Oh Evangelicalism, Melt Down Your Golden Calves: and Feed The Homeless

not like this

“So I said, ‘Who has gold?’ And they took off their jewelry and gave it to me. I threw it in the fire and out came this calf.” –AAron (Exodus)

I recently found myself in hot water (again) on account of the fact that I made some comments in a comment-thread on a public forum…I won’t give out the name of the forum, but it starts with Face and ends in tears…

This happens to me from time to time, a fact which might lead some of you to think: “Why do you even engage?”  I do it because I like the exchange…I like the back and forth, I only find out afterward that some folks don’t…but maybe you’re right.

This particular exchange was predicated on the sharing of a link, the clicking of which sent one to this blog post, written by a pastor named Mark Barrett.  Pastors’ blogs, with a few rare exceptions needed to prove the rule, are the internet’s version of car-seat instructions: generally filled with what most similarly-minded folks would consider common-sense; but, “hey I have a computer and a little free-time, so…why not?”

I’ll leave you to determine whether or not Pastor Barrett’s “review” holds water.  But it straight-up pissed me off on a visceral level.  Now I’m not saying that this post was the most misogynistic, condescending  writing I’ve ever had the misfortune of receiving from the mind of a conservative evangelical.  But, what I am saying is–that when I read a paragraph that includes ideas like: ” What became apparent to me very quickly was that this book is written primarily for women. That was clear by the emotionally-charged language and the overzealous and abundant use of adjectives.”–I am not inclined to slow-clap and say: “Good point, Archie, but while you were running your Pork-hole, Edith forgot to make us coffee, so should I bitch-slap her, or are you gonna regulate this situation?”

And while I was dubious about the good pastor’s intentions, and–eventually–his intellect (I believe my exact phrasing was: ” Oh I just realized that Pastor Barrett’s first language might not have been English…I’m an asshole, but even I don’t punch kids in wheelchairs…at least I haven’t in the last three weeks.”), this was not the main issue.

Nor was the most important issue: the backseat brazier-fumbling of a pastor trying his level-best to “protect” “his” “flock” from “dangerous” ideas…an over-reach that is visited upon congregants who seem all too readily available for emotional manipulation, the reasons for which I can understand, but have little patience.  I am no fighter…I did a little fighting in school; generally with poor showings, and (almost) always in defense of myself, or others, against bullies.  I’m not a big fan of bullies, and while I am physically diminutive, I can be a bad-ass muther-fucker on the page (to adopt the nomenclature of: “the kids”) these two facts about me earned Pastor Barrett the following list of questions in the comments’ section of his blog (they’re still awaiting “moderation”; his, not mine):  (Note: These were not the comments written in the comments’ thread of the Facebook post.)

Pastor Barrett, are women allowed to speak and have their heads uncovered in your church? (this one was just a light-hearted joke…a left jab in a sparring match…a test of just how literally he interprets Paul [the late apostle; both to the party, and in life])

Also, what is it about the human vagina, in your opinion*, that makes one unable to write without extraneous use of emotion and/or adjectives? (like I said: his insensitive words about female writers and readers pissed me off a bit)*the phrase: “in your opinion” was not in the original question, it was what I meant, but I didn’t catch its omission until after I’d clicked “submit”

Additionally*, is it your position that the author of Hebrews was trying to convey the idea that there is no other revelation aside from that of Christ? (the context of his paragraph seemed to be using Hebrews 1:1-2 as the proof-text for his idea that God is no longer in the business of handing out “revelation”…now, you can believe what you’d like about God’s involvement with ongoing revelation to man, but don’t drag the writer of Hebrews into it…this text was clearly meant to include Christ in the pantheon of former revelators…it is the acme of eisegetical-assholery to impose a message of finality with it.)* the word “additionally” was actually “also” in the original phrasing

Finally, if one were to pray for discernment, and–hypothetically–received said discernment, what–if not revelation–would one call said discernment? (splitting hairs?  maybe. valid points sometimes do that.)

