Wondering Why I'm Still Doing This, and Whether or Not It's Worth It

You are the salt of the earth: but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored?  It is no longer good for anything but is thrown out and trampled under foot.  You are the light of the world.  A city built on a hill cannot be hidden.  No one, after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your father in heaven.  Matthew 5:13-16, NRSV, from The Sermon on the Mount

There have been times, in the circles of relationships in my life, when I have wondered if I was the only person who thought the way I did.  

I grew up in a small, Southern Baptist church.  It was outside the deep South, in Arizona, near a military base so the congregation was a mix of people who lived in the community and had moved there from somewhere in the South, or people who were stationed at the military base or worked there and lived nearby, who tended to be from just about everywhere.  I was in Sunday school every week, in worship services Sunday morning and evening, and in missions group on Wednesday night.  I went to church camp every summer.  I was in the youth group in middle and high school.  And as a result of the influence of the church, I went to a university that was affiliated with the denomination, on a scholarship.  

One of the basic degree requirements of the university was to earn a total of twelve credit hours in Biblical studies.  There were four standard courses, Old Testament Survey, New Testament Survey, Christian Doctrines and Systematic Theology, which most students took to meet this requirement.  It did not take very long for me to realize that there was some discrepancy between the way my professors interpreted scripture, and the way it had been done in my church.  There was, of course, quite a gap in the educational level of those church leaders who had been my teachers, and the professors.  

My college roommate and I would often discuss the difference between what we'd been taught in church and what we were learning in school. He was studying for the ministry, and was raised in a church very similar to the one I grew up in.  One of his former Sunday school teachers, who was also a deacon in his church, had warned him that the university would try to turn him into a liberal.  That was their perception of what we were learning.  It was different, it required them to think, it challenged their presuppositions and their reaction was to reject it, label it and dismiss it.  

Not all members of all Evangelical churches feel that way, or consider an in-depth study of the Bible including the historical context and setting of the times in which it was written and looking at the original languages and style of writing, as being "liberal."  But that is not the approach to instruction in small churches where few members have an education beyond high school, and where the pastor may also lack college or seminary training in Biblical studies, backgrounds and languages.  And those kind of churches make up a majority of the conservative Evangelical branch of the American church.  

There is an academic definition of "liberal" as it applies to Christian doctrine and theology, and nothing I was ever taught in the university or graduate school where I received my M.A., both Baptist affiliated, really fits that definition.  I can generalize most of what I learned in a few statements: 

1. Context is vital to interpretation of scripture.  Therefore the Bible cannot mean something different now than it did when it was originally written.  Don't apply it if you don't know and understand the context.  
2. Jesus gave a dramatic and conclusive interpretation of the Old Testament, recorded in Matthew 5:17.  He saw himself as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and declared that not one "jot or tittle" of the law would pass from it until all was accomplished, that being the key phrase in interpreting his words.  It was accomplished when he was resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven.
3. There is no "dual" or "hidden" meaning in scripture.  With the original context of past events, it is the principle that becomes the interpretation.  
4. The book of Revelation has a historical context that is the only valid interpretation of the book. 
5. There is no substitute for gaining an understanding of the original languages in which the Bible was written, and learning how to discern the context using them. 
6. The life example and teachings of Jesus Christ are the criteria by which all of the rest of scripture is to be interpreted.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is the high point of the whole Bible.  It is the point. Virtually all of the rest of scripture can be interpreted using the text of the Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Matthew 5,6 and 7, along with other teachings found in all four gospel accounts.  
7. Textual criticism is a valid means of evaluating the accuracy of transmission of specific portions of the entire Bible.  We have manuscript evidence, by secular historical standards, for most of the New Testament, but there are variants that need to be acknowledged.  It is too simplistic and somewhat inaccurate to claim that the Bible is "inerrant and infallible in its original manuscripts" without acknowledging that no original manuscripts exist, and the oldest and most reliable manuscripts which do exist are more than 300 years older than the originals.  
8. No sect, branch, denomination, fellowship or broader division of Christianity can lay claim to being "the true church" and there is no objective standard to make that evaluation.  The bridge across the gap of uncertainty is faith.  The divisiveness and exclusivity that has created divisions in the church that are sharper and more divisive than borders that separate countries is a product of human fallacy, and is not what Jesus intended for his church.  Any expression of Christianity that does not acknowledge its own shortcomings, and rejects other branches of the faith on its own terms is itself making a doctrinal and theological error in judgment. 

