1 24 9 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2f5dbeea1e8e116d5a62918554c69200.pdf 11c2508024f7c570f806f2af36093130 PDF Text Text Religion: Binding or Setting Free From the series: Moving On To Maturity Text: Isaiah 46:3-4; Ephesians 1:17-19; Matthew 23:15 Richard A. Rhem Christ Community Church Spring Lake, Michigan July 18, 1999 Transcription of the spoken sermon I hope you got up this morning and said, "Ah, Sunday. We get to go to church." If you got up and said, "It’s Sunday; we have to go to church," I hope you feel a little guilty for about five minutes, but not much longer than that. Religion ought to be an experience of joy and liberation, and Sunday worship ought to be the crown of it all, the time when we find inspiration and encouragement and new reason to live zestfully. I find that what I am dealing with this morning pops up on my chart quite often. The fact that religion ought to be a source of freedom. I would like to be known as the singer of the song of the soul set free. Some Lents ago I preached a rather strange sermon, admittedly; it was a sermon about the insurrectionist that was crucified with Jesus. Now, not the good one, you know. Everybody preaches on the good one. After all, the good one pleaded for mercy in the end and got this wonderful promise from Jesus. But I preached on the one that remained belligerent, cursing through his teeth to his last breath, finding therein something I thought rather heroic. I suppose because of my own Libertarianism and contrariness, perhaps. But I thought it was probably not biblically accurate, but interesting. However, someone got really angry with me about that and came in to see me, and said to me, "All you preach is freedom and grace and in my work, I find out that what people need are rules and guidance and discipline." And it was a moment of awakening for me. I think I didn’t react defensively, I just smiled and I said, "Well, they won’t get it from me." And it was a moment of awakening wherein I recognized that I am not a complete preacher. No one has ever accused me of balance. I think balance is boring, and balance ends up in making no point deeply, and I can’t be everything. I have been shaped in a certain way and had certain kinds of experiences, and that has enabled me to put my finger on what I discern is a very important niche to be filled - that is to seek to save people from religion, to set people free, free from religion, especially religion. And I have been doing that now for a long time and as this morning we continue in this series, "Moving On To Maturity," I simply want to say what I’ve said here many times but find that it needs to be said again and again because © Grand Valley State University   �Religion Binding or Setting Free Richard A. Rhem Page 2   there is something intrinsic in religion that tends to bind and cripple the human personality rather than setting a person free. So, this morning, let me say I am the herald of good religion that releases and sets free, and I would speak a word against that religion that binds the soul and becomes a burden to be borne, because there is a lot of religion that way. We need to recognize how religion arose in the first place. It didn’t just drop down out of heaven, and it is not something that God gave to us, but it is something that we have created in our attempt to respond to God in the early beginnings of what we call the human, the beginnings of consciousness, of selfconsciousness. There was the growing awareness of one’s existence, how fragile it is, how perilous it is, and inevitably with the emergence of the human come questions of meaning and of purpose. From whence have we come and whither are we going, and what is the meaning of it, anyway? Life with its passages and its perils is not easy to negotiate, and in the early dawning of human consciousness these deeply existential questions began to be asked, and then someone saw a bush that burned and wasn’t consumed. Someone entered the temple and it was filled with smoke and the pillars of the temple were shaking. Someone looked at a man and said, "The Lamb of God." Someone was going on the road to Damascus and a bright light encountered him and a voice spoke to him. In our own tradition, but we could duplicate that in all the great religious traditions, there was someone sometime who had some kind of experience and, to the extent that that experience spoke to the reality of his or her situation, and to the extent that as it was shared, it resonated with the experience of others, there was a gathered community and then a gathered community that became a tradition, and that experience was reduced to a teaching and a ritual through which one worshipped and a way of life. And so, we have the great religions that are based on a founding experience and have taken on a certain institutional form, and those great religions continue to serve people as life maps, to give orientation, to answer those alternate questions of life as we live in the mystery of our existence before that Ultimate Mystery that bears us. That’s the nature of religion. If you were here in May when we welcomed our eighth graders into the continuing pilgrimage of faith, you heard me say to them that all we could give to them was secondhand religion and that really is what institutional, traditional religion is - it’s secondhand religion, and I quoted a statement of William James in his Varieties of Religious Experience, where he said, "Such an ordinary religious person, his religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit." And that’s really true, when you think about it. There is the experience that someone else had. There’s the tradition that conveys it. There is the form by which it is fixed by imitation or repetition, and continued by habit. So, most of us are what we were born to be; we are within the tradition and that understanding with which we were born and nurtured, and our religion secondhand. Now, hopefully it becomes the occasion for fresh experience, for firsthand experience. But, institutional religion is, after all, a commodity which inevitably tends, in its © Grand Valley State University �Religion Binding or Setting Free Richard A. Rhem Page 3   institutional forms which are necessary, it tends to become a burden rather than that which lifts the burden. It tends to become another obligation for which we feel responsible and it becomes burdensome. Second Isaiah, with the Jews in exile in Babylon, gives us a marvelous picture of religion that has become a burden. Baal and Nibo were the chief gods of the Babylonians and the Jews in exile would see on New Year’s Day the grand processions of the images of the gods, down from their pedestals, taken on parade around the walls of the city. The problem with the Jews in exile was that it seemed to them that these gods must be the chief gods because where was their God? They were in exile; they were in captivity. So, the prophet has to remind them that their God is the creator of the heavens and the earth. He has to have them remember who their God really is, and in drawing this picture with a little satire and humor, he pictures the images of the gods being taken from their pedestals and put on beasts of burden and carried out of town, not in a New Year’s feast, now, but because the enemy is at the gate and what they’re trying to do is save their gods. Now, if you don’t get a little laugh out of that, you see, their gods are going into captivity; they’ve got to rescue their gods! For gods’ sake, they have to take care of their gods! And the prophet says to them, "Look at them, carrying off their gods in order that they not be taken into captivity and their images can’t say a word, they can’t save, they become a burden to be borne." And then, in contrast to that, he sets forth these words from the Lord, "Listen to me, O house of Jacob and all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from your birth, carried from the womb, even to your old age, I am God. Even when you turn gray, I will carry you. I have made and I will bear. I will carry and I will save." God is not a god that needs to be rescued or a burden to be borne, but a God Who carries, a God Who lifts, a God Who rescues, and a God Who saves. Now, we can laugh at the silly Babylonians for putting all that stock in those images that they put on beasts of burden. Can’t you see the idols sort of tipping off because the poor, old beast can’t handle it and the idol’s nose is dragged in the dust as it’s going out of town in order to be rescued. And we can laugh at that, and the prophet intended this satire to be biting, but our religion so easily becomes that. Take, for example, the Church. Ask me about the Church. It’s not so easy to keep the machinery going; it’s not so easy to keep the budget up to snuff, and then all of the programs of the church - how many pulpit announcements don’t jerk you just a little bit, add just a pinch of guilt? And if you didn’t get up this morning and say, "Oh, thank God it’s Sunday; I get to go to church," maybe you were saying, "Oh, what a beautiful summer day. But, I suppose we’d better go to church. There was poor old Dick slaving all Saturday and he’s going to sit on his stool and nobody there, we’d better go." There’s so many good people who support religion for all the wrong reasons. I’ve known a lot of good church leaders that way. They remind me of what Mark Twain said, "A good man in the worst sense of the word." Think about that. © Grand Valley State University �Religion Binding or Setting Free Richard A. Rhem Page 4   I do thank God for responsible people and serious people and people who bear the burden in the heat of the day and who keep it going, but I have to tell you - it can turn religion into a burden and it misses the intention. It makes religion an end in itself rather than a means to the end of setting the soul free and finding a way to sing and shout and dance. Religion is a means to an end, it’s not an end in itself, and when it becomes organized and institutionalized and established well, it becomes something that has to be kept up. Just look around us today - all the stuff about religion in the newspaper, about plastering the Ten Commandments on every wall in the schools and in the courts. We want to have children pray in school. Why? Not because we’re so concerned about the spiritual life of people, but rather because we are afraid the morality of the nation is unraveling and we have to keep the Ten Commandments up there, and we’ve got to get children praying and we have to expose them to all this. We have to utilize religion in order to keep society from disintegrating and that makes religion oppressive; it uses religion; it makes religion a tool, and it sours us. Religion used for any other purpose than the worship of God, dancing before God Who sets the soul free, is bad religion, good for family values, good for community values, good for maintaining the civilization in the West, and all of that misses the point, and all of it abuses and misuses religion, and all of it makes religion a burden to be borne. In the Church, my philosophy over the years of programming has been do only as much as you have to. I never try to scratch where people don’t itch. The things that will meet human need are the things that will be supported, people will be there. Otherwise, you have an elaborate program and you plead with people to participate in these good things we have prepared. The whole society today is organizing all kinds of good things for me to do that I don’t want to do. I don’t need to do them, and the Church can be as guilty, and maybe more guilty than any other social organization in providing all sorts of "stuff." It becomes a burden, and the more serious you are, the more conscientious you are, the more you are inclined to support this project. It’s like the PTA - everybody ought to support the PTA, everybody ought to support the United Fund, everyone ought to support Boy Scouts in America, everybody ought to support the Cancer Drive, whatever drive there may be, and, for God’s sake, we ought to support the Church. A community needs a church. It makes for a good community. It just makes for better people. All such reasoning misses the point completely. We imitate the Babylonians hoisting their gods off the pedestals onto the beasts of burden and trying to guide them and keep them from falling, trying to get them out of town so the gods can be saved. I don’t think anyone here is into that kind of religion, but if there is, you really need a sabbatical - get cleansed of it or you’ll never be able to enjoy God. If your religion is heavy with obligation under the tyranny of ought, the musts, and the shoulds, you are burdened. Jesus certainly knew that. When I read the 23rd chapter of Matthew, as other Gospel passages of conflict, I always want to say the controversy is probably © Grand Valley State University �Religion Binding or Setting Free Richard A. Rhem Page 5   between Matthew and those he was in conflict with rather than reflective of Jesus in his time. However, certainly Matthew was reflective of the spirit of Jesus and the intention of