The worst part was that: nobody spoke to the questions I raised about Pastor Barrett’s wisdom.  I was accused by a woman (w/ an unhealthy reliance on emoticons) of not being a Christian…or at least not a Bible-believing Christian (a distinction that is absolutely as manipulative as it sounds).  I was accused, via text, by a dear friend, of hi-jacking another dear friend’s ( and first dear friend’s wife) Facebook post (a charge that I still cannot comprehend…this wasn’t locked away in some armored-car from which I–a masked bandit–extracted it, on a cold and darkened stretch of hi-way, and exploited it for my own pleasure; it was a shared link on a social-media site upon which I commented).  Then, after everyone took their shots at what I had to say, again never calling into question the veracity of my claims only the audacity of my actions; the whole thing was erased.

An evangelical pastor spoke, a dissenter of said pastor’s ideas commented, said commenter was reprimanded, then the whole ugly business was scrubbed from the record.  I apologized to my friends for causing them frustration (I guess that’s the best way to put it), I didn’t mean for anyone to get upset…Hell, I didn’t expect that anyone would get upset.  I couldn’t apologize for my actual actions, I didn’t (and still don’t) think I’d done anything wrong.  Mayhaps that’s a bit obtuse; but that’s all it is…and I’m confident that that sin is forgivable.

One afternoon, after spending a bit of time talking to God–who was costumed as an inconsumable brush-fire, Moses came down to where the rest of his peeps had been awaiting his news.  They’d somehow fashioned an idol out of gold.  Moses, having laid eyes upon said idol, lost his shit.  There was a time when these types of idols were shaped like: (and I’m just spit-balling here) baby cows and the like.

Now we have taken to shaping them like: portly, bearded, bespectacled, balding, sometimes-all-of-the-above men–who boast larger libraries than literary sense…

Who I Am is Who I am or What?

Honesty…

“I always liked the idea that America is a big facade. We are all insects crawling across on the shiny hood of a Cadillac. We’re all looking at the wrapping. But we won’t tear the wrapping to see what lies beneath.” –Tom Waits

I’m not sure what to say…I’m writing because I know if I don’t it might be awhile before I do again.  That’s the way I roll.  Laziness is the “resting-face” of my behavior.  I’m okay with that.  I’m 40 years old and I’m starting to be comfortable with who I am.  I know; better late than never.  Not: “I’m more good than bad–so–I can’t be all that bad” comfortable.  More like: “good and bad aren’t really quantifiable, but I’m not embarrassed by either–I’m only sorry for the people I’ve hurt” comfortable.  I don’t want to hurt people.  I don’t really want to not not hurt people either…least-wise not efficaciously.

Truth is, in some cases I do want to do things that might hurt people.

My plan for this post was to draw parallels between The Bible’s Jonah and the weirdo Gastonguay family of Arizona.  Have you heard of these folks?  They were really tired of–what they viewed as–an overstretch, by the federal U.S. government, into their religious liberties.  I know, shocking…generally folks from that region are so level-headed…

They decided the only answer was to board a small sailing vessel and head toward an island in the middle of nowhere somewhere between Hawai’i and Australia.  Easy-peezy, as they say.  With an 8 month old.  Less easy-peezy.  And no real plan on how to accomplish this task.  God-mode (hehehe: Doom references).  They said that they’d: “decided to take a leap of faith and see where God led us [them]” (I’m pretty sure that they didn’t all decide that)…

They got lost at sea on a boat that was badly beaten, and nearly sunk, by the storms they’d endured(a biblical-plague number)–until some Venezuelans rescued them.  Long story short, God led them right back to Arizona with no boat and a $20,000 debt for “travel” costs; which I’m confident they’ll pay because if there’s one thing I know about political conservatives it’s that they always take responsibility for their actions…

They’re planning on leaving again…

Which means they’re just a little more obtuse than Jonah who got the point after being puked up on a shore having spent, somewhere in the neighborhood of, 72 hours in the stomach of a giant whale.  Note: If the thought–“It wasn’t a giant whale, it was a big fish”–just crossed your mind, you should realize that that distinction does not make the story sound less crazy.

Are we clear, literalists?

Aces.

That was my story–poking fun at Arizonan Tea-Party Conservative Evangelicals.  Like punching someone in the dark.

But then I realized doing that would probably lead me to areas of my mind where hurtful things are stored.  So I decided not to do that.  In that spirit: please disregard the bulk of the preceding paragraphs.

