally important to recognize the cancer in its smaller, sneakier forms.

Sure, the most of us don’t buy the notion that the Lord is going to “buy me a Cadillac” or what have you.. but the subtle battle of divine expectations is constant and heavy.  For many of us, the experience of a life “in Christ” has been something dramatically different than advertised: Our jobs still get pulled out from beneath our feet, our relationships are still compromised by the worst parts of our nature, our children still die from genetic disorders they were born with and suffer from for no fault of their own… the happenings and circumstances of our lives often remain much the same if not exactly the same in life “with God” as life “without Him” which can lead one to wonder just how much of a difference there is between the two.

NOTHING in all of scripture, much less the long, difficult history of God’s people in relationship with Him proposes that He removes from us these daily burdens.  In fact, among Joy, Gentleness, Peace and the lot, Longsuffering is listed as a fruit of God’s spirit in the lives of those who follow Jesus.

Furthermore, I might even suggest that while Joy and Peace are characteristics one would expect from a person indwelt with the heart of Jesus, Longsuffering is where the rubber meets the road.  When things are brutal.. when dreams and expectations fail… when God disappoints… do I still call God “good”?  When what is “good” to God seems “evil” to me; when God’s hand does not move to alleviate suffering and bring light where darkness has claimed preeminence.. can I submit my will to His and say “not my will, but yours.. not my idea of good but Yours; though it confounds and perplexes and even angers me… You are King and I will trust You despite myself.”

So, while I don’t always click with John Piper, I couldn’t agree more with him in this:

Beginning with Bertrand Russell’s essay “Why I Am Not A Christian,”  I have made a point to seek out the voices of those most vehemently anti-christian or anti-religious.  This is not because I want to ‘know my enemy.’  Instead, I read these works because I regularly find so much commonality with the men and women who write them.  Bertrand Russell’s essay challenged some of the foundational misunderstandings I had regarding the practice of my own faith.  His criticism was an instrument that freed me to see more clearly that there were things about “being a christian” that don’t really have anything to do with actually being a christian; and that, if ‘being a christian’ meant holding to those external things, then I must be something else.  I suppose it’s fair to say I see the work of God in and through these men and their work.  Their challenge chips away at what is very often superfluous in religion; a theme that runs through the album Deconstruction.

I really believe that atheism, agnosticism and deism are pieces in a conversation much larger than any one of those platforms of belief alone.  For this reason, I’m looking forward to seeing Collision.  From what I can tell from previews and whatnot, it seems to be a pretty well balanced (fair and balanced? lol.. hehe..  ahem…) take on this piece of that conversation:

http://www.collisionmovie.com/

A few years ago I was invited to lead music at a conference in Santa Cruz, CA. I learned a bit about about the group and what kind of music they were used to so that I could prepare a song-list they’d find familiar and singable. Upon arrival, I noticed the poster advertising both the speaker and myself. The poster read “The Reverend Speaker VonSpeakenstein (not his real name) will be delivering the Word and Justin McRoberts will bring the worship.”

Read the entire post at Soul-Audio.