Tag: The One Rule Church

Posted on

Christianity, Capitalism, and Purpose

by David Shaw

“If you work hard, you’ll succeed.” “If you put in the time, God will reward your efforts.” “God loves a hard worker”. These are all sayings that we’ve probably heard at least once in our life, and they’re all used to motivate us to continue to put in just a little bit more time, energy, or effort into our jobs because with just a few more inches of effort we’ll hit gold. We’ve been taught from a young age about the importance of hard work, of finding a job and being successful at it as the keys to wealth and prosperity, and that God wants that for us. The problem with this line of thinking is that this isn’t a universal experience, and depending on when and where you were born, what skin color you have, your gender or sexual expression, your physical or mental abilities, or how much money is in your parents bank account, the “hard work = success” equation isn’t true at all.

While this may be a reality we must accept in the secular world, the capitalistic contradiction has found its way into religion, particularly the American brand of Christianity. The effect that it has had on Christians for generations are present but they aren’t mentioned nearly enough, because for many it’s seen as Christian belief functioning normally. However, the truth is that there is nothing normal about a belief which creates a mindset that contradicts the teachings of the religion. If you want proof of this, ask yourself the question “what is my purpose in life?”

The purpose of life is a complicated and long question. Thousands of years of philosophy have gone by and we still don’t have an answer that can apply to all humans across time. Religions have attempted to wrestle with this question too, and have produced their own answers which are accepted by their believers as the true answer. Christianity’s answer to the question can be found all over the Bible, sometimes explicit and sometimes alluded too. The most accepted answer to the question was said by none other than Jesus himself in Matthew 22:36-40. Every other answer given in the Bible revolve around this “love God and love your neighbor as yourself” theme. So to put it simply, our purpose in life is to love God and love each other. 

But for many Christians, that answer isn’t satisfactory. If it was satisfactory then there wouldn’t be an entire industry of Christian self-help books dedicated to help Christian’s “find God’s purpose for their life”. If Christians believed such a simple answer as “love God and love each other” was truly their purpose in life, then Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life” wouldn’t be one of the best selling books of all time. The reason that these books exist is because Christians don’t truly accept “love God and love each other” as their purpose in life, and they don’t accept this answer because “what’s my purpose in life” isn’t really the question they are asking. 

The question Christians, and most people in a capitalist society, really mean when they ask “what is my purpose” is “what job/career should I have”. This is because for our entire lives we have been taught and conditioned to believe that our purpose in life is to find a job to work and be successful at until we’re able to retire. We are conditioned to believe that our lives only have meaning or purpose when we’re working. Capitalism has tainted our idea of purpose. When we become uncomfortable in our jobs, when we aren’t getting adequate pay, when the job isn’t making us happy, or when we find ourselves unemployed for a period of time, many Christians find themselves going down the “what is my purpose” rabbit hole. And where do many Christian’s turn to? To sermons, seminars, devotionals, and “God’s purpose for your life” books.  All of the “find God’s purpose” outlets are popular because they teach how to be comfortable with our place within, or better yet survive in spite of, capitalism. And all it takes is a “change in mindset” or a “spiritual shift in our worldview”, or any religious code phrase for “see your current suffering as a test from God that we must overcome.”

But how did we get to this point? How did our idea of purpose become so twisted? There are three parts that have aided in correlating work and purpose. The youngest part is the American Dream. The idea that anyone who works hard will succeed. We already know that this isn’t true for everyone, and anyone that isn’t a white, Christian, able-bodied, straight, cis-gendered male will face more difficulty and their “success” will be less than if they fit the mold. But even knowing this, the dream is still pushed by marginalized communities that are searching for salvation from their oppression through capitalistic means. 

The next part of the puzzle is the “Protestant work ethic” which is the foundation of the American Dream. The Protestant work ethic was a name given for a phenomenon that had been going on for almost a thousand years, in which Christianity was contributing to the growth of capitalism through its teaching. The teaching in question was about predestination, particularly “how would one know if they were saved”. The answer: “if you are rich, take that as a sign that God picked you to get into heaven”. But what if you’re poor? Then if you work hard enough, your work ethic will be a sign that you’ll make it into heaven. This thinking would be the catalyst for greed and inequality. Business owners would cut corners and lower wages to increase their own profits, and in turn the employees worked harder just to make ends meet. But on the bright side, both groups could rest assured that they would make it into heaven based on nothing other than capitalistic exploitation. This was the underlying thought process of the Christian capitalist world, which venerated the rich and pressed the poor to enjoy their suffering. This was so accepted, that when union organizers or communists threatened the capitalist idea of work, they were labeled as atheists, because if you don’t believe in capitalism you must not believe in God.

The final piece of the puzzle begins even farther back in time, thousands of years in the past in fact. This piece is the idea of “divine reward and punishment”. Divine reward and punishment are easy concepts to grasp. “If you do something God/the gods like, then you’ll be rewarded. But if you do something God/the gods don’t like, then you’ll be punished”. How strong is this thinking really? Imagine you’re a Bronze Age hardworking farmer that diligently takes care of their crops. God/the gods will reward your hard work, and come harvest time your harvest will be bountiful. But now imagine you’re a lazy farmer that doesn’t care to their fields. God/the gods will punish your laziness with a bad harvest. Obviously, this kind of thinking ignores real world conditions. What if I’m a hard worker but the soil was bad there was a famine, will the gods still punish me? Or what if I’m not that diligent but the soil is excellent and there were favorable rains, are the gods still blessing me?