Jesus, and one of the reasons that Jesus got into such serious trouble was that he didn’t support that kind of institutional religion that had become a burden, and in the 23rd chapter of Matthew we read, "You bind heavy burdens on people that they cannot bear and you don’t yourself." He said the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat so when they teach, they are teaching you Moses, the Mosaic tradition, that’s fine. But, don’t do as they do." And in the conclusion to that chapter he says, "Woe to you. You go all over the world and make a proselyte and once you have a proselyte, you’ve made him twice over the child of Hell, binding heavy burdens on people, trying to make them religious and all of it turns upside down what it’s really all about, which is setting the soul free." Jesus was so strong against the conventional wisdom of his day that put people in their places and through their paces, and he violated all of the taboos in the interest of people with that sense he had of the graciousness of God. What we do with bad religion is scandalize God. What kind of a God is it, anyway? A stern, demanding parent who created us and then keeps us in our adolescence, treating us as naughty children. The biblical paradigm of paradise and fall adds to that. We’re guilty sinners. Are we guilty sinners? Well, let’s go to Kosovo, or let’s look into our own heart. Of course, we are. But, not because we have fallen from some pristine perfection, but because we are still clawing our way out of the jungle, and we haven’t made as much progress as we should have made. But, I will tell you what - that stern, demanding father doesn’t help any. Rather, it binds us in our rebellion and it keeps us in our immaturity. God is for us! This is what Paul was trying to say. If I had more time this morning, I could have read the whole first chapter of Ephesians, those first fourteen verses fairly soar as Paul talks about the eternal, everlasting grace of God, His loving us, knowing us before the foundations of the world and working things out according to his purposes. A grand, grand passage. And then Paul comes to address his people in Ephesus personally, where he says, "I pray for you that God will enlighten the eyes of your understanding, that the inner being will be illumined that you might come to know what is the hope to which he calls you. What are the riches of the inheritance which is yours, what is the power available to you, the very power and resurrection." Paul says, "Oh, I hope you’re getting it. I pray to God that He will help you to see it." You see, Paul was the one who had that pounding vision; Paul had his soul on fire and he said to these people, "It’s so grand, the grace of God is so big, so rich, so wonderful! I hope that you have come to see it." When religion is used as a means for everything else other than dancing before God , it becomes a burden to be borne rather than a gift to be celebrated, and it binds the human soul rather than setting free. © Grand Valley State University �Religion Binding or Setting Free Richard A. Rhem Page 6   I want to say this clearly this morning - there are religious observances that are important and helpful. Talking about religious observances, which I’ve been rather hard on this morning, C. S. Lewis said, "When we carry out our religious duties, we are like people digging channels in a waterless land in order that when at last the water comes, it may find them ready. There are happy moments, even now, when a trickle creeps along the dry beds, and happy souls for whom this happens often." Obviously I know that there are certain religious observances that we go through and sometimes going through them, there’s no electric shock, no lightning strikes, but we do have a pattern of religious life, and we do that because we know that, now and again, here and there, there will be a trickle of water, fresh breath, new insight, deep resting in grace. And so, we keep coming and we keep opening ourselves, and we keep practicing. But, all the time we know it’s not to keep the community healthy or the nations sound or our accounts square with a stern, demanding God, heavenly parent. But, we do it because now and again we’ve tasted grace. We know the taste of cool, running water, and we long more and more to be lifted by that experience. There was once a pastor who had a little boy who used to come down from the parsonage to the study on the parking lot here every morning to say to his father who was the preacher, "Daddy, what day is it?" The father would say, "Tuesday." "Oh, good." He would come down again, "Daddy, what day is it?" "Thursday." "Oh, good." "Saturday." "Good." "Sunday." "Ahhhh," and he would go into a wailing temper tantrum. Sunday; ugly Sunday. Well, God has a special grace for preachers’ kids, and the preacher was a stern father and a demanding heavenly parent type and he broke the child’s will and the child eventually came to church. But that story always amused me because I think it reflects the experience of many of us growing up. Sunday. Church. You don’t have to come, but come when you need to. Come, like digging up channels in a waterless land, and just maybe, just maybe there will be a trickle of water. And, if it’s rules and guidance and structure that you need, check down the street. But, if you need a shot of grace, I’ll see you every Sunday. © Grand Valley State University � https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b417c72aa6ccfad27784669355fff6bc.mp3 2059f0baa4782ca6c32032d7e3b106fc Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Pentecost IX Series Moving On To Maturity Scripture Text Isaiah 46:3-4, Ephesians 1:17-19, Matthew 23:15 Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-19990718 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1999-07-18 Title A name given to the resource Religion: Binding or Setting Free? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 application/pdf Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on July 18, 1999 entitled "Religion: Binding or Setting Free?", as part of the series "Moving On To Maturity", on the occasion of Pentecost IX, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Isaiah 46:3-4, Ephesians 1:17-19, Matthew 23:15. Presence Religion as a Human Construct Ritual https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/dce48973f88522a56aa87981dafde6cd.pdf b8bc55b2597b349839d7b138124efd14 PDF Text Text Religion and Science: Can We Talk? From the series: Can I Honestly Believe? Text: Genesis 1:1; Psalm 19:1, 7; John 1:1 Richard A. Rhem Christ Community Church Spring Lake, Michigan August 9, 1998 Transcription of the spoken sermon Shortly after I set my summer sermon series late this spring, The New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, and Newsweek all called to see what was hot, and they all selected this particular sermon as the subject on which they’d do a feature article. U.S. News and Newsweek on July 20, 1998, had articles: Newsweek, "Science Finds God," U.S. News, "Are We the Only Universe There Is?", and July 12, The New York Times featured an article on science and religion, "Cross Over the Line Drawn in the Sand," a major feature article. Well, I’m always glad to help them out. As a matter of fact, of course, I am kidding, but it is interesting that, having set the series and set for this week the question of the possibility of conversation between religion and science, there should have appeared within the last month those major features in the news media. It does indicate, I suppose, that the subject about which we are speaking is a subject of more than passing significance, and so I think that it is good that we within the religious community think from our perspective about the relationship between science and religion, because of the unfortunate history that we have had in the last couple of hundred years of the conflict between science and religion. The subject this morning follows in the series, "Can I Honestly Believe?" There is an inner logic to the series, I would hope, and I would hope that it is somewhat apparent. We began with the question, "Do We Need Religion?", to which we said, no, not if religion is a means by which we, somehow or other, stave off the wrath of an angry God. We’re all right. God loves us. We don’t need religion for that purpose. But I made the point that religion, all of the human religions, are really creative, imaginative constructs by which we respond to that experience of God. Religions don’t fall out of heaven, but human beings are encountered by that ultimate Mystery, and the whole human family has been aware of some presence, some greater reality that embraces us and from time to time seems to break through to our experience. The religions are the way in which human beings respond and give expression to that experience that has taken hold of them, and there are at least three dimensions to religion. There is the teaching, the doctrine, what we believe in light of the encounter. There is the ritual, the © Grand Valley State University   �Religion and Science: Can WeTalk? Richard A. Rhem Page 2   mode of worship, that by which we devote ourselves. And then there is ethics or a way of life. How, then, shall we live in light of this experience of God? So, religions are not necessary, but I think the human being is diminished and human community is diminished without the cultivation of religious devotion and the illumination of religious faith. If religions are human creations, then we can tamper with them without worrying about disrupting God or coming into some kind of lightening bolt. If religions are our human response to the experience of God, then they aren’t sacred; they can be improved upon; they can develop; they can change in the light of new insight. And perhaps the greatest challenge in light of the world in which we live and the information we have about the human situation and the cosmic reality, perhaps the greatest challenge to the religious community is the conception of God that we have. In Judaism and Christianity and Islam, the conception of God has been labeled Theism from the Greek word theos, and so, a theistic conception of God has been considered almost synonymous with belief in God. If one is not a theist, one is an atheist. But, I tried to point out that that is not really true, because the theistic conception of God which is in our scriptures, in our liturgy, in our hymns, that is a human conception concocted, constructed out of the response to the experience of God, and if our knowledge of reality develops, changes, as obviously it does, then it is possible, at least for some whose knowledge of the world collides with that conception of God, to seek to re-imagine God, to try to bring God to expression in a way that is more consistent with our experience of reality in our day. But, if we do that, then one might say, "How can I pray?" or "How do I pray?", because the heart of religion is the experience of communion with God, communication with that Ultimate Mystery that we can never reign in, never fully comprehend, but which breaks through to us and which we would respond to and with whom or with what or whatever we would be in communion with. How then do we pray? If our knowledge of the world has given us some dissonance with our old conception, our old image of God, then probably the problem’s in this book, because this book is the record, a faithful record of the authentic encounters of God with humankind. This book is the testimony of a people who were encountered by that Mystery, who believed heart, mind and soul, in that God, and who reflected that experience here. But how could they reflect it? Well, they could only reflect it in terms of their understanding of the world. And so, if this old book is the reflection of religious experiences that are two to three thousand years old, then the conception of the world that is the framework by which they brought to expression their experience of God is also two to three thousand years old, and so, what we had to say is, "How does the Bible function?, How ought the Bible to function? Does the Bible tell me so, as it says it in the Bible? Is it so?" We say, "No, it’s not necessarily so," because what the Bible is about is the expression of the reality of the experience of God, but it’s dressed in garments that come out of an ancient time and therefore, if the Bible talks about the physical world, it’s going to talk about the physical world as it was © Grand Valley State University �Religion and Science: Can WeTalk? Richard A. Rhem Page 3   understood two thousand years ago. And, if our conception of the physical world has dramatically changed, then what we’re going to have to say is, "I can’t take the conception of the world from the Bible anymore. I have another conception of the world. But what the Bible is talking about, the experience of God in the world - that’s what I have to listen to." And that’s the same experience I’m seeking, so I have to learn how to use this Bible in a way differently than traditionally has been the case. But, I’m a praying man. I’m a believing human being. I crave the experience