I have my own issues with hearing the call of God…whatever that means.

My friend Matt once told me that I was a “yes” guy.  He went on to explain that “yes” people say yes to things unless there is an obvious reason to say no.  As opposed to “no” people whose “resting-face” answer is no, provided no compelling reason to say yes arises.  I’m not sure if that is true about me.  I know I felt a certain sense of pride when he said that.  So it’s safe to say: I wish it were true.

Maybe that’s just the way God talks to me.  Maybe God just throws shit my way, knowing that I always say yes.

I’ve learned over the years that the more I learn about the world and people and God, the less I know about all of them.

I’ve also learned that knowing less isn’t such a big deal.  The “knowing” is an artifice to which I’ve grown accustomed, it is nice to look at, but it offers no sheer-strength.  It just sits there, hanging off of life, waiting for an earthquake to unleash its potential as a person-crushing pile of rubble…

An Open Letter to Christian Churches

your pride was less annoying when it came with a sense of style…

“My parents are very religious…very pro-Iraq-conflict…’Cause that’s what Jesus would do; smoke them out of their holes like the gentle carpenter, oh he only turns the other cheek to grab another can of whoop-ass…” –Maria Bamford

Dear Christian Churches:

Hey folks, I know it’s been a tough season.  Money has been tight.  Formerly needy people are finding new ways of comforting themselves.  Crazy fringe groups like: Greater Ministries International, the Westborough Baptists, Focus on the Family, CBN, and the GOP, have co-opted our message and distorted it to the point of being unrecognizable.  People are buying in like crazy.  People are like crazy.  People are crazy.  People be cray-cray.  It’s been tough.

This hasn’t been true for all of us.  For some, times are good.  For some, the walls and doors of their buildings can barely contain the number of devoted followers who joyfully rush to their respective over-stuffed houses of worship and make it rain.  Every.  Chance.  They.  Get.  The coffers are full.  Their problem is different.  Their question is: Do we create more worship services, or move to a different space?  That is the purpose of this letter.

Please stop erecting new church buildings.

You suck at it.  There was a time when we, as a faith, killed it when it came to architecture.  Most of the great artists and trades-people were on board with our mission (not by choice, but seriously, to-may-toe_to-mah-toe).  As a result, there exist beautiful structures that double as grand examples of devoted worship.  That is not the case anymore.  Like the great sage Glenn Frye (actually it was Don Henley–kindly pointed out by Jill in the comments) once said: “…those days are gone forever, we should just let ’em go”.  These days, churches are more apt to drive through the town in which they’re called to serve, passing every abandoned commercial shit-box, to find a fresh plot of land, and build their own ply-wood and glass shit-box.  Not cool guys.  Not cool.

Every single one of these boxes will one day be shuttered.  Then what?  Nothing, nobody wants that building.  It becomes an ugly and hollow visage of its former mediocrity.  If it is small enough, one might be able to find a non-profit thrift-store or crisis-pregnancy center (both seem to have a similar distrust for aesthetic) to fill the void between the walls; for a season.  But, for the most part, it just sits there in a state of perpetual decay until–one day–it catches fire or is torn down by the city for safety reasons.  A testimony for all to witness.

I remember being involved with such a situation when the church I was attending left the Seventh-Day Adventist building in which they were meeting to build a monstrosity in the woods…next to a golf-course community.  The church, which I’ll call: Christ the Rock Community Church, left the building we were occupying because we were asked to leave by the Adventists.  It wasn’t really anyone’s fault.  It was the result of two differing Christian worldviews that could not find common ground anymore.  So maybe it was everyone’s fault.  These things can be tricky.  But, at a time when we were looking to find a new place to call home, Wal-Mart had successfully won the battle against the local (pro-living-wage) K-Mart (yet another evidence that free-market economics lack perspective).  The former K-Mart building was vacant and available.  It would’ve served as a great building.  The reason given for not utilizing that building was: cost…not that the money wasn’t there, it would’ve cost more to renovate than to build a new building.  We know now that this was a result of heavily manipulated stressors on real-estate and building supplies; things over which the average church community has no control.