This “good human action = divine reward” and “bad human action = divine punishment” thinking can fit to almost an scenario. Any human action could be perceived as good or bad and anything could be perceived as divine reward or punishment. Maybe being a hardworking farmer wasn’t what the gods were judging us by. Maybe it’s if we treat our family with respect, or if we pay our tithes, or if we give honor to the monarch, or if we worshipped the right god in the right way, or it may be all of the above. What if the gods didn’t reward us with a good harvest, they just sent a lot of rain, or they didn’t allow our country to be invaded, or maybe they allowed our army to conquer another country. We can mix and match any good or bad human action with any perceived divine action it will make perfect sense, as long as we ignore all other material possibilities. 

Because the possibilities of “divine reward and punishment” are endless, it was incredibly easy for human beings to make anything fit its structure regardless of how much harm it produced. This was exploited by those with political, economic, and religious power to keep the lower classes in line. When those in power began to acquire and hoard more and more wealth through feudalism leaving less resources for those below them on the social ladder, the foundation of the“Protestant work ethic” was set. As feudalism evolved into capitalism, those of the lower classes that struggled to make enough money to survive were assured that if they just worked hard they could make it into heaven. All the while the rich lived in comfort, not having to worry about their salvation at all as their wealth was their ticket into the pearly gates. Later on in the United States, those in power spread that same message but changed it to match an ever-growing secular rhetoric. Instead of heaven/hell being the divine reward/punishment for our amount of work, it was now success or failure, ignoring the conditions many people live through and the multiple oppressions they may face. Just like the only escape that many had from their oppression a millennia ago was their belief that they might make it into heaven, many today believe that their only escape from their oppression is to be successful. And it is this capitalist idea of “being successful” that has become the purpose of our lives. 

Is there a way to solve the capitalist problem within Christianity in regards to purpose? Even at my most optimistic, my best answer is “maybe”. While individual people can come to the realization that God’s purpose for their life has nothing to do with a job or a career but has everything to do with faith and how we treat other people, there are more factors at work. As a whole, Christianity has survived by becoming a valuable tools to those in power to control the lower classes, this is undeniable. If Christian institutions were to make a real effort to make their members see that their purpose is to love God and love each other rather than stressing over work, who knows how the political and economic powers would react. Without diving into speculation, it would take a wholistic effort to untangle capitalism from Christianity, as their are too many variables at play that reinforce the relationship. Without total effort, a true solution may be hopeless. Even still, it would be a greater comfort for the oppressed and lower classes to come to the realization that God’s purpose for them is to beings full of love rather than being complicit in capitalist exploitation. 

“The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone.”

Ecclesiastes 12:13 NRSV-CI

Posted on

Christianity and Sexual Maturity

By Daniel Holder

Is Theology an Excuse to not Reach Sexual Maturity?

These pastoral sex scandals, either with men, women, or children, indicate to me that maybe theology does not encourage sexual development.  There is a blessing in the “hoe phase” (at least, that’s what I hear) because at least then you know yourself.  You learn your likes and dislikes, your vulnerabilities, and your pain points.  

In Christianity we are taught to deny ourselves and follow what we are told the Bible says, but can we deny ourselves?  Or do we just postpone our desires and wait for their surprise resurfacing when we have families and communities that depend on us?

If you preach well, it’s okay if you lie to yourself, and we’ll ignore the skeletons in your closet.  Maybe the pedestals that we place people on do not seat them out of reach of temptation.  Maybe we should encourage getting to know ourselves?

If God Made Man….

I read somewhere that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Maybe you’re familiar with the text.  God proposed that humanity be made in the divine image and the human form was molded by divine hands and animated with divine breath.  

If men and women were created in God’s image, God breathed into us personally.  The task was not delegated to angels.  How then do we arrive at an understanding that we are inherently wicked?  Wouldn’t that mean that God is inherently wicked?  I would like to entertain the notion that inside us we have the potential for both good and evil.  We can be evil when we choose evil, but inside us is also the potential for good, beauty, and life.  

And Man Made the Bible

But the Bible says…, yes, the Bible does say that we are wicked on the inside, but that leads to my next question.  Many believe in the Bible’s inerrancy.  I do not prescribe to that belief and here is why.  The Bible says it was written by the hands of men who were inspired by the Spirit, but they were still men. 

Men and Women have the potential–whether intentional or not–for error, to insert bias, or to be influenced by the situations around us.  Can we believe the Bible is inerrant while believing it was written in the hand of “inherently evil” men?

I am not at all discounting the Bible. I just sometimes think that we use it incorrectly.  The Bible speaks differently to different groups and communities, but with our current theology, we believe that there is only one way.  If you want to go to heaven, then you must believe this.  Nobody that has ever penned a word of theology controls any celestial guest lists.  

Then we have a Journal or Human Experience throughout time.