of God, and I can find that experience witnessed to in these pages. But being a human being, I am material, concrete, a creature out of the dust, as the Genesis account says. We call the first man Adam, but it wasn’t Adam, it was A-dam in Hebrew, which is dust, dirt, mud. The man, the human being is out of the dust, out of the earth, and that man out of the earth called A-dam because the earth in Hebrew is Adama. So, we have A-dam from Adama. In the Hebrew understanding of things, there is a consistency between the molecules and the amoebas and the dust of the earth and the human creature who becomes conscious of himself and of another, aware, able to transcend himself, jump out of his skin and observe it all as from the outside. Now, if I as a praying man am also part and parcel of the cosmic reality, how am I going to find my place in the cosmic reality? I can live in the mystical experience of God, but I also dig in a garden, observe the stars, and have to deal with the health or unhealth of my body. So, there’s got to be another way to uncover the cosmic reality of which I am a part and, of course, that is the way of the natural sciences. I have now a dual way of knowing. I have the religious experience and, if I want to nurture that religious experience, I go to this ancient text that tells me of others before me who had the experience of God, the experience of the Holy, who were invaded by the Divine Reality, and I find that this becomes a helpful pointer, also a conditioner that opens my life to that same encounter. But, when I want to know about the world of which I am a part, I can go to the sciences, whose empirical method of observation and experimentation will tell me about the concrete universe into which my life is laced. So, can there be conversation between science and religion? Of course, there can. Of course there can, because religion is asking the question, Why? Most profoundly, why is there something rather than nothing? Why are we here? What is the meaning of it all, and to what end? Those are religious questions. Science takes apart the "something." It describes what is there. It is a limited discipline. It has no business talking about the Why, or the Wherefore, or the meaning in the meantime. If science remains a science and religion remains religion, there are legitimate arenas in which they can operate and the conversation between them is absolutely essential. Unfortunately, there’s been a great conflict between science and religion and there’s enough blame on both © Grand Valley State University �Religion and Science: Can WeTalk? Richard A. Rhem Page 4   sides. There have been scientists who have thought that empirical data gave them the right to say that there’s no Creator and there’s no purpose to it all, and there have been religious people who have mistakenly taken this book and have gotten data out of this book about a construct of the world and they have said to the empirical observations of the scientist, "That can’t be, because the Bible says," which is really dumb. So, there’s blame on both sides. But, I don’t need to police the science corps. I need us, as religious people, from our point of view as a religious community, - it is so critically important for the church no longer to live in that sense of conflict and hostility, but rather to foster the conversation, because it knows that it deals in questions of the source of all being and the resting place of all being and, in the meantime, has no other basis than the scientific, empirical method to understand the being of which it is a part. Alfred Lord Whitehead, one of the premier minds of the century, has made a wonderful statement and in the first service I read it and I realized that it’s one thing to read it and marvel at it, and it’s another thing for you to try to hear it and understand it, and that didn’t seem to be possible. His point is this, that religions will not again regain their old power until they learn to change as science changes. By that he means, in the scientific method there’s always the questioning of every conclusion and, when a conclusion is dislodged by further data, science doesn’t experience a defeat, but it experiences a triumph. On the other hand, religion has set its conclusions in concrete and that mystical experience that it has with God which it communicates in the garments of this world, when those garments of this world, of the time in which the experience happened, are absolutized, and the religious truth of it all is identified with the way in which it is communicated, well then, when reality continues to unfold and when science is to explain more and more the mysteries of the universe and the whole religious experience is locked into a conception of things 2000 years old, according to Alfred Lord Whitehead, religion loses its credibility. Whitehead, a mathematician, a philosopher, is not being antireligious here; he’s concerned about religion. He says what has happened is that religion has lost its credibility because, every time there has been advance in knowledge and new understanding, a new breakthrough about the universe, about the cosmos, the church has said, "No, no, no, no, it can’t be, can’t be! The Bible says! The Bible says!" and then pretty soon it becomes so obvious that everybody knows it and then the church says, "Oh, yeah, it’s true." And so, 400 years after Galileo, the Pope apologizes. "Sorry, old boy, we put you on house arrest. You were right. We were wrong because we were reading the Bible for scientific, cosmological information which it doesn’t give." And that whole controversy, that whole adversarial climate has been detrimental to the whole religious enterprise, and it’s not over, folks. There is a fundamentalist mentality that is trying to establish the most impossible conception of creation © Grand Valley State University �Religion and Science: Can WeTalk? Richard A. Rhem Page 5   that one has ever heard. The old Creationism - Evolutionary debate still rages in the public school, for goodness sakes! And, as Whitehead points out, this doesn’t hurt science. This hurts religion, because we come off as blind obscurantists who block knowledge and refuse to accept what is empirically verifiable through the scientific method, and what we have to do is dissociate the religious experience, the mystical experience of God for which the heart longs, of which Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and David and Jeremiah and Isaiah and Paul and Peter spoke. The experience of God: we have to dissociate that, dislodge that from the framework, the garment in which it was communicated, and then (here’s the trick) - how can we who have experienced the living God bear witness to it in light of the marvelous, cosmic reality that is unfolding before us? I facetiously mentioned the articles in the news magazines, but there were a couple of good paragraphs, and at the conclusion of the U.S. News & World Report article there was the suggestion that maybe with the cosmology that we have now available to us, we may be learning that the cosmos is not running down waiting to, as a cinder, fly apart or collapse upon itself, but maybe, just maybe after 12 or 15 billion years, with the very recent arrival of the human creature who brings consciousness, awareness and voice to the cosmos, maybe, maybe we’re just at the beginning of exciting new breakthroughs, the future dimensions of which, who can dream? Homo sapiens may represent a youth movement, arriving at a time when almost everything is still to come. Dreary subjections about ultimate faiths may be supplanted by the belief that, like the cosmos itself, the human prospect is, as the physicist Freeman Dyson once wrote, infinite in all direction. In the first service was our resident cosmologist, Howard VanTil, who gave me a couple of pieces soon to be published in which he argues about the fully gifted creation. Now, Jacque Monod, a Nobel-winning biologist, has written a book, Chance and Necessity and, after his biological observations based on empirical information, Monod goes on to be a religionist, a philosopher who concludes that we have to accept the fact that we are alone in the universe that is deaf to our music and as indifferent to our hope as to our crimes and our sufferings. Monod is a first-rate scientist, but when he becomes a religionist, he says, "No purpose, not going anywhere, no meaning." He has leaped out of the limits of his own discipline, and that’s his faith conclusion. But, Howard VanTil suggests, grounded in his belief in a source of all being, that the "Let there be" of the first word was a creative word that endowed whatever was brought into being with the full capacity to develop into all the multiplicity of this marvelous universe of ours, the end of which, who can say? And I say to Howard VanTil, "You have just leaped out of the limits of your discipline, you’re now a person of faith," and he would say, "Yes, I am." And then I have to choose myself between a Jacque Monod who does his research and then as a person of faith says no meaning, no purpose, or Howard VanTil, who does his research and then says, "A source endowing the stuff of creation with the potential for this marvelous flowering and blossoming." So, you see, the conversation between religion and science can be © Grand Valley State University �Religion and Science: Can WeTalk? Richard A. Rhem Page 6   fruitful and exciting. But we need to remember the limits of science and then give them free hand and let them go and let every new surprise be a new cause for praise to the Creator. And we need, at the same time, while that whole development is there for our enjoyment and our investiture, to cultivate that relationship with God that comes only through prayer and meditation and openness to the spirit that is beyond empirical verification. The Psalmist picked up the theme of creation from Genesis and in Psalm 19, the first six verses, sang the glory of Creation that without words or speech sings the praise of God. But, the Psalmist knew more than the wonders of creation that pointed him to a Creator. This same Creator, he says, is Yahweh, the God of the Covenant, whose Torah, the way of life, comes to give me instruction and illuminates my way. And with humility and authenticity, that sense of that Ultimate Mystery Who has addressed him causes him to say in a moment of selfawareness, "Test me. Know my words, the meditations of my heart. See if there be any wicked way in me. Lead me in the way eternal, O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer." And you and I can go even a step further and say that in the beginning when God said, "Let there be," there was a word that was the creative force that brought all things into being and, in the fullness of time, that word became flesh and there was a face, and in that face we said, "My God! What grace and glory." Not only in that face, but I see it in your face and in face-to-face community, strangely enough, there’s the presence of that One Who in faith we say, said, "Let there be," and in trust we claim will in the end make all things well. Well, it’s really quite simple and quite wonderful, if you get it. © Grand Valley State University � https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a0e115bdeb91ad3544cb4566ead19abb.mp3 b62296b5771729140cda0d8e45b4d73a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Pentecost X Series Can I Honestly Believe? Scripture Text Genesis 1:1, Psalm 19:1,7, John 1:1 Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-19980809 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998-08-09 Title A name given to the resource Religion and Science: Can We Talk? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 application/pdf Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on August 9, 1998 entitled "Religion and Science: Can We Talk?", as part of the series "Can I Honestly Believe?", on the occasion of Pentecost X, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Genesis 1:1, Psalm 19:1,7, John 1:1. Cosmic evolution; Emergence Religion as a Human Construct https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/61af7d42a1f4b893095dc29ee880acce.pdf 78528034b9b5ddda3491689a1528b2ef PDF Text Text How Can I Pray? From the series: Can I Honestly Believe? Text: Genesis 32:24; Psalm 139:23; Luke 11:1 Richard A. Rhem Christ Community Church Spring Lake, Michigan July 26, 1998 Transcription of the spoken sermon I had thought that I had entitled the message today, "Can I Pray?" and I thought all I had to say was, "Surely. The offering will be received and let’s go to the beach." But then I realized that it was, "How Can I Pray?" and that puts a little different light on it, and as I speak this morning about prayer, I want to say this: To speak about prayer is to speak about the most intimate devotional relationship of one’s life, and one ought to do it with great sensitivity. Preaching about prayer is not praying. Preaching about prayer is taking a step back and thinking about prayer, and that’s a far cry from the act itself, the devotion itself. I want to say this morning in regard to this subject, and it’s always true about every subject, that no one can answer such a question for you. Only you know if you can pray. No tyrant in a political role can deny you that, that inner sanctum of the person that is holy ground and, thank God, no one can control that inward being. And in this relationship, no preacher can tell you, either. You may say to me, "Well, we look to you for guidance." That’s fair enough. I’ll think in your presence. I’ll think out loud, and as I think out loud, I hope you’re thinking silently so that we’re having a real conversation. But I’m not an authority figure and I refuse to be that for you. If you see me as an authority figure, I want to say to you, grow up. Get off on your own. I cannot bear the weight of your soul. I’m going to do the best I can and honestly struggle with the questions that I think are very, very important, critical questions in the living of our lives and in our relationship to that Ultimate Mystery that is God. But, don’t take me seriously. Don’t believe what I say just because I say it. Listen to what I say. Argue with what I say. Debate me. You’re grown people, and the church too long has fostered a kind of dependency and kept people in a state of immaturity, as though if the minister said it, it’s so. Well, it’s just not so, especially if this minister says it. As I speak a bit about prayer this morning, I am conscious that there are those of you out there who are farther along in the school of prayer than I ever will be. And there are those of you who have a deeper experience of prayer than I’ve ever © Grand Valley State University   �How Can I Pray? Richard A. Rhem Page 2   had and, when I speak about prayer this morning, I will be seeking to clarify some questions. I’ve long since known that my greatest contribution to the human race would not be to provide answers, but rather, to help people clarify the questions, because what good would it do if I said to you, "Cease praying, it makes no sense." Would you stop? Or, if I said, "Oh, indeed, it makes a lot of sense." Would you start or keep on doing it? I wanted to say that this morning about this particular message about prayer, but I want to say it generally. Don’t believe everything I say. Just engage with me in some thoughtful reflection. That’s my responsibility. And you carry yours, as well. So, how can I pray? Well, the context for the question is the series that we’re in and that series began with my talking about religion, in which I made the claim that religion is a human, creative, imaginative construct. Religion is a human phenomenon. Whatever in-breaking of mystery, whatever experience and encounter of the sacred and the holy, whatever that may be, and whatever may be behind that, the human family has responded to that sense of awe before mystery with the construction of religious systems, things that are believed, modes of worship, manner of living. Basically, that’s what human religion is. That’s what our Christian tradition is - a set of beliefs, a manner of worship, a mode of living. And, if that is true, then I suggested to you that it is time we worked on the image of God. Again, not because I say so, but because generally as a part of the whole western culture of which we are a part, the theistic idea of God has been called in question. Maybe not by you and, if not by you, then for goodness sakes, you can leave right now. You don’t need to listen any further. But there are a lot of our contemporaries who are having difficulty with the theistic conception of God, which is a conception of God which has marked the whole western tradition, that is the God of our hymns, of our prayers, of our liturgies, of our everyday, common thinking about God. When we talk about calling in question the theistic conception of God, that is, a God "out there," a Supreme monarch, ruling, directing, employing invasive processes once in a while, a God episodic in that God dips in here and there and, what would appear from the human point of view, capriciously, arbitrarily, monkeys in this point and dabbles in that point, but a God supreme, omniscient, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful - that conception of God that I grew up with in Sunday School, that I for many years preached from the pulpit - that God, that conception of God is in trouble. Now, if religion is a human construct, that doesn’t mean that God is in trouble. It means that a conception of God has been called into question. And if that conception is not a problem for you, you have no problem whatsoever with what I’m going to be saying. But, if it is a problem for you, then, you see, if God is not that enthroned monarch out there somewhere, then that’s where this question of prayer comes in. Then what does prayer mean? If God is not a larger-than-life supernatural parent in the sky, then what does it mean to pray? That’s the question. © Grand Valley State University �How Can I Pray? Richard A. Rhem Page 3   I cited in your liturgy the section from Marcus Borg’s book, The God We Never Knew. I like Marcus Borg because, when I meet him, when I talk with him, when I read his writings, I feel he’s a person who has had a spiritual experience. Marcus Borg speaks a language or in a tone quality that resonates with me. And yet, he thinks about it. He’s thought about it very deeply and he acknowledges that the old image of God made it impossible for him any longer to pray; he could not pray to that God "out there" enthroned in the heavens, controlling things on earth. He needed a new image of God, and so he was working at that. So, he says, "I couldn’t operate with that old image." At that point many of our contemporaries have ceased to pray. You realize that; that’s why many have simply dropped out of the spiritual endeavor at all, because that didn’t make sense, so one just gives it up. Marcus Borg is unwilling simply to give it up. He says, "How can I image God, then, so that prayer becomes a continuingly meaningful experience for me?" And he is clearer at what he cannot conceive of than how it works. I like a person who says, "I don’t know how it works. I can’t explain it." But, he says, "I know this that old thing doesn’t work. For example, in relationship to the Holocaust, if God controls human history and the Holocaust happens, then God is a devil." It’s time for the pulpit to do some plain speaking. How long have we hidden behind the idea of mystery, or, God simply doesn’t reveal God’s decrees, or someday we’ll understand. That’s ridiculous. If God could stop the Holocaust and God didn’t stop the Holocaust, then something’s wrong with God. That kind of God I can’t believe in. I can’t worship. Marcus Borg is quite right. Let’s get honest about it. Obviously, that is not the kind of God that we really worship, a God Who’s pulling strings here and there. That just doesn’t work. He says I still make requests, but it seems to be the natural way for me to care for another, and when I pray, it’s my attending to my relationship to God. Well, the theologian that probably popularized in common understanding across the church and beyond this whole idea of a God "out there" that was out of style was John A. T. Robinson, the Anglican Bishop, and in his little book published in 1963, Honest to God, which created such a stir, obviously if he began saying that image of God out there enthroned beyond the universe doesn’t work for me, then obviously he has to deal with this question of prayer, and so he, too, on the cover of your liturgy says, "What is, then, intercession?" Can we have even a nonreligious idea of prayer? Well, he struggles to say, when I care for another with an ultimate concern, isn’t that the heart of intercession? In other words, if I open myself up to another person, if I care about that person, if the compassion flows out of me to another, if there is an ultimate concern in that relationship, then is not in that relationship the presence of another? Is that not to involve God in the relationship, or is that not what it means to have God in a relationship? And if that does make some sense, I think it probably is what the writer of first John was saying in the fourth chapter, when he says the one who loves abides in God and © Grand Valley State University �How Can I Pray? Richard A. Rhem Page 4   God abides in that one. In the horizontal relationship there is the experience of that other dimension full of awe. And if that is the case in a human relationship, person-to-person, might it not be true also in that relationship one has to oneself? Now, I don’t know about this, but I’ve been thinking about the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel, or with a man. It’s an old, old tale of patriarchs. Jacob’s been a cheat and a deceiver and a manipulator. Now he’s on the threshold of facing his brother and it’s as though the film of his life runs before him and he wrestles all night. I don’t think there was anybody out there. I think Jacob was wrestling with Jacob, don’t you? Jacob had a relationship to Jacob. There is a self-consciousness about us. That’s what marks us as human beings. We jump out of our skin and look at our self. We survey our life; we examine our self, our motives, our reactions. We look over the story of our life; we get out of ourselves and look at ourselves. There is also a relationship between myself and me, and is not that perhaps what it means to wrestle with God? Is that just a mumbling monologue within my own psyche, or is that precisely the area? Is there a kind of objectivization of myself, where I am able to see myself, and in that seeing myself, see myself not off in some dark corner, but conscious that my life is an open book, and before some objective reality greater than myself, I stand either in integrity or without integrity, either in wholeness or in brokenness, either with some sense of serenity or total disarray. And is that not to pray? The Psalmist was aware that he didn’t make himself. The Psalmist was aware that there is something rather than nothing. The Psalmist, in beautiful poetic fashion, marvels before the wonder of the whole of reality into which his little life is laced. And then, something of that human rises in him, that hostility, the anger, and all of a sudden he becomes self-conscious and says, "Search me, O God," which is that searching more than my own coming to awareness of myself in the presence of a mystery that is greater than myself. What could be more effective in regard to prayer than just that? Well, it’s easier to say what doesn’t seem to work than to come to understand what does work. We have poets who are struggling to say it in a new way, the universe that Marcus Borg or John A. T. Robinson couldn’t come to terms with in terms of the old image of prayers expressed marvelously well by an English scientist, Richard Dawkins. He is at the other end of the spectrum from a Marcus Borg or a Robinson; he is a reductionist who believes that everything is simply electronic charges and energy and so on. He says, "If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of a bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune, such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." © Grand Valley State University �How Can I Pray? Richard A. Rhem Page 5   Don’t you love it? I love smart. That’s smart. That’s clear. That’s a hard-headed, honest statement. No religious, foggy mumbo-jumbo. And Richard Dawkins is not a demon. He would stand here and he could pile evidence upon evidence upon evidence to support this conclusion. There is nothing. Nobody. No mind, no purpose, nothing’s going anywhere, it’s all a chance kind of a thing popping off here and there, and where it will go, who will go. You can choose that with reasonably good data, or you can find others who will say, "That doesn’t say enough for me. I choose to believe that there is operative something more in the whole cosmic process into which I have come, have emerged into consciousness." And some of those others are poets who are trying to say it in a new way. Did you catch the hymns this morning? You did, didn’t you? You were grumbling, I could see. Well, you can complain to Betty VanTil because she passed along to me that opening hymn a long time ago. "Praise God Whose Providential Awkwardness." Have you ever thought of providence being awkward? Well, take one look at the world. This God of ours is not very handy. Wouldn’t you think that God could do a better job of putting things together? Praise God whose providential awkwardness defies our human scrutiny, whose wisdom looks like foolishness, whose purposes seem cloaked in mystery. And I love the fact that he says, "Praise God for what we fail to comprehend, for silence. Praise God for the fact that we are not God. Praise for the fact that our arrogance is often reduced to silence, where we would better stand in awe, not knowing. And praise God Who gives us restless hearts and minds, Who still is both our Source and Resting Place." Now, that’s an image I can live with. I like that. The Source, Resting Place. The poet is trying to figure out how to say something in a manner which honors the data of which we are aware, of our world, which is so