But that’s my point, it’s the short-sightedness of  building funds that stifle us.  Even if the cost was legitimately more burdensome, imagine the testimony to the surrounding community that a vacant eye-sore could be made into something useful.  This would effectively transform a building fund into a general ministries or missionary fund.  A bargain at twice the price.  Re-purposed buildings are physical examples of redemption to a community.  They are examples of the gospel…a gospel of second chances.  In this transubstantiation, commonplace brick and mortar become the words of God–just as ink and paper, or the actions of the devoted, do.

The other beautiful thing that happens when you re-purpose a building is that nothing is lost.  When the community moves on, the building is every bit as useful as it was when they got there.  Unlike the ply-wood shit-boxes in the forest, commercial properties remain commercial properties to be filled or torn down as the land-owners and surrounding community see fit.  There is a stasis achieved that is bigger and more stable than the whims of a church board in crisis.

Or don’t have a building.  If you’ve money, find a place that you can use and disperse the money into the economy by supporting the school, or grange, or community center in which you meet.  It offers you less autonomy, but it is in the wrestling…the negotiation…the forced contact with those in charge that we are forced out of our western passive-aggressive monastic state.  A church building should be a conduit for contact with the surrounding community.  Not a sanctuary from it…not a strong-tower.

It’s time to re-think this form of consumerist philosophy.  It is time to disconnect our sense of worth from property.  What would Jesus do?  I don’t know.  I never got the vibe that he was in to property rights…he seemed indifferent toward property.  There was a time when church buildings were works of art…so much so that when they were of no use to the church community that once filled their voids, they became useful to the community at large.  They were made into pubs or libraries or personal dwellings…all of which are more akin to first century churches than the mega-box churches of western white-washed suburbia that we see today.  Re-purposed commercial buildings are not only more centrally-located to the community, they’re also (when used with proper hospitality) a gift to the people in the community.  A gift for which it is hard to be compensated.  In a consumerist society, that is a rare gift.  And it is an important gift, if for no other reason than to keep the giver honest…

Libertarianism: The Hoax of the Elite

“Listen, I know what I said; but we’re in trouble…we’re going big-tent…we need their votes

  “And God saw everything he had made, and he saw that it was very good; and God said, It just goes to show Me what the private sector can accomplish. With a lot of fool regulations this could have taken billions of years.” –Author Unknown

I finished writing a long-winded (long-typed? long-typeded) post about Libertarianism and its lack of historical context in America.  It went into the myth of the “Libertarian Tradition” in America and dispelled the notion that smaller government equals an increase in individual liberty.  Then it struck me.  I’m over-complicating the issue.  I don’t have to prove that the Libertarian and Tea-Party ideations of a small-government will be ineffective at offering people more personal freedom.  History has already proven that point. 

The Industrial Revolution was a great example of what happens to the average individual when government is disinterested in keeping private industry in check.  The question is simple: Is there an appreciable difference between centralized political power and centralized financial power?  The answer is no…both are effective ways to bully the majority into subservience.  While Libertarian and Tea-Party supporters can point to effective ideas for curbing the power of the government, they have no answer to the problem of large corporate interests filling that power-vacuum. 

This is not my point, exclusively; I’ve heard Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, and other like-minded intellectuals make this point.  It is a common-sense idea that is well-argued by history.  Indeed, the recent rapid rise of Libertarian-thought and enthusiasm for a deregulated free-market is born of our more modern generation’s disdain for learning from the lessons of history, or perhaps there’s a growing zeal for repeating the mistakes of the past, or maybe we just have an underdeveloped sense of irony.  At any rate, modern Libertarian and small-government leaning Tea-Party philosophy is nothing more than a do-over of archaic American economics without a strategy for correcting the problems that are known to exist in it.

I’ve heard it said: “Don’t worry about the free-market; it doesn’t need regulation…it regulates itself.”  Good news, you don’t have to be an history buff to see the folly in that last statement.  Maybe pre-2008ish one would’ve been able to subscribe to the notion that the free-market is too dependent upon its customer-base to cannibalize it.  But you would need an undying devotion to ignorance to believe that now.  Don’t get me wrong, I believed in Santa Claus well after it was age-appropriate to do so, and I believe that God is real.  So you can see that I too have a weakness for ideas that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of empirical scientific data.  But I have my limits. 