Our Theology has developed into a system that teaches young men and women how to behave. Psalm 119:9 says “how can a young man keep his way pure?  By guarding it according to your word.” Those words were penned by a rapist and a murderer, is this who you want guiding your children?  

I am not perfect, and I don’t know many people who are, but I believe that it is through mistakes and indiscretions that we learn about ourselves and the world around us.  Maybe we should allow young people to explore and make small mistakes in their youth to prevent Bathsheba-sized mistakes in their adulthood.  

At this point, you are pointing out my double standard with David, and I guess the answer is yes.  I think our children are much safer being guided by someone who’s made mistakes, they know their vulnerabilities and they are willing to safeguard themselves among a community.  

How Can Faith Move you?

Spirituality is a revolution.  It is not safe inside an organization neatly wrapped inside religion, let’s move fast and break things.  If God created man in the divine image, then how could he or she be inherently evil.  It is absolutely easier to do evil things than good, but we reach the apex of our potential when we do good.  

But in order for us to do good, we need to understand the bad, and what the path for getting there looks like.  That is what we can begin to use the Bible for.  1 Corinthians 10:11 tells us that the Bible is to be used as an example so that we don’t have to make every mistake, but we need to read it right, see the mistakes and acknowledge how the Bible interacts with our experience  

So how do we create that community?  Let’s talk about it.  But will there be food?

Daniel Holder is a Husband, Father, and USAF Veteran, ex-seminary student, author, and Entrepreneur on a mission to accompany spirituality far beyond the walls of the traditional church.  A loving husband and father who realizes that his leadership shapes the world that his children will take flight into.  He is passionate about empowering a faith that erupts into action.  

Daniel lives in Huntsville, AL, and works in program management, but is passionate about his ministry, and his soon-to-be-released NFT project, The Black Jesus Project.  And if you don’t know what an NFT is, Daniel dares you to ask him or follow @outhouseministries on Instagram. 
Posted on

Ashley’s Truth

by Ashley McBride-Braswell

I love Jesus. 

As long as I can remember, church has been a part of my life, from my mother’s womb (so churchy, I know-LOL), I have been surrounded and steeped in the Black church. 

And I loved it. The friends, the lessons, the warmth. The after service dinners and second service repass. Vacation Bible School during the summers and Sunday morning school with the snacks. I loved the kids choir and our annual Easter/Christmas plays. I loved it all and I have fond memories but somewhere along the way, I became disenchanted. 

It started slowly when I really began to read the Bible for myself and learn the original translations, much of what I thought I knew as “Bible” as the saints say, was nothing more than doctrine. 

And then I struggled. I struggled with my sexuality and being a 20 year old woman who just couldn’t stop sinning and having sex. I couldn’t stop going out and partying, living my best young adult life, and I couldn’t escape the condemnation I felt on Sunday and how I just needed to be holy and pure in God’s eyes. I couldn’t reconcile the rhetoric of the church where almost everything and every feeling is a sin. The constant threat of hell and it all became so arduous. Would I ever make it in?

I really tried. I followed Heather Lindsey and all the women in her purity movement. I committed myself to purity and giving up worldly things, and being the chaste, Godly woman so that God could reward me with a Godly husband, except all the church guys I dated where the worst.

So I stopped and I just started praying. I wrote my heart’s desires on sticky notes and pasted them to my wall. All my prayers for myself, family, friends, and issues in the world. I opened myself up to learning about different religions and stopped seeing people through Christian lenses instead as seeing them as people. 

And I slowly started to let all of it go. I didn’t care about someone’s faults or sins, I stopped caring about who others sleep with or their gender. I stopped requiring the world to hold on to my square box of beliefs and standards. I embraced people for who they are and what they are and I learned that the same grace God has given them to figure it out, He has given to me.

Do I still struggle with the indoctrination of church still? Absolutely. But I remind myself that I don’t know and I don’t have all the answers, and what I do know, is I’m still learning. And so I give others the grace I want to receive and treat them how I would treat myself. After all the two greatest commandments are 1) to love God with all your heart and 2) to love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:36-40

Ashley McBride-Braswell

Posted on

Why I Left Christianity

Since I was a little girl, I’ve always loved reading. The way an author could weave words together to create a world my mind could escape to was always fascinating, and as I got older, words became even more meaningful. I learned that the purpose of vocabulary wasn’t just to know a lot of words for the sake of knowing them. The purpose was communication; to have the tools necessary to be able to say exactly what I was thinking or feeling at a given moment. As such, I try to be very intentional about saying what I mean and meaning what I say….and that is why I could no longer continue calling myself a “Christian.”

A label is “a descriptive or identifying word or phrase,”  and the purpose of any kind of label is generally to provide additional information about the person or thing it is being used to describe. A lot of people don’t like being “labeled”, and I get that. Labels can be restrictive and even inaccurate if applied incorrectly. However, I do think they’re useful when they’re used correctly because an accurate label can tell you a lot about a person without them having to say much at all. And I think, in the context of spirituality, calling yourself something is supposed to do just that: give context about who you are and what you believe in. So what exactly is a “Christian” and why isn’t that an accurate reflection of my beliefs? 