vastly different than the data out of which the old system was constructed. The next hymn was written by W. H. Vanstone, an Anglican clergyman who wrote a book about God, who also could not believe in this God of omnipotence and omniscience and all of the omnis and all of the aura that we ascribe to the God that we want to be there, to be in control so we don’t have to take responsibility for our own lives. Vanstone says, no, He’s not that way. God is not that way. God is an abyss of love that is continually giving of itself in an anguishing, agonizing way to bring forth. You can meditate on this hymn for the rest of the week. "Open are the gifts of God, gifts of love to mind and sense;" ... that’s obvious, he says. "Hidden is love’s agony, love’s endeavor, love’s expense. Love that gives, gives evermore, gives with zeal, with eager hands, spares not, keeps not, all out-pours, ventures all, its all expands. Drained is love in making full, bound in setting others free, poor in making many rich, weak in giving power to be." And finally, here’s God, "no monarch he, throned in easy state to reign; here is God, whose arms of love, aching, spent, the world sustain." The poets are working at it, and you’re going to have to work at it, too. © Grand Valley State University �How Can I Pray? Richard A. Rhem Page 6   How can I pray? Well, begin by simply stopping long enough to be aware, attentive, in communion with your own soul. And, in communion with one’s own soul, there may appear to be that other dimension, call it what you will. But, you see, prayer is the language of the soul. Prayer is the utterance of the heart. Prayer is that expression to which we must give expression, lest we burst. And so, how can you pray? Just be human, I think. And we’ll keep thinking about it. But, can you pray? Surely. References: Marcus Borg. The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith. HarperOne, 1998. John A.T. Robinson. Honest to God. Westminster John Knox Press, 1963; 40th Anniversary edition, 2003. © Grand Valley State University � https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/770333117ad98975276b289f7960db9b.mp3 c270693a2a4aeed1095ebd03cafb3f4d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Pentecost VIII Series Can I Honestly Believe? Scripture Text Genesis 32:24, Psalm 139:23, Luke 11:1 Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI References John A. T. Robinson, Honest to God, 1963 2003 Marcus J. Borg, The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a MoreAuthentic Contemporary Faith, 1998. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-19980726 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998-07-26 Title A name given to the resource How Can I Pray? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 application/pdf Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on July 26, 1998 entitled "How Can I Pray?", as part of the series "Can I Honestly Believe?", on the occasion of Pentecost VIII, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Genesis 32:24, Psalm 139:23, Luke 11:1. Natue of God Prayer Religion as a Human Construct https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/26a8d8e29e0111ab871034312cb5e9a9.pdf 93b4f1033ab5f8b6552ad99352a9ffe5 PDF Text Text A-Theism? From the series: Can I Honestly Believe? Text: Isaiah 43:18-19; Psalm 137:4; Acts 17:28 Richard A. Rhem Christ Community Church Spring Lake, Michigan July 19, 1998 Transcription of the spoken sermon I continue today the summer series which I inaugurated last week on the overall theme, "Can I Honestly Believe?,” an attempt to look at the same old questions and say that which we affirm is also consistent with that which we know in the exercise of our minds in regard to the whole of reality. Is there a consistency between the faith structures that we hold and the knowledge that we have of our world, of our lives? If that isn’t true, there is a cognitive dissonance and then religion becomes a compartment of our lives. We come into a sanctuary on Sunday morning, but it isn’t that which illumines our total human experience. Ideally, it ought to do that. Ideally, our religious faith and devotion ought to be the expression of the deep wells of our being that is consistent with who we are and what we know and how we live. So, we are going back to visit some of the old, fundamental questions once again, and this morning to talk about God under the subject, "A-Theism?" The most important matter for you to understand as we begin is that A-Theism is not atheism. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. "A-Theism?" raises a question about that conception of God known as Theism, or a theistic conception of God. Now, what is that? Well, it’s everything you’ve ever known, everything you’ve ever been taught, everything you’ve taught. It is a conception that informs you when you pray, when you sing hymns, when you do liturgy, because Theism is the most common conception of God in the whole western culture, including Judaism and Christianity and Islam. Theism as a conception of God is so common that we speak of Theism as identical with faith in a God. That’s not true. And that’s what I want to say this morning, and, if I can get that through to you this morning, we will have accomplished something. Last week I asked you, "Do I Need Religion?" and I said, no, I’m not going to claim that. But, I do claim that there is a fuller, richer experience of being human if it includes God, worship, devotion, and so on. This morning I want to go on with what I was trying to say last week when I said that religion is a human, creative, imaginative construct. Religion is a human, imaginative, creative construct. You will not hear that from many pulpits, and understandably so. If © Grand Valley State University   �A-Theism? Richard A. Rhem Page 2   too many people get too loose with this whole matter of religion there won’t be enough jobs to go around and it’s detrimental to my profession. But, since I’m almost old enough to retire, I can be honest and I can tell you that religion didn’t fall out of heaven, our human religions are not the product of revelation from heaven, they are human, creative, imaginative responses to the in-breaking of that Ultimate Mystery that we speak of as God. Now, when we took a vote at the end of last Sunday, you did agree that I was right on that. (You did vote, didn’t you?) You have to be careful, because if you grant me some of these things, before you know it, I’ll have you, you see. I’m setting you up. Religion, that is, institutional religion, any kind of religion that involves doctrinal beliefs, cultic forms of worship, ethical modes of human living - any kind of religion is a human response to the in-breaking from beyond of the Mystery. That’s a wonderfully liberating idea, because then I can acknowledge from the beginning that my human religion with its forms of belief, its forms of worship, its manner of life, will be laced with error, misconceptions here and there, that it is sometimes fruitful and profitable and sometimes less than that. I don’t have to defend my religion. The world is full of religion being defended because the claim is that the religion fell out of heaven and therefore, if there is something wrong with the religion, there’s something wrong with heaven, there’s something wrong with God. Not so. God can’t help the kinds of religions we create. God is not into religion. God is into breaking through to us, to say, "Be still and know that I am God." As Isaiah said in passage, "I birthed you, I’ve born you, and to your last days I’ll carry you." All of it symbolic language that points to that kind of security that is craved by the human heart. But how we construct, how we concoct our human religions, is not God’s problem, although it can create a real problem for God sometimes, I think. Religion as a human, creative, imaginative construct. Now, if that is true, then of course, right at the core is our conception of God. And what I’m going to claim this morning is that we have a very imperfect conception of God, necessarily so, because the Mystery that is God is a mystery that leaves us dumb. I could have brought you a marvelous quotation from St. Augustine who said, "I used to speak about you until I experienced you, and then I found to experience you, I was unable to speak about you." God breaks through or manifests, and we respond. Moses responds and we get the whole liberation movement of the slaves out of Egypt, and we get the nation Israel and that founding experience in the Exodus. Jesus comes along and Jesus, the Jew’s conception of the intimacy of the relationship with God becomes very threatening, indeed. Paul, the Jew, experiencing Jesus, having this breakthrough, this manifestation, tries to give expression to God. On Mars Hill he borrows from the Stoic philosophers of Greek culture and actually, in a way, a conception of things much closer to a modern conception than the Theistic conception which basically he did hold - in God we live and move and have our being, we are God’s offspring. But, the whole human story is an ongoing attempt to bring some meaning, to bring to expression that reality that always eludes us. And I say that that’s a liberating idea, because I © Grand Valley State University �A-Theism? Richard A. Rhem Page 3   don’t have to defend it. I don’t have to claim that it’s given once for all. And I don’t have to panic when the major configuration of things begins to move off in another direction. That’s really what I’m talking about this morning. A-Theism, signaling that at our time, in our world, with our knowledge of reality and of the human person and of human society and human developmental history, that the most classic, bedrock conception of God is challenged and has been simply written off by many, many, many of our contemporaries. We don’t have any sense of that, really, in this area, and we live in a nation that is peculiarly religious. We live in a nation where there are megachurches that are flourishing, but also a nation in which the mainline church is deeply in trouble, trying to hold on and survive. But folks like us don’t really have much chance to realize the degree to which classic, biblical, Christian conceptions are in trouble. I want to say that’s okay. God will not go down the tubes when the conception of God in theistic terms is shown to be no longer compelling. Well, what is that theistic conception of God? Let me read you a couple of definitions. From the Oxford Dictionary, Theism is a belief in one God as a Creator and Supreme Ruler of the universe. Isn’t that what you always have believed? Or, the Encyclopedia Britannica, Theism is the view that all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one Supreme or Ultimate Reality which one may also speak of in personal terms. Or, another - Theism holds that God is something like a person without a body who is eternal, free, able to do anything, knows everything, is perfectly good, is the proper object of human worship and obedience, the creator and sustainer of the universe. In his book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Bishop John Shelby Spong writes of Theism as a belief in an external, personal, supernatural and potentially invasive being. Marcus Borg, in his The God We Never Knew, speaks about the image of God in the Hebrew scriptures as that God enthroned above the heavens, that God who is ruler, who is sovereign, who is king, and even in the Hebrew scriptures, Father, but that idea of a supreme being with all of the apparatus of supernaturalism so that this world and our lives are over against that being. Now classically, in our theological tradition, we also spoke about that transcendent being "out there" also touching us "in here," so that God was also immanent. But, the immanence of God in our traditional classical understanding of things was never realized very deeply. Rather, God was that figure out there, ruling, controlling, directing, guiding, bringing everything to its consummation, the Supreme Being. That, says Spong, has had its day. I want to say to you here, it hasn’t had its day here, and I want to be very clear that, if it’s working for you, keep working it. There is no one that needs to move the mental furniture of one’s religious construct around just because they happen to be in a congregation whose pastor is a bit strange in probing the outer edges of theological esoterica. Don’t change anything that works, because religion is that human, imaginative, creative response to the God beyond our gods, the ultimate Mystery of things, and that response that is meaningful for you, deepening your humanity and enriching your life is just fine. © Grand Valley State University �A-Theism? Richard A. Rhem Page 4   But Christ Community is a place where we do think around the edges and this summer I am trying to think as clearly and simply as I can about these ultimate matters. I’m simply telling you that we are a part of a massive shift in the broader ranges of western culture, a massive shift in the understanding of God. Many of our contemporaries have just turned off from God, so they have moved into