Another tenant of modern Libertarian thought is the privatization of municipal services.  History says: “The Pinkertons”.  History is boring.  But we have a modern-day example of this short-sighted world-view.  Only the most ardent ideologues see the privatization of the prison system as a success.  That’s not entirely true: Ardent Ideologues and people who aren’t paying attention both seem to be pleased with the privatization of law-enforcement.  In fact it is a failure.  At best it is a system that is no more effective at accomplishing its ends than its government-controlled counter-part.  At worst it is so economically unfeasible that some have stooped to corrupt practices in order to bolster the financial viability of these prisons.  Who would have thought that adding a profit incentive to private law-enforcement agencies would be a recipe for corruption?  Who indeed.

True Libertarian and Anarchistic societies have existed in the past.  Not only did they exist but they thrived (sorry kids, this point requires a little historical homework, as most were eviscerated by Rome…you know, the guys who tried the system at which we are currently failing first), but it is important to note that these pockets of individual liberty enjoyed an egalitarian mind-set that has yet to be mimicked in modern western civilization.  Why?  Egalitarianism has a strict threshold of diminishing returns when it comes to profitability.  It is the sacrifice of prosperity in the interest of sustainability.  A concept for which the American Dream has little patience.  Who am to argue against somebody’s blood-lust for the ever-elusive brass ring?  I would never…but one cannot serve both liberty and mammon.  America has been very clear about which master she prefers…for good or ill.

As for the politicos-Paul, please hear me on this one.  If you are a true Libertarian, then vote for true Libertarian candidates.  A small-government Republican does not a Libertarian make.  The Pauls are to libertarianism what the novelization of the Twilight franchise is to literature.  Republicans are co-opting ideas that Libertarians hold dear in a move to lure them in to the fold of the Republican base.  In the late 1800’s the Democrats pulled the same move with the Populists.  The Populists fell for it and that played a huge role in you thinking: “Who?”, when you read the word: Populist. 

Any centralized power-structure is bad for personal liberty.  It doesn’t matter if that power-structure exists through the bastardization of a well-thought-out democratic process, or if one just inherits it from one’s daddy.  But if you do believe that the tenets of Libertarianism can truly help your fellow Americans by restoring  power to the individual through shrinking the influence of the Federal Government, then by all means vote for strong Libertarian candidates, not career politicians like the Pauls or the Jindals or the Walkers of this country.  Even stupid ideas deserve to be done well…

Out of the Fraying Pan and into the Fray

…if our thoughts had thought-bubbles…

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”  Romans 12:18 NASB

The topic is wearisome, I know.  Not wearisome because of its message.  It is wearisome because everybody and their step-sister have an opinion on this topic.  Some are useful.  Most are tired tropes that have already proven themselves to be ineffective.  The Zimmerman Trial, it was decided for us, would be about race.  But it isn’t really about that, or gun control, or neighborhood watches peopled by the mentally unstable with fantastical ideations of joining law-enforcement…badges make great accessories…I read that in Sociopath Weekly.  This story is about two people who were failed by their legislators when the state of Florida passed, what is commonly referred to as, “Stand Your Ground” legislation in 2005.  I prefer its more telling name “No Duty to Retreat”…Stand Your Ground sounds tough and heroic; No Duty to Retreat is more honest, it essentially says: “Retreat? That’s not my job.” which is a hollow sentiment when you have a dead unarmed teenager laying at your feet…

Making this case about racial tension is a brilliant move (brilliant for revenue-hungry media-outlets)…it’s a sociological slight-of-hand where-in an overly-complex narrative is used to usher in a conclusion that is woefully over-simplified.  It works thusly: we are fed the racial tension narrative which leads us to think about all of the vast complexities involved with racial-relations in this society.  Just about the time we’re completely over-whelmed by a trillion different lessons on history and sociology and psychology, the 24hr. news cycle roars to life with countless pundits vapidly bantering to one another about: “What can be done to improve race-relations in America?”.  Because race is such a multifarious issue it gives the countless pundits countless avenues down which they can speed-walk as they furiously “look” for the answer that has thus far alluded humanity.  Once the trial slows down and comes to its natural conclusion (or some limey princess has a baby) the pundits are there to assure us that, while race is complicated, we can all rest easy knowing that we’re doing all that we can, and offer us the hope that we will improve.  And it’s true…we will improve…or at least we should…we’ve left ourselves ample room for just this sort of thing…