A Christian is “a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.” I think this particular definition is important, because I think people like to classify themselves as “real Christians” based on a very broad conception of what it means to be a “follower of Christ.” However, what “following Christ” actually looks like in practice depends on who you ask, and I think we need to be more intentional about defining how much of “Christianity” is actually a reflection of Jesus. 

Christianity is “the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.” Christianity is the largest religion in the world with over 2.4 billion adherents worldwide. There are 30,000 different groups, branches, or denominations that fall under the banner of “Christianity”, and more than 1,200 in the United States alone. 30,000 groups of people reading the same book, examining the same beliefs, and coming to very distinct conclusions about what it all means. Most, if not all, of those groups teach that they have a monopoly on “the truth” and anything that conflicts with “the truth” is inherently false. That in itself was reason enough to make me stop and think for a second, because using such a broad umbrella to describe the beliefs of that many people is bound to create some confusion. 

Further, I don’t think enough attention is given to the second half of the definition. I think a lot of people stop at “the religion derived from Jesus Christ” and don’t necessarily understand how much of what is “derived” from Jesus Christ gets filtered through the Bible as professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies. Now, don’t get me wrong. Most people who read any kind of “holy text” just do the best they can to understand what someone who lived thousands of years ago was trying to communicate. That isn’t the problem. The problem is taking something that was originally communicated by an imperfect human being, translated multiple times by multiple imperfect human beings over a period of time spanning hundreds of years, interpreted by multiple imperfect human beings, millions (if not billions) of whom cannot reach any remote sort of consensus on what’s actually being communicated, and then calling any of of those interpretations “absolute truth” as it pertains to a supposedly infinite God. Even if all of that boils down to some basic belief in Jesus’ role as the Son of Man and His blood as atonement for sin, how that belief ultimately translates to the life one lives and the way one treats the people they encounter, particularly people who don’t identify as “Christian,” often presents a stark contrast to the Spirit of the Man that person is supposed to be representing. 

Let’s just be honest for a second, okay? If “just” believing in Jesus was really enough (John 3:16-17, anyone?), why is there a need for tens of thousands of different denominations and doctrines? Why isn’t it enough to just say “I’m a Christian” as a full expression of your beliefs? Or, if calling yourself a Christian only communicates that you believe in Jesus, why do so many people feel the need to follow up a statement of “I’m a Christian” with a long list of things they don’t agree with or subscribe to? If being a Christian were really just about Jesus, wouldn’t the teachings, the culture, and its standing in the world reflect that? 

A popular argument I encounter often (and one that absolutely drives me crazy) is that people are imperfect and any group of people coming together is going to have its flaws, which is true. However, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot believe in a theology that hinges on reaching a state of spiritual perfection and then blame your humanity for your group’s inability to achieve said perfection, especially as you put your “truth” on a pedestal over those who don’t aspire to the same standards you do. You cannot say “God is all-powerful,” “God can do anything,” or “God is not the author of confusion” and then argue that God is “still in control” of mediocre institutions that often cause more harm and damage than they do good. You cannot say “nobody is perfect” when someone tries to hold you accountable for your shortcomings as people fill your pews (or watch your services online) week in and week out just to hear how terrible they are and that they haven’t “overcome” yet because their faith isn’t strong enough. You can’t tell people to have a “real” relationship with God just to dictate what that relationship and the fruits of that relationship are supposed to look like. You can’t scare people into submission to what you believe is the truth by insinuating in any way, shape, form or fashion that disconnecting from toxic, dysfunctional people automatically means disconnecting from God. You cannot center yourself as a victim when people who have been marginalized, abused, and left spiritually destitute by your institutions aren’t interested in hearing your version of the gospel. You can’t call that “Jesus” when what you’re reaping isn’t something He would have sown.

You might be thinking, “So what’s the answer? If Christianity is so bad, what are people supposed to do?”, but that’s not a question I can answer for you. I don’t believe you can call yourself a “Christian” and separate a pure belief in Jesus and His sacrifice from the harm Christianity has caused and continues to cause so many throughout the world, but that’s me. I cannot call myself something that isn’t a truly accurate reflection of what I believe and the God that I worship. Personally, I just did the work to find a label that did accurately communicate what I believe. I’m a Christocentric Agapist, which means that I believe that love is the highest moral imperative and that my belief in love is centered around my belief in Jesus…and only that. There are no boxes I have to fit into. There is no long list of doctrines I have to adhere to. I can ask as many questions as I want and I don’t have to limit myself to one perspective in my pursuit of the answers. I can say, “I don’t know” if I don’t find the answers right away, or if I don’t find them at all. I can say, “I don’t think I need to change this,” or “I know this is a problem but I’m not ready to change it” without feeling like I have to stay away from my spiritual community until I’m ready to live my life on their terms. I don’t have to worry about whether I’m doing everything “right” or who is going to judge me if I do something “wrong.” My beliefs aren’t reflected in the clothes I wear, the day I worship on, the kind of food I eat, or the doctrines I claim. My beliefs are reflected in how I try to treat the people I encounter on a day-to-day basis, the kind of person I try to be, and the peace I have within. I’m not perfect, but it is a keen awareness of just how flawed I am that allows me to have compassion for the imperfect people I can relate to and that allows me to pray that God gives me compassion for the imperfect people I struggle to have compassion for. 