atheism. And if you chart the modern period, you would do so from an orthodox view of God as that Supreme Other up there, potentially invasive, the episodic God who moves in and out of creation, to Deism in England at the time of our founding of this nation. Deism was kind of a halfway house, the God who created it all wound it up like a clock and now is letting it tick off, but doesn’t really have an intimate relationship. There was the orthodox conception; Deism was a step removed, and Deism was really a halfway house to atheism, where we didn’t really even need the hypothesis of a God. I’m trying to say this morning that if we want to avoid eventually, down the road, we or our children or our children’s children, that slide into atheism, the denial of God, then it is incumbent upon us to think and to think hard about the nature of God that we have experienced and how to bring that to expression. I don’t know how to do it. Oftentimes, we know when something isn’t working before we know how to fix it. Karen Armstrong, in her lecture, "The Future of God," which I heard a year and a half ago, when she was at the Diocese of Bishop Spong, talked about that cognitive darkness, quoting the poet Keats, waiting for the poem to write itself, as she said, quoting the poet, the poet doesn’t sit down and just write the poem. The poet waits in the darkness until the muse speaks, until the poem writes itself. You don’t call a committee and write a poem. You don’t call a committee and write a creed. You wait with openness. You wait in expectation for the idea, for the vision to emerge. And I do believe that that is where we are, globally speaking, today. The great religions of the world are in dialogue with one another. The west has become largely secular in its greater expression, and it is a time of waiting, I think, in the darkness for God to reveal God’s self. In Psalm 137, Judah was in exile and their captors said, "Give us a little Jewish song," to which they replied, "How can we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?" We take the Hebrew scripture seriously, but we ought to recognize that they’re very, very human. This document is very, very human. If you would go on to read those verses, beyond those verses that were sung for us, "How can we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land," you would come to the last verse where all of the anger and hostility of the Psalmist is expressed when he prays to God to dash their little ones against the rock. It gives you goose bumps. It’s chilling. The God of Israel in that instance was a tribal God. That tribal God couldn’t move into exile, and so they were godless. And they couldn’t sing their God’s song in that situation. But, then there arose a prophetic voice that said, "Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, says your God. I am the creator God. I created a way through the sea, the horse and chariot were overcome. Now, don’t look back, for behold I am doing a new thing." © Grand Valley State University �A-Theism? Richard A. Rhem Page 5   Israel, Judah, had to gain a bigger conception of their God, a God who could accompany them and indeed be with them in exile and still be God to them in exile, a God who would, ultimately, bring them home. And Paul - how could he say God in the face of Jesus Christ on Mars Hill in Athens? That was his problem, his challenge, his struggle. He quotes their poets; there’s some truth there. Paul is standing in the Acropolis, the center of human learning, trying to bring expression to that which had encountered him, and that which had encountered him was the God of Israel as Israel had conceived God, but, now that God is given a different spin, now seen through the lens of Jesus Christ. For Paul it was still quite a simple matter. He said God arranged the times and the boundaries wherein people dwell. Kind of a small project. But, he was reaching and stretching to bring to expression a bigger view of God and that’s what we are about, as well. You say, well, what about the revelation of God? Yes, that’s what I mean when I’m talking about the breaking in or the manifestation of the mystery. I don’t deny that God reveals God’s self. But, there’s a problem with revelation. Everyone who has one thinks it’s the last word. And then they build a structure and absolutize it, trying to freeze the moment and perpetuate it on forever so that there’s a block to any further manifestation, any new experience. We can’t afford that anymore. Our world is exploding. The growth in knowledge and understanding is exponential. It’s breaking out all over. And the mood of the church in the mainline, by and large, is to hold on, to survive, to nail down and to re-imagine yesterday. I guess the big thing I say to you is wait in the darkness. What works, work. And where there’s cognitive dissonance, live with it, keep thinking about it, and eventually the new will emerge, the idea will show itself, and when it shows itself, you will recognize how weak and paltry is our present institutional Christian religious form and structure, because when the new emerges, when we learn to say God in a new way, it will sweep all before it. Someone has said there is no military might that compares to an idea whose time has come. So, we’re out testing ideas, confident in the meantime that we can rest in that Ultimate Mystery, that God beyond our gods. © Grand Valley State University � https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6c51f1b9550783f0232f5057e810a3d1.mp3 c2f448b15dbbae1ec3cb5e165ce9f419 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Pentecost VII Series Can I Honestly Believe? Scripture Text Isaiah 43:18-19, Psalm 137:4, Acts 17:28 Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-19980719 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998-07-19 Title A name given to the resource A-Theism? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 application/pdf Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on July 19, 1998 entitled "A-Theism?", as part of the series "Can I Honestly Believe?", on the occasion of Pentecost VII, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Isaiah 43:18-19, Psalm 137:4, Acts 17:28. Nature of God Religion as a Human Construct Response to Mystery https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/9bc8d24a71344fd5126b6f11128337ca.pdf c2e24361d2adbdef80499caef9abd244 PDF Text Text The Church: Who Needs It? From the series: Tough Questions; No Easy Answers Text: Ephesians 4:15 Richard A. Rhem Christ Community Church Spring Lake, Michigan August 24, 1997 Transcription of the spoken sermon Our summer sermon series, Tough Questions; No Easy Answers, concludes today with a focus on the church, the institutional form of the Christian religion: "The Church: Who Needs It!" Who needs it? That is a question. However, you may have noticed in the printed liturgy that the question is terminated with an exclamation point rather than a question mark. Who Needs It! This reflects not so much a genuine inquiry into who really needs the church as a statement reflecting a serious question about whether or not perhaps the church in its present forms and structures has a future; even more, whether it would be a serious loss if it continues in its present process of demise. Let me acknowledge at the outset that I am not able to be completely objective in the contemplation of the question. Who needs it! is probably the expression of my own frustration with, and disappointment in, the institution in which I have been nurtured and to which I have given my life. You will simply have to hear me keeping my own bias before you. Granting that, let me tie this sermon on the church in with that which I have been stressing throughout this series, namely, that religion is a human construct, a human creation, which in multiple religious forms and institutional structures is a response to the experience of God, the sense of a Presence that fills all things, a Mystery which is always hidden from us, yet so present in its absence that its reality cannot be denied. This is true of religion in the earliest forms discovered in the practice of ancient and primitive peoples; it is true of the great world religions. Religion as a phenomenon of humankind is a humanly shaped response to an encounter from beyond or from the depths. This is true of the Christian religion as it is institutionalized in the church in all the manifold forms and structures that have emerged over 2000 years and in all © Grand Valley State University   �The Church: Who Needs It? Richard A. Rhem Page 2   the wide variety of churches with us in our day. The Christian church is a human creation, a human institution consisting of a belief system (doctrine), cultic forms for worship and devotion (liturgy/ritual), and a moral code (ethics). To claim this does not deny that the Christian religion is a genuine and authentic response to God, that it is a mediator of truth, of revelation, that it is an agency of God’s grace. It is simply to recognize that, in response to the revelation of the Mystery that is God in Jesus Christ and the grace that he mediates by God’s Spirit, those who have been encountered by revelation and embraced by grace have created a religious institution we call the church in order to witness to their experience and pass on their faith. The religious faith and institutional structure which provided the womb for the Christian faith was Judaism. One of the fruits of current study of the historical Jesus is our recognition that Jesus was a Jew. Of course, the church has always known this, but the fact is, the church has not recognized the Jewishness of Jesus sufficiently, nor done justice to the rootedness of Jesus in his own religious tradition. He was born a Jew, lived as an observant Jew and died a Jew. It was Jewish tradition he was seeking to renew. It was the Jewish institutional religion he was seeking to dismantle in the fashion of Israel’s prophets. From our present knowledge of Jesus’ time from cross-cultural studies, we get a sense of the institutional forms and structures that he was up against. We also recognize the Gospels as post-Easter documents that were based on oral tradition that went back in part to Jesus himself but, at their writing, were documents that reflected the situation of the Christian communities from which they arose decades after Jesus’ life and ministry. It seems apparent that Jesus never intended anything but the renewal of his own Jewish faith. The early Jesus movement that developed in the wake of Easter was a Jewish movement in its entirety. In the early years, the Jesus movement was a movement within Judaism. But, this was a time of ferment and crisis for Judaism. In a struggle with Rome who occupied her land, she saw her temple razed and Jerusalem destroyed. The question was what would emerge as the ongoing Jewish tradition. By the time Matthew wrote his Gospel, from which we read this morning, two generations separated his community from Jesus himself. It was clear by the time Matthew wrote that the majority of Israel was not going to follow Jesus as God’s Messiah. The Jesus Jewish movement had reached out to Gentiles. The movement was constituted of Jews and Gentiles and was taking on an identity over against Israel. We see this in the passage read from Matthew 16. At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asks, "Who do people say that I am?" The disciples answered, Elijah or Jeremiah © Grand Valley State University �The Church: Who Needs It? Richard A. Rhem Page 3   or John the Baptist - one of the prophets. And then Jesus asks, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter answers for the group, "You are the Christ (or Messiah), the son of the living God." Jesus praises Peter for the answer - giving him the nickname Rock and declaring that on the Rock he would build his church. It is fascinating that Matthew used Mark as his basic source, but in this instance, he goes beyond Mark. In Mark, Jesus does not give Peter his nickname, nor does he praise him; rather, he sternly warns the disciple to say nothing of this messianic identity. But, even in Matthew’s account, Jesus continues after his high praise of Peter to speak of his forthcoming suffering to which Peter objects, actually rebuking Jesus for such talk. In response, Jesus says, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things, but on human things." Even though Matthew intends some six decades after Jesus to make Jesus the establisher of the church, he lets show through the constant peril in which the church will live - becoming human, all too human. The Protestant Church should never have argued with the Roman Church that Peter was the first Pope because if anyone puts the lie to papal infallibility, it is Peter. Calling Simon "Rock" may well have been a bit of Jesus’ humor. Rock-like, he was not; human, he was. Well, it seems we have a guest. (At this point, "Peter" arrives, hurrying down the aisle, excited and emphatic.) Peter: I’m Peter, and, "On this rock I’m gonna build my church." That’s what he said. If you don’t believe me, you can look it up. Oh, you just did. I never