No, this story is about clumsily written legislation that offers massive responsibility without the requisite repercussions needed in the event a mistake is made; repercussions that would keep the responsibility in check.  I’m not saying that “Stand Your Ground” played a key role in the trial of Zimmerman, I’m saying a “No Duty to Retreat” culture insures that there will be other cases just like this one…which isn’t much of a stretch, there are a great deal of these cases being argued all over the country.  Hell, Zimmerman’s lawyers didn’t need to argue that case in the court-room; legislators gave Zimmerman everything he needed to argue that case on the streets of Florida, save the pistol.  That’s another side-effect caused by this type of lazy legislation: when the smoke clears it is, often times, the person with the most to hide who gets to tell his (mostly his) side of the story.  Self-defense is much easier to prove when the one from whom you were defending yourself is dead.  I’m also not saying that race played no role in what happened that day…I don’t know if it did or didn’t.  I do know well-written laws offer victims much better protection in these types of situations regardless of any party’s views on race.  I do know that we don’t learn much about race-relations by studying how two individuals interact with one another in a highly-volatile situation…

But there-in lies the nut…the situation wasn’t volatile when George Zimmerman was encouraged by a 911 dispatcher to break-off the pursuit of Trayvon Martin and let the police handle it.  At that point Zimmerman made a choice to handle it himself.  At that moment he either under-estimated the situation or over-estimated his ability to handle it, because–if he is to be believed–the situation turned into a real cluster-fuck that ended in the death of an unarmed teenager.  Would it have ended better if the cops could’ve interceded?  I don’t know…this is Florida we’re talking about.  I know there wasn’t much room to make it worse.  I know that if Zimmerman had to prove that he had no ability to retreat, the 911 dispatcher’s advice to end his pursuit of Trayvon would’ve been more important to the case.  But Zimmerman didn’t have to worry about proving his inability to retreat, and with that piece of information he continued his pursuit, knowing he had an Ace in the hole…two, actually: Florida’s lax attitude toward homicide and a pistol…

Stand Your Ground is bad law making.  It creates a situation in which an armed neighborhood watchman is allowed to make snap decisions that have life-long repercussions.  It has the power to exacerbate racial tensions.  It has seen the rate of self-defense claims increase dramatically, the victims of said claims being predominantly white and predominantly male.  It has no clear evidentiary support for lowering the crime rates in effected jurisdictions.  It can be fixed.  I know that killing is much more masculine than running, but don’t worry so much…people think you’re tough…no really, they do…I wouldn’t say it unless it was true…awwww come on, chin up buttercup.  Not only did that law, and the culture it has helped to shape, fail Trayvon Martin as he lay dead in the rain.  It failed George Zimmerman.  It assumed that Zimmerman was a competent man capable of handling the stress that confrontation often brings.  It is clear to me that that assumption was not well-founded.  Some would like to imagine a universe where George Zimmerman serves jail-time for his choices; I count myself among them.  Moreover, I’d like to live in a universe where this type of thing isn’t all but encouraged by elected officials…a universe where-in Trayvon Martin is still alive, and George Zimmerman is only secretly a dick…

I/m O-Thomas You/re O-Thomas

The actions of a person who never questions their actions…

“There is nothing so pitiful as a young cynic because he has gone from knowing nothing to believing nothing.” –Maya Angelou

I’ve been thinking a bit about Thomas.  He was a guy in the bible who hung out with Jesus.  Lots of Christians call him “Doubting Thomas”.  They call him that in a sort of judgmental way…but a Christian judgmental way.  Like: “Hey bro, I get it, I don’t know what I would do in that situation.”  Meanwhile, they totally know what they would do in that situation…crush it.  It all comes down to this story in the bible about a meeting with Jesus a few days after he had died.  Thomas was out doing some stuff, and a bunch of his friends were huddled in a hut…or a flat…or a shack.  It was a structure.  The door was locked because they were all scared about what the religious ruling-class was going to do to them.  Then Jesus pops in and says, “Peace be with you.”  Which is Jesus-speak for: “Sorry about your soiled ephods”.  He then showed them various evidences that he was the guy who died a few days earlier.  When Thomas returned his friends told him what they had witnessed because Jesus had already bounced.  Which is Patso-speak for: “He had taken his leave of them.”