I do not believe in a theology that hinges on a state of spiritual perfection. I believe in a theology that teaches that Jesus lived a perfect life to pay the penalty for sin so that I could live a life of gratitude, compassion, empathy, and security in the fact that I am loved wholly and completely by an infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing God who has not only began a good work in me, but will see it to its completion. On God’s terms. In God’s time. All I have to do is let God be God.

Posted on

A Manifesto on Transparency

By Kara M. Young

I’ve been doing a lot of contemplating recently, and one of the biggest revelations has been that I have been tailoring my social media presence to people who are not my audience. I’ve been afraid to say certain things or post certain things because I’ve been afraid of being judged as “unworthy” or too flawed. I’ve been afraid of the sentiment being “You have a church, so how can you be doing x,y, and z?” But that’s a flawed way of thinking, for a number of reasons.


1. I live my life in alignment with my beliefs. I am very intentional about that. And the truth is that my beliefs do not fully coincide with those of Adventists, nor those of mainstream Christians. Further, I do not identify as either, because I believe both are irredeemably flawed and, to be perfectly clear, I do not believe that either entity is “the truth,” nor do I believe either entity has a monopoly on truth. I am an Agapist. A Christocentric Agapist, but an Agapist just the same. As such, I can’t be held to a standard that I don’t agree with, don’t believe in, and refuse to hold myself to because I genuinely and firmly believe that it facilitates an inaccurate and damaging depiction of the character of God.


2. I can’t preach unconditional love and acceptance while maintaining an unrealistic portrayal of my life. I can’t tell someone else to “be who you are” while simultaneously being afraid to publicly own ALL of who I am, especially when I am not ashamed of me. In fact, I’m really proud of the growth I’ve achieved thus far and the person I am continuing to become. I like me, and that’s something I have fought long and hard for.


3. I am aware that I am probably not “qualified” by many people’s standards to do what I’m doing, but I believe I’ve been called to it because I can’t be anything other than what I am. Life literally isn’t worth living to me if it means spending even one more second trying to fit myself into other people’s boxes. I have tried. My entire life, I have tried. And I’ve finally come to accept the fact that I can’t. That acceptance has opened my eyes to the fact that there are plenty of people out there who have had a similar experience and have ultimately opted to just be alone spiritually rather than compromise their liberty of conscience and liberty of thought for the sake of community. But those people…my people…need community, too.


4. Church as it stands isn’t designed for people who don’t “fit”. It’s not meant to accommodate people who want the benefit of community without the pressure to conform. So many people feel like you’re being disingenuous if you say you believe something and then don’t adhere to its tenets, and in a lot of ways, that’s not entirely untrue. If being a Christian means living my life like ________, and I don’t believe in that, am I really a Christian? And if I’m not, is that such a bad thing? I would call myself a Christian if doing so meant that the only thing anyone assumed about me was that I believed that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died to be the propitiation for sin itself. But realistically, saying you’re a Christian comes with a ton of other premises that MUST be relied on, otherwise your spirituality gets called into question, i.e. “How can you say you’re a Christian if you ________?”

The establishments that currently exist can only change or evolve so much before they become something they are not. And I realized some time ago that there’s no amount of change that could occur that would ultimately make room for me and all the other people that organized religion has either pushed to the fringes or excluded completely. So many of us wanted to belong, but even after the church began to say “come as you are,” it added, “once you get here, you’re supposed to change, and this is what your journey should look like, your questions should look like, your conclusions should look like….this is what you will look like. And if you don’t, something is seriously wrong.” There’s an underlying acceptance of certain fundamental “truths” that you are required to internalize and you literally cannot belong the the community if you don’t accept them. Some may call that “godly”. Some may call that “accountability.” Some may call that “the truth.” Personally, I call it presumptive, limiting, and unreflective of the God I have come to know and love. I want community that doesn’t require me to limit who God can be for me, doesn’t ask me to draw the same conclusions as everyone else, and gives me room to journey on God’s terms, not anyone else’s.

5. I’m not perfect, but I don’t think I’m supposed to be. I think that’s the point of real transparency…it’s the only way God’s strength can truly be made perfect in my weakness. If I’m too afraid to own that, how can I inspire anyone else to own it for themselves? How can I tell people that God is with them when they aren’t struggling, when they’re not wrestling, when they don’t feel the need to “repent,” when they’re asking questions other people don’t have answers for and drawing conclusions that other people condemn….and then be unwilling to transparent about how God does that for me every day? I know and believe in the depths of my heart that I am loved unconditionally and I know that because that love has been tested….tried with fire….and it hasn’t failed me yet. People think that they have to believe a certain way or live a certain way to experience God’s presence fully and I’m here to say that that simply isn’t true. Nothing can separate me from God’s love and my experience has been that God will always give as much of the Spirit as I am open to receiving. It’s in my darkest moments that God has shown up for me in the most profound ways and if God has done that for me, I have no doubt it can be done for you, too.