I could go on, and for those reading this who aren't Christian, or who have rejected Christianity as a whole, it might not make much difference to you.  The Christian church, in all of its forms, more often than not, has contributed to power struggles, conflict and wars because it has failed to follow its own gospel principles and has been lured into the temptation to use worldly, political power to preserve its own influence, something that Jesus was tempted to do, and rejected.  What we are seeing in this current mixture of right wing extremism with right wing Christianity is another subversion of the church.  

Well, But, Here's The Bottom Line

So here's what I'm getting at by saying all of this.  I initially started writing to vent frustrations over what I see as increasing encroachment of the loonier, crazier, more extremist politics of the far right into expressions of American Christianity, primarily the Evangelical wing of it, with which I am more familiar, but it's also finding its way into a few niches and outposts of mainline Protestantism and it is increasingly influential among Catholics.  While there have been some temporary departures from my original purpose, sometimes to chase rabbits, sometimes to address something that became part of the political-religious narrative, I've had two main purposes for writing here: 

• To defend American democracy, and more specifically, to support and defend the first amendment right to freedom of conscience, with an emphasis on the preservation of the Establishment clause of the first amendment, which is the right to have a free church in a free state, the principle of separation of church and state that was the clear intent of founders James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  This is for the benefit of both church and state.
• To oppose the conflation of Christianity, primarily the conservative, Evangelical branch of American Christianity, with the extremism found in far right wing Republican politics, and to support and defend politicians who see the danger and error inherent in this perspective and have the courage to oppose it, knowing the accusations and criticism that their opposition will cause.  To help those within the Christian faith, and specifically within conservative, Evangelical churches and denominations to know that they do not have to minimize their religious convictions to be members of the Democratic party.  

Along the way, a group of somewhere around 20,000 followers has logged in and spent some time reading and responding.  I am guessing that the majority of those may be people who think along the same lines as I do.  I'm not so much interested in accumulating followers, though, as I am in making the point and inspiring those who are like-minded to continue their efforts to be an influence around them.  I've also seen some evidence that those who are on the margins in these political circumstances and who have their doubts about the wisdom and effectiveness of this conflation of right wing Christianity with extremist right wing politics who can be convinced with factual arguments, truth, and even some Biblical inspiration, have decided democracy and freedom are more important than winning some pointless culture war.  

To be honest, prior to the midterms, I was thinking of just giving up.  It wasn't looking good for this cause, and in the barrage of fake news polls and all of the ridiculous flood of rhetoric that came from some of the extremists, I wasn't sure of where to go.  Then I read the piece from Michael Moore.  Whether you like the guy or not, he's not someone who puts his credibility on the line by making statements of pollyana optimism in the face of certain defeat.  By 11:00 p.m. on November 8th, I was back in business.  

So if you read The Signal Press now and then, or all the time, thank you.  If you still have conservative, Evangelical friends and you can discreetly share it, that would be nice.  I monitor the comments and have standards on the hateful stuff I'll allow, most of that comes via email anyway and I have a lot of fun answering it.  And you can leave a comment every now and then, especially constructive dissent or disagreement.  

I don't know what the future holds.  Maybe blogging is a thing of the past, if it is, wow, that era went fast.  For now, I'm going to continue to advocate for democracy, freedom of conscience, separation of church and state, and the successful Biden Administration.  I think the House is going to provide some really great material to write about.  Noting that I try to keep the conversation graceful, it will be fun to see how that transpires, I think.