Thomas didn’t buy it right off the bat…he was standing in a room with a bunch of people who were recovering from losing their shit a couple of days earlier when their worlds were turned upside down.  He was standing in a room with a bunch of guys who had spent the last three days proving to Thomas, and one another, that they don’t always understand what’s going on–even when they say they do.  The whole time that these guys were hanging out with Jesus he was telling them: “Hey I’m going to die but don’t worry, I’m going to come back to life three days later.” (Patso abridged)  Then, when it all started happening, the disciples were all: “What the what?  Let’s get outta Dodge!”  So Thomas comes back and they’re like: “You’ll never guess who stopped by.”  Of course he was skeptical, given the witnesses he was left to believe.  I think Thomas’ inner-dialogue was conflicted.  On the one hand, he knew that he’d misunderstood what Jesus was talking about when he was hanging out with him.  On the other hand, he knew that that was true of everyone in the room.  Added to that was the idea that if what they were saying was true, it would change everything.  I think Thomas was the guy who took seriously the implications of the news that Jesus was risen.  So he said, “I’ll believe it when I see it.”

Eight days later they’re all hanging out in the same dwelling…still scared.  This time Thomas is with them all and Jesus pops in again.  And Thomas has a chance to see and believe.  Jesus tells him put your hands in his wounds.  He tells him to take it all in…to look dead in the face of the evidence.  Thomas does and says: “My Lord, and My God!”  Have you believed because you’ve seen?  Jesus asks of Thomas.  Then Jesus told Thomas blessed are those who believe and do not see.  There are a lot of things I don’t understand about the term “blessing” in the bible.  I don’t think it was a rebuke.  Thomas only wanted the same evidence that everyone in the room had received eight days earlier.  Let’s not forget that everyone in the room had evidence that Jesus was indeed risen and their reaction to this news–this upturn of world-view–this redefinition of authority–was to stay locked in a shack for eight more days.

I identify with Thomas.  I would be the guy saying: “Are you sure you saw Jesus?  You’ve gotten a lot of things wrong the past few days.”  There are a lot things about Christian Dogma, particularly American Christian Dogma, that I don’t buy.  This is not because I am a naysayer…or maybe it is precisely because I am that.  But it’s also more than that.  I have a lot of history with my church…and there are hundreds more years of history to be read and it is a history of a people who consistently misunderstand what God is telling them.  It is a history of folks claiming to love God and people with their words and showing the opposite with their actions…a pantheon of hypocrites…just. like. me.  I’ve believed in things I haven’t seen.  Does that make me more blessed than Timothy?  I don’t think it does.  Jesus doesn’t seem to make a distinction between my relationship with Himself and Thomas’, if we are to believe that the blessing in question pertains to the relationship that Thomas and I share with Jesus.  It seems to me the blessedness in question could be summed up thusly: “Thomas you have seen and have believed, that’s great, but blessed are those who don’t see, because they may not have the choice.”  It is not a statement that makes a distinction in quality, rather it is a distinction in reality.  Thomas had a blessed reality, he got to see for himself the evidence of Jesus’ claims.  I have a blessed reality, though I haven’t seen, it has been seen to that I can believe.

The story of Thomas is not a cautionary tale of a disciple with the audacity to ask questions.  It is not a fable about the virtue of willingly suspended-disbelief.  It is a story of a God willing to answer questions–not required–but willing.  In the midst of my disbelief over topics that have made their way–legitimately or illegitimately–into the canon of Christian dogma, I have no need to fear.  I know that, in as much as I’ve made a commitment to God, He has also made a commitment to me.  If I’m honest with Him, He can correct me on issues that I’ve misjudged.  He does this in a myriad of ways…His word…the community in which He has placed me…and other ways that are at the employ of a sovereign being.  In some ways God is still in the business of saying go ahead, put your fingers in here…