All of that being said, I am committed to doing my best to be more vulnerable and to live transparently. My target audience isn’t the people who think they have the truth. My target audience is anyone who is seeking truth, those who believe that truth-seeking is the journey of a lifetime. My goal is to be a part of a community that prioritizes love in a way that heals rather than does harm. And I just want to be myself. I want others to know that they really can be who they are and not be treated differently because of it. I don’t care who you are or what you believe. Boundaries are drawn based on how we treat each other. Do your best not to do harm. If you mess up (as we all inevitably do), acknowledge it, take responsibility for it, and try to do better moving forward, understanding that the love doesn’t change and grace is sufficient.

My hope and prayer is that we can all find freedom in the journey, and thus a greater sense of compassion, patience, kindness, self-awareness and acceptance, personal accountability, and unconditional love. -ky<3

Posted on

The Love Series: God is Love

We all have ideological frameworks, which are networks of information that form our belief systems and our values. Once an ideological framework is built, it’s incredibly difficult to alter it without conscious effort. If we’re not careful, our brains may even be inclined to automatically reject information that seems to conflict with what we already believe to be true. 

Learning is the process of acquiring new, or modifying existing, knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or preferences. Often times, learning something new is as much about unlearning old information as it is about processing or modifying your ideological framework based on new information. 

With that in mind, the first step toward TRULY understanding Godly, unconditional love is unlearning. This could mean unlearning the idea that unconditional love is weakness. It could mean unlearning the idea that unconditional love means doing whatever you want or letting other people do whatever they want, no matter who it hurts. It could mean unlearning belief in behavioral justification. Whatever it is that you have to unlearn, the goal is to level your ideological framework and rebuild it from the ground up…starting with resting your spiritual foundation on two things: one, that God IS unconditional love (meaning that love is literally the essence and most important part of who God is); and two, that love is the ultimate test of discipleship.

So let’s start with unlearning. What do you already believe? Personally, I’d been taught that God loved me, but that God hated the sinfulness that was inherent to my humanity. I was taught that sinlessness was perfection and that I was supposed to strive toward sinlessness. After all, all things are possible through Christ and His goal was to help me get to a place where I didn’t sin anymore. 

The problem with that was that God’s love wasn’t the bottom line. God’s love was an afterthought, an exception, rather than the rule. The “rule”, as it turned out, was justification, either through righteousness by works or righteousness by faith. It just depended on who you asked. 

Righteousness by works is more in line with the teachings of Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Methodist Christians. They distinguish between initial justification, which ordinarily is viewed to occur at baptism; and final salvation, which is accomplished after a lifetime of striving to do God’s will. Catholics believe faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man. Forgiveness of sin exists and is infused, but justification can be lost by mortal sin.

Righteousness by faith is a Protestant doctrine, under which sin is considered to be merely “covered”, and righteousness imputed. In Lutheranism and Calvinism, righteousness from God is viewed as being credited to the sinner’s account through faith alone, without works. Protestants believe faith without works can justify man because Christ died for sinners. There’s one big “but”, though: anyone who truly has faith will produce good works as a product of faith, as a good tree produces good fruit. For Lutherans, justification can be lost with the loss of faith.

Whether by faith or by works, justification is important. To most Christians, all of that sounds perfectly logical, and the concept of righteousness isn’t the issue in itself. The problem is reconciling what we already believe about righteousness with God’s essence being unconditional love. And I mean honestly reconciling it, not twisting unconditional love to fit the pre-established narrative.  And an even more important question is whether that’s even how it works in the first place. Should I be reconciling who God is with what I already believe God wants? Or should I first take the time to discover and establish who God is and THEN use that as a basis for determining what God wants?

I believe that we have to start by establishing who God is, and I believe that the three most important Biblical truths regarding who God is are: God is omniscient, God is omnipotent, and God is unconditional love. Today, we’re talking about love.

God Is Love

Theologian A.W. Tozer once stated, “Nothing God ever does, or ever did, or ever will do, is separate from the love of God.”

1 John 4:7-12 

Agape is a Greco-Christian term referring to love, “the highest form of love, charity” and “the love of God for man and of man for God”.The word embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance. It goes beyond just the emotions to the extent of seeking the best for others. 

Within Christianity, agape is considered to be the love originating from God or Christ for humankind. In the New Testament, it refers to the covenant love of God for humans, as well as the human reciprocal love for God; the term necessarily extends to the love of one’s fellow man. 

“While the person who loves ‘is born of God and knows God,’  the person who doesn’t love doesn’t know God and has no deep and abiding relationship with God.  Love, then, is the acid test of discipleship.” – Sermon Writer Bible Commentary

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

Romans 8:31-39

It’s imperative to get the foundation right, because everything anyone believes is ultimately based on what that person believes about who God is. We should be able to ask ourselves, “Would a loving God do this?” and give an objective answer rather than trying to explain why something that intuitively contradicts love somehow still constitutes love. We should be able to examine our beliefs and their origins with integrity and objectively determine whether those beliefs align with who we say we believe God to be. 

If love is the essence of God’s character, if everything God does is out of love, if love is the greatest commandment and nothing can separate us from God’s love….love should be the foundation, not an exception. We shouldn’t be looking for any reason or excuse to conform love to something that fits what we already believe to be true. We should be willing to strip away fear and conditioning and worldliness….take a step back from what we think we know….and build from the ground up, examining our beliefs through the lens of God’s love and determining whether what we say God wants is a reflection of who we want people to believe God is. 

This week, I challenge you to ask God to break down your ideological framework and strip away what you think you know. I challenge you to ask God to reveal Himself to you in ways that only He can and to expand your mind and open your heart to allowing Him to be as big in your life as He possibly can be. I challenge you to ask God to move you out of His way and to give Him permission to do a new thing. I challenge you to ask God to remove any fear and to help you embrace the spirit of power, love, and a sound mind. 

Posted on

Do All Religions Come From the Same God?

This week, we’re dealing with a very specific question, so keep reading before drawing any conclusions. We’re not asking “Do all religions worship the same God?” or “Do all religions lead to the same God?”. Those questions work from the bottom-up, i.e. viewing God through the lens of a man-made construct. Remember, we want to base our ideas and beliefs on who we say God is rather than trying to conform our conception of God into something that aligns with what we already believe to be true. We’re asking a top-down question, i.e. has God used religion, in general, as a way of revealing the character of God to humanity and guiding all of us to the same ultimate purpose or goal?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The Baháʼí Faith is a religion teaching the essential worth of all religions, and the unity and equality of all people. Many indigenous people throughout the Americas are members of the Baháʼí Faith.
    • Baháʼí teachings are in some ways similar to other monotheistic faiths: God is considered single and all-powerful. However, Baháʼu’lláh, the founder of the Baháʼí Faith, taught that religion is orderly and progressively revealed by one God through Manifestations of God who are the founders of major world religions throughout history; these include Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, and Moses, with Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad being the most recent in the period before the Báb and Baháʼu’lláh.
    • Baháʼís regard the major religions as fundamentally unified in purpose, though varied in social practices and interpretations. Baháʼu’lláh taught that the religions of the world come from the same God and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.
  2. In 1997, Billy Graham gave a television interview, in which he said: “Well, Christianity and being a true believer–you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. And I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that’s what God is doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.”
  3. In Acts 10:34,35, the Apostle Peter said, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”
  4. In Romans 2:11-14, the Apostle Paul said, “For God shows no partiality. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

The answer to this question bears heavily on the idea that members of any particular faith should be encouraged, or even required, to convert others. This is especially true in places where there is an established state religion or attempts at establishing a state religion and exercise of other religions is discouraged and/or suppressed. Further, it requires us to examine the meaning of life and why we are all here. If God is the creator, what purpose does God have for our existence and how does religion further that purpose? Is there only one religious avenue by which to fulfill that purpose, and is our ability or dedication to following that one avenue God’s ultimate goal and priority for us? Or is purpose the priority, with religion and spirituality being provided as tools to enable us to fulfill that purpose?

What do you think? Do all religions come from God? Is religion a means to an end, or is it the priority? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

The Golden Rule: Can Religions Work Together?

“I’d been reading up on comparative religion. The thing is that all major religions have the Golden Rule in Common. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ Not always the same words but the same meaning.”

— Norman Rockwell

The concept of the “Golden Rule” is taught in all major world religions. It is a statement, in summary, of the basic requirements for all human behavior. While the sentiment may be expressed in different ways, the message is the same: treat others the way you would want to be treated. The concept may seem simple enough, but oftentimes, it appears to be easier said than done. Although the Golden Rule is a fundamental obligation in all religions, as Blaise Pascal put it, “[m]en never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” This week, we’ll be thinking about whether or not truly adopting the Golden Rule can allow people from different religious backgrounds and beliefs to work together to make the world a better place.

Studies have shown that religion can have a positive influence on many aspects of society, and throughout human history, nations have made religion a part of their governmental systems. For example, Judaism teaches that when God established Israel as a nation, He gave them a theocracy to help govern them. Currently, 20% of the countries in the world have an established state religion. However, in almost all of the countries where state religions exist, a variety of abuses and atrocities have taken place. Religion has been used to control people rather than to serve them.

That said, it is important to consider how and why something born of pure intentions becomes corrupted. How do we go from the Golden Rule to religion being used as justification for hurting and/or controlling people? Perhaps it is because of some combination of humans being imperfect, ignorance, and self-serving interests that religion can be turned into a curse rather than a blessing. Perhaps it relates back to a person’s perception of God being based more on condemnation and judgment than love. Perhaps religion is seen by many as a means to an end rather than a journey of growth and enlightenment. It’s important for us to ask ourselves what, if anything, we want to accomplish by believing and to assess how that agenda impacts us and the world around us.

If the Golden Rule is fundamental for everyone, is it so impossible that we could find a way to co-exist peacefully in purpose, even if not in belief? If nations or different ideologies wanted to become allies against anything that violated the Golden Rule…the Rule of Love…is it so impossible that they could do it as “equal-but-different” partners? Instead of pushing conformity to one thing over the other, is it possible to learn to accept and respect the fact that there will always be differences? Different people may be pursuing or encouraging different final goals, but why can’t the Golden Rule be the metric by which we gauge how we interact with each other right now? Couldn’t it be possible for everyone to encourage each other to achieve the best that their different traditions require of them while working together to oppose the negative things we can agree on?

The “fish-run principle”, which Zen Buddhists derive from Chuang-Tzu, states: “A fish-run is constructed to catch fish: we should keep the fish and forget the run. A snare is to catch a rabbit: we should keep the rabbit and forget the snare. Words are to transmit meaning: we should keep the meaning and forget the words.” We may not all speak the same languages or come from the same cultures or believe in the same things, but it isn’t impossible for different people to find common ground. If we can agree on things like compassion, love, respect, humility, empathy, and just treating others the way we want to be treated, who knows what kind of impact that collective mission and purpose could have.

What do you think? Is the Golden Rule fundamental? Is it possible for people from different religious backgrounds to work together? What areas of common ground do you think exist? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

Does Humanity Need a Messiah?

In exploring Western Christianity’s teaching of original sin and the impact sin has on the human condition, a question that needed to be considered was: do other religions teach the need for a savior? While most religious groups outside of Western Christianity do not teach that humanity needs to be saved from inherent sinfulness, many groups do teach the existence of a “Messiah” figure that saves humanity from the effect sin has had on the world. A Messiah is “the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible” or “a leader or savior of a particular group or cause.” All three Abrahamic religious groups, amongst others, believe in a Messiah.

Here’s what we know:

  1. In Jewish eschatology, the term mashiach, or “Messiah”, refers specifically to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who is expected to save the Jewish nation, and will be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. Orthodox views hold that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David, and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, re-institute the Sanhedrin, and so on.
  2. While the term “messiah” does appear in Islam, the meaning is different from that found in Christianity and Judaism. The Quran identifies Jesus (Isa) as the messiah (Masih), who will one day return to earth. Jesus is believed to have been anointed by Allah at birth with the specific task of being a prophet and king. The Mahdi will appear and unite all Muslims, ridding the world of evil. After the death of Mahdi, Jesus will reign as the Messianic king, bringing eternal peace and monotheism to the world and eliminating all religions besides Islam. Unlike Christians, Muslims see Jesus as a prophet, but not as God himself or the son of God. Like all other prophets, Jesus is an ordinary man, who receives revelations from God. The Quran also denies the crucifixion of Jesus, claiming that he was neither killed nor crucified
  3. Within Christianity, Jesus is believed to be the Messiah, based on the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians believe that messianic prophecies were fulfilled in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus and that he will return to fulfill the rest of the messianic prophecies. When he returns to earth, he will destroy all evil and establish eternal peace on earth through his Messianic religion. The majority of historical and mainline Christian theologies consider Jesus to be the Son of God and God the Son, a concept of the Messiah fundamentally different from the Jewish and Islamic concepts.
  4. See also Buddhism (Maitreya), Java (Satrio Piningit), Taoism (Li Hong), and Hinduism (Kalki)

Some may find it interesting that while only the concept of original sin necessitates salvation from sin itself, most world religions still teach of a messiah figure who comes and makes the world better in one way or another. Another point to consider is that every “Messiah” is coming for the benefit of those who believe in that particular religion/conception of God. There is no universal “Messiah” who comes for the benefit of everyone.

What do you think? Does humanity need a Messiah rather than a savior? Are the concepts of “Messiah” and “savior” more or less the same? Has the Messiah already come, or are we still waiting? If he has come, will he return…and when? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

Does “Original Sin” Nullify Free Choice?

This week, we’ll be examining the nature of humanity and how that impacts whether we are free moral agents. “Sin” is “an offense against religious or moral law.” Every culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. In the Christian tradition, the concept of “original sin” is based on the premise that “the tendency to sin [is] innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.” This western Christian concept was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. Other church fathers, such as Augustine (AD 354-430), also shaped and developed the doctrine. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as an inclination or tendency towards sin (referred to as a “sin nature without collective guilt”) to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt. Moreover, as a further consequence of the first iniquity, humanity is hopelessly lost in a state of sin and is powerless on its own to obey the will of God. That said, does “original sin” nullify our ability to choose “right” from “wrong” without direct intervention/influence from God?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The concept of sinfulness being an inherent tendency in humanity is unique to western Christianity. For example, the Eastern Orthodox version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil. They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine’s notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.
  2. The doctrine of “inherited sin” is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam and Eve for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some others who believed that mortality was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam’s sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.
  3. The concept of inherited sin does not exist in Islam. Islam teaches that Adam and Eve sinned, but then sought forgiveness and thus were forgiven by God. Quotes from the Qur’an:
    • But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.— Surah al-Baqara:36–37
    • Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance.— Surah Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122

This question is important to consider because the concept of original sin implies that humans are incapable of making genuinely “good” choices without God being the direct source of that choice. But to be clear, the issue is less about whether humans are inherently “good” or inherently “bad” and more about whether we actually have the ability to choose one way or the other. If the bad things we do are ultimately the result of our “sinful natures” and the good things we do are the result of God’s influence rather than our own decisionmaking/will power, does freedom of choice even exist? Both the Qur’an and the Bible seem to suggest that it does. The Qur’an says this with regard to individual responsibility:

That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense

Surah an-Najm:38–41

Further, consider this portion of an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses before his death as the Israelites prepared to enter the promised land:

“…when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.  It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.”

Deuteronomy 30:10-14

What do you think? Does “original sin” nullify free choice? Is humanity inherently good, inherently evil, both, or neither? Do we have any control over the good and the bad things that we do? Let us know in the comments below!