understood the rock thing. Who would call somebody a rock? Would you call somebody a loaf of bread, a tree? "Hey, Shrub, come over here." How would you like that? But, who could figure him? The way he talked sometimes? Very mysterious. So, this is church, eh? A little breezy. Reminds me of the old days, Sermon on the Mount. No air-conditioning there. Whew! It was a scorcher. They don’t tell you that, do they, in that book you got there? Ninety-eight degrees that day, and lots of humidity. But, this is just for fun today, right? You got your buildings for regular. I see you’ve gone to Sundays ... Saturday wasn’t good enough? Anyway, I’m really pleased to see you’ve made it so big. I kept telling Jesus, all we needed to do was get to the big boys, the movers and shakers, the Big Kahunas, show them we could work with them. I said, "Jesus softer, softer. Ease up on the ‘Woe is you, Pharisees,’ stuff. And ‘Woe to the lawyers.’" You just don’t say "Woe to the lawyers" and get ahead in this world. © Grand Valley State University �The Church: Who Needs It? Richard A. Rhem Page 4   They got such a powerful lobby, you wouldn’t believe! And getting into real estate ... that’s smart. Oh, that’s smaaaart. I told him all along. When he had that shmooze with Elijah and Moses, and he turned all sparkly, I told him then. Build three tabernacles here ... Okay, just one. At least put up a plaque, "Jesus transfigured here, June eleventh, 0-0-27." But, no. "Don’t tell anybody," he says. So, what are you pulling down? 40-50 big ones? You know what I got? Lunch, I got. On a good day, maybe breakfast. I’m not complaining. I was in on the ground floor - that counts for something. I got statues all over the place. None of ‘em look like but, but, hey, the headquarters in Rome? St. Peters! That still seems a little weird to me. St. Rock. Who would do that to a friend? "Simon," I says, "what’s wrong with Simon?" "Give up your stuff and follow me," he says. I brought this nice young kid in to see him once. Very well connected. Good family; the Dad’s really big in olive oil. And the kid wants to join. I’m thinking, this could be good. So, Jesus asks him the big one, you know, what’s the most important commandment? And the kid spouts it right off, not a hitch. Okay, so I prompted him a little going into the interview, but the kid’s sincere. And Jesus loves him, you can tell. He’s a good looking kid, well behaved, nice clothes. But, then Jesus says, "You want to go with me, you gotta get rid of all your stuff first. Give it away to folks who don’t have any stuff, then come back and see me." I couldn’t believe my ears. So we lost him. I said, "Jesus, this kid was loaded. You just blew a potentially large investor." And then he goes on at me about how tough it is to get to heaven if you’ve got a lot of stuff, and something about camels going through needles, and I don’t know. Anyway, I’m glad to see that’s changed. I mean, this looks like a pretty well heeled bunch here. What’s the weekly take? Pretty good, I bet. Oh, you got a good thing going here. One night the boys and I, we’re sitting around a campfire with Jesus singing "Michael, Row Your Boat Ashore," "We Are Climbing Jacob’s Ladder," some of the oldies but goodies, and then Jesus starts talking about he has to go to Jerusalem and the Son of Man is going to have all sorts of bad things happen to him, and we’re not understanding what he’s saying, so a few of us start trying to work out an organizational chart. You know, Jesus is the CEO, that’s a given. But, who’s the V.P.s? I mean, you can’t have any kind of operation like that without flow charts. You got to have your P.R. section. Quality Control, and so forth. Well, Jesus just threw a fit and says, "You want to be Vice President, you’ve got to be the custodian. You want to lead, you’ve got to serve!" He was always saying things like that. "You gotta die to live. The first are last and the last first." I kept saying, "Jesus, you’re going to drive ‘em away with that sort of stuff. You need upbeat, upbeat! ‘It’s the real thing!’ - take a tip from the Coke folks, Nike, whoosh! The Pillsbury Doughboy." © Grand Valley State University �The Church: Who Needs It? Richard A. Rhem Page 5   But, don’t let me interrupt. You guys are doing great, just great! It’s a real pleasure. I’ll just sit down here, zip the lip. You were saying? (Mr. Rhem) I was saying, Peter, you never got the message. In the paragraph following our reading, we have Jesus speaking to the disciples about denying themselves, taking up the cross and following Jesus. Those who want to save their life will lose it, Jesus warns. Those who lose their life for Jesus’ sake - that is, for the sake of the way of Jesus will find life. But, that word has too often been muffled in the history of the church. It just may be that what appeared to be the triumph of the Christian religion and its institutional form, the church, was its undoing. In the year 312 C.E., the Roman Emperor Constantine was victorious in battle and he attributed his victory to Jesus Christ. Constantine decreed that Christianity would be the established religion of the Empire. Thus, the movement that sprang from Jesus, beginning as a Jewish sect, becoming a persecuted minority evolved into the state religion of the Roman Empire and Jesus, the destabilizer of the religious institution of Judaism, was co-opted by the Roman Emperor to bring unity and cohesion to the Empire. It is no coincidence that the Constantinian decree of 313 was followed in 325 C.E. by the Council of Nicaea, perhaps the most critical Council in terms of the definition of the deity of Jesus and his relationship to God in the Trinitarian formula. John Dominic Crossan, in his Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, writes, ... Constantine, wanting a unified Christianity as the empire’s new religion, ordered the Christian bishops to meet, under imperial subsidy, in Nicaea, southeast of Constantinople, and there erase any major theological disagreements between them. Even if one is not already somewhat disturbed at imperial convocations, presence, and participation, it is hard not to become very nervous in reading this description of the imperial banquet celebrating the Council of Nicaea’s conclusion, from Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, 3.15: Detachments of the bodyguard and troops surrounded the entrance of the palace with drawn swords, and through the midst of them the men of God proceeded without fear into the innermost of the Imperial apartments, in which some were the Emperor’s companions at table, while others reclined on couches arranged on either side. One might have thought that a picture of Christ’s kingdom was thus shadowed forth, and a dream rather than reality. (p. 201) © Grand Valley State University �The Church: Who Needs It? Richard A. Rhem Page 6   Crossan comments, "Dream or reality? Dream or nightmare?" There are many serious students of the history of the church who see the Constantinian establishment not as the church’s triumph, but rather, as the critical moment it lost its soul. The collusion of throne and altar, the mating of secular power and religion is always finally fatal to religion; it becomes a tool of the state or, when in the ascendency, wields power as ruthlessly as any secular government. I am always struck by the passage in Mark’s Gospel where Jesus mentions his forthcoming death, and James and John come to him to request positions of power when he enters into his glory. Let us sit on your right and left hand, they ask. It is in response to this that Jesus tells them that greatness lies in servanthood. Obviously, from the beginning the religion that evolved from Jesus - Christianity - has lived with the temptation to save its life, preserve its life, enhance its life. Surveying its history, one must recognize great fruits that have derived from Christian faith, from the church. It has, indeed, shaped our Western civilization, combining as it has the heritage of Athens and Jerusalem. But it has been, as well, the enemy of the one whose name it claims. Were I to cite its greatest failings, I would point to its triumphalism of attitude, coercion of method, exclusiveness of spirit. Triumphalism is arrogance. We are first. It is one thing when expressed by the Marine Corps. It is unbecoming when expressed with nationalist zeal. But, it is downright betrayal when manifested by a religious tradition, especially a tradition that looks to Jesus, the crucified one, as its founder. And triumphalism soon leads to tactics of coercion. No longer do we simply witness to what we have experienced, but we use power to enforce our views and policy. Throughout its history, when the church has been in a power position, it has forced its way, leveling the opposition, the Inquisition of the 15th century only the most glaring example. And such coercion is justified by the claim of exclusiveness - the claim that truth is finally captured in the church’s creeds and that there is truth and salvific grace alone through the channel of the church. But it is not working anymore; the church has lost its position of dominance in the West. We speak of Europe as post-Christian and, appearance to the contrary, the church as institution is not a vital, confident body going from strength to strength. Multitudes are saying, "The Church: Who Needs It!" But, there are astute observers who are deeply committed to the Christian faith who see the dis-establishment of the church as a blessing. We are now, they say, in the same situation as the Jewish folk following Jerusalem’s destruction. We are © Grand Valley State University �The Church: Who Needs It? Richard A. Rhem Page 7   in a diaspora situation. Douglas John Hall writes in Confessing the Faith, citing the great Catholic thinker, Karl Rahner, ... we "must" accommodate ourselves to the diaspora situation, and this "must" emanates not only from our actual, empirical condition, but from the same gracious sovereignty that is contained in the journey of Jesus toward the cross. But we must and may do this joyfully. (p. 221) To do so, we must cease striving for "total victory." But, says Rahner, this is not resignation and defeatism. ... If we once have the courage to give up our defense of the old facades which have nothing or very little behind them; if we cease to maintain, in public, the pretense of a universal Christendom; if we stop straining every nerve to get everybody baptized, to get everybody married in church and onto our registers ... if, by letting all of this go, we visibly relieve Christianity of the burdensome impression that it accepts responsibility for everything that goes on under this Christian top dressing, the impression that Christianity is ... a sort of Everyman’s Religious Varnish, a folk-religion ... then we can be free for real missionary adventure and apostolic self-confidence. (p. 222) Douglas Hall, Karl Rahner, Hans Küng - and many more of the most acute thinkers in the church see our present situation as holding great promise. As a minority without cultural assent or political power, we are free to get back to the way of Jesus, the way of the cross, of loving service and gracious embrace. In the word of the apostle, we may yet grow up into the likeness of Jesus and speaking the truth in love become the true servant people as Jesus envisioned. The Church: Who Needs It! as a coercive institution seeking power. But, the church as community, a community of worship, of nurture, of gracious servant serving the world in Jesus’ name - that is the church I need, for which I will live and, if need be, die. Reference: Douglas John Hall. Confessing the Faith: Christian Theology in a North American Context, Vol. 1. Fortress Press, 1991. © Grand Valley State University � https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2f9819f95c4de7aba6e9587f5da0fe92.mp3 1edec60d2acdc59cccbdc62aa9a1b501 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Pentecost XIV Series Tough Questions: No Easy Answers Scripture Text Matthew 15:13-23, Ephesians 4:1-7, 11-16 Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI References Douglas John Hall. Confessing The Faith: Christian Theology in a North American Context, 1991. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-19970824 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-08-24 Title A name given to the resource The Church: Who Needs It? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 application/pdf Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on August 24, 1997 entitled "The Church: Who Needs It?", as part of the series "Tough Questions: No Easy Answers", on the occasion of Pentecost XIV, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Matthew 15:13-23, Ephesians 4:1-7, 11-16. Myster Religion as a Human Construct Servanthood Way of Jesus https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1007ab87214d3a4b8978ca2520db88fe.pdf e3511f546e3243f70b11cb76dc36aec4 PDF Text Text Is Christianity Dying? From the series: Tough Questions; No Easy Answers Scripture: Habakkuk 1:1-5; 3:17-19; Luke 3:1-9; 19:37-38 Richard A. Rhem Christ Community Church Spring Lake, Michigan August 10, 1997 Transcription of the spoken sermon Is Christianity dying? That is a tough question and there is no easy answer. Let me acknowledge at the outset that no one can answer that question with certainty. Is Christianity in trouble? Yes. If that is challenged by pointing out that it is in trouble in Europe and the West in general, but flourishing in Africa and some other regions, I would respond by saying that the same secularizing tendencies and advance of scientific knowledge that have put it in peril in the West will have to be dealt with wherever the Church extends itself. I suspect Christianity as an institutionalized religion is dying in the form in which we have known it. But, perhaps the question, "Is Christianity Dying?’ is not the best way to formulate the question. It would be better to ask as does Charles Davis in the book he entitled What Is Living, What Is Dead in Christianity Today? And I even prefer a further sharpening of the question: "What can Christianity become for us?" That is a crucial question and that is the really critical matter: What can this 200year-old religious tradition, through which and in which we have been formed, become for us? To become a significant shaper of our lives and an ongoing, dynamic faith tradition, Christianity must undergo a major creative transformation. Continuing on its present course in fundamentalist form, or even in strongly orthodox or timidly mainline expression, Christianity will not continue. Let’s probe this question and as we do, I will do as I have been driven to do throughout this series - I will focus on the phenomenon of religion because, obviously, Christianity is a religion and to examine it, we must be clear about the nature of religion. © Grand Valley State University   �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page 2   Lest you forget, I say again; religion is a construct of the human mind. We create religions as human beings. A religion is a humanly constructed symbol system that provides an orientation for our lives, supplying us with a map for negotiating life’s passages, offering us an interpretation of culture, history, human action and the transcendent Mystery of our existence. Feuerbach in the 19th century saw religion as a human invention arising out of the human situation of need and threat. In Feuerbach’s understanding, God was simply a human projection of one’s own idealized self. We have recognized the genius of Feuerbach’s analysis of religion, but we have demurred at one critical point; we have claimed that the creation of religion on the part of humankind is the consequence of a prior address from beyond or from our depths, an address that puts us in question, that calls forth our response in the form of religious faith, devotion and practice. Religious faith or awe or wonder or fear is response to an experience of some Reality. Charles Davis writes, The reality experienced in faith does not manifest itself as an object. It reveals itself as the term of a feeling response but remains hidden from us or unknown inasmuch as it does not appear to consciousness as an apprehensible object. ... feelings rest upon a oneness between the subject and what is felt.... Feelings are responses springing from what we are. They are responses of our being to reality as we meet it. Our feeling responses depend upon what we have become as beings, what we are as persons. Feelings are the resonance of reality upon human subjects, the arousal of our personal being through union with a reality present to us. In the case of religious feeling, the response of our spiritual effectivity to transcendent reality precedes knowledge and continues without any direct knowledge of a kind that would make the term of that response a known object. The reality that draws us where our own being falls off into nothingness, the reality that gives a sense of basic fulfillment at the center of our emptiness, remains outside our intellectual grasp. (pp. 9-10) Feuerbach’s claim that religion is a merely human activity with no referent beyond the human subject remains an unproven and unprovable assertion. The same is true for the claim I make that faith is response to that which encounters us, to the Mystery that meets us, but can never be grasped because it remains hidden. This is the watershed; the great Divide. But the claims are beyond verification; each of us must decide if we believe we are addressed by Someone, Something beyond us, or, conjuring up a fiction. © Grand Valley State University �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page 3   To conclude the latter is the end of religion as a viable, meaningful human activity; to conclude the former sees the variety of religions and religious beliefs and practices as modes of response to a Reality beyond us, although present to us. And that is our claim. That being the case, we can see Christianity as a human creation in response to the Mystery as manifested in Jesus of Nazareth. In sum: we affirm the Mystery we term God and we affirm the nature of that Mystery as defined in Jesus, the concrete, human, historical expression of the Mystery. Well, perhaps you breathe a sigh of relief; Christianity is then a genuine article, a faith response to the Mystery of Reality, to God. And that is true enough, except it is not the only religious response to the Mystery; religion is a universal phenomenon of humankind. Are we prepared to say that our response in the Christian tradition is the only response that reveals the Mystery and mediates a saving, healing communion? That’s one question; but there is a second: Has the tradition faithfully and adequately responded in light of the ongoing drama of creation and human development? Let’s deal with the second question first and let us be reminded of the temptation to which all religion in institutional form is subject, the temptation to freeze a given form and absolutize it, denying the dynamic movement of history and human development, and thus denying the imperative that the religious symbol system remain open to re-symbolization, to fresh expression and new forms. I chose the scripture lessons with this tendency of religious institutions to absolutize themselves in mind. A late seventh century B.C.E. prophet in Judah surveyed the moral and spiritual life of his people and found it wanting. Habakkuk, in the prophetic book that bears his name, cries out to the God of Israel, O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not listen? Or cry to you, "Violence!" and you will not save? In a word, the prophet cries out to God to do something to turn the nation from its spiritual decay. The writing goes on to record the Lord’s response - the work becomes a dialogue between God and the prophet. God’s response: © Grand Valley State University �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page 4   ... a work is being done in your days that you would not believe if you were told. We learn that Judah is indeed in for judgment and that to be inflicted by the great and growing power of Babylon. Thus Habakkuk has his answer: God is doing something, but now the prophet has a larger problem. How can the God of Israel utilize a pagan power to bring judgment on God’s chosen people? Judah had strayed from God’s ways and the prophet sought God’s movement to judge and through judgment bring grace. But Babylon or, as they are called in the text, the Chaldeans? No way! That was too much. Israel was God’s chosen; Judah was God’s special people. Habakkuk simply could not conceive of God raising up a foreign power against God’s own. That attitude was always present in the tradition of Israel and always challenged by Israel’s own prophetic voice. It is such an attitude that was attached by John the Baptism who called the Jewish people to repentance on the banks of the Jordan River outside Jerusalem. It was the first century C.E., a time of apocalyptic expectations, a time of great ferment and expectation of some dramatic in-breaking of God ringing down the curtain of history. John the Baptist, like Habakkuk before him, was a fiery preacher of judgment calling God’s people to repent and prepare to meet their God. But the party line of the religious establishment resented such radical preaching and the exposing of their spiritual and moral apathy. Were they not God’s elect, immune to God’s purging action? No, claims John the Baptist. Do not begin to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our ancestor;" for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees... Luke 3:8-9 Jesus, too, ran headlong into the religious establishment, the guardians of the institutional forms and traditions of Israel. Luke tells us of the Palm Sunday procession to Jerusalem. The disciples are praising God with joy and no doubt displaying a festive holiday spirit. The Pharisees tell Jesus to make them cease their celebration, to which Jesus responds, ... if these were silent, the stones would shout out. And Luke tells us, Jesus came over the crest of the hill and saw Jerusalem in full view and he wept. He wept for what he saw as the inevitable horror that would befall the city because of the mind-set, the spiritual blindness he had encountered in the Temple establishment, which was also the center of political power. © Grand Valley State University �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page 5   If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. ... you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God. ...Luke 19:41-44 What is my point? Simply this: Religion is a human construction in response to an address from beyond, an encounter with the Mystery of Reality that becomes present in the consciousness of humankind. All religious response is not the same, offering equal clarity or illumination, resulting in equal fruitfulness in human lives. Some responses are the result of penetrating insight, the Gift of the Spirit. Some have less of beauty and elevating capacity, but no religion is absolute; none is without human limitation and distortion. And none is absolutely essential for the unfolding of the Mystery of the cosmic drama. Let me expand on that for a moment. I raise the question, "Is Christianity Dying?" in this message. I would never have conceived of such a question when I arrived here in 1960, nor when I returned in 1971. To contemplate the demise of Christianity would have been beyond the boundaries of my thinking. Jesus was God’s supreme and last word; Christianity the one true religion, the result not of human construction, but totally of God’s revealing. History was moving toward an End at which point Jesus Christ would appear on earth and bring in the Kingdom of God. It never occurred to me that such simplistic thinking was one more instance of Habakkuk’s horror at the thought of Babylon breaking Judah, or John’s opponents who said, "Hey, we have Abraham as our father," or the religious establishment who refused God’s visitation in Jesus. Neither was I at all aware of the uncritical arrogance of such a position; o The arrogance of assuming God’s ways were synonymous with the human religious response of my tradition; o The arrogance of assuming no other human religious response could be the consequence of a genuine encounter with God; o The arrogance of assuming God’s ultimate purposes could not be accomplished apart from my religious system. It just never occurred to me. In spite of the prophetic core of the Hebrew Scriptures and the ministry of Jesus in his own conflict with the established religious structure, I failed to see that I had made an idol of my own tradition and absolutized it, as though God had created it rather than recognizing it as a human creation of response. © Grand Valley State University �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page 6   That it is a human response, a human construct does not mean that it is not response to authentic encounter, that the encounter has not yielded genuine insight into the nature of the Mystery as gracious, nor that the structured response does not mediate healing grace. All of that, I believe, is true of our Christian faith tradition; all of that has indeed been the fruit of Christianity. But, it is not the only tradition; it is not alone the true glimpse of the Truth. Earlier I raised two questions: Has Christianity faithfully and adequately responded to the Light of the ongoing drama of Creation and human development, and is it the only response that is genuine response to the Mystery? To the second question, I answer "No." To the first "Yes" and "No." Yes, Christianity has been a faithful response mediating true insight and grace, but "No," in the sense that it has become frozen, absolutized itself and failed to continue to remain open to new knowledge requiring new symbols bearing fresh understanding of the Mystery that is God, the cosmic process, the meaning of human existence and the wonder of it all. Unless Christianity undergoes creative transformation, it will die. In a recent interview in The Christian Century, a Yale professor of the philosophy of religion speaks of the failure of Christianity any longer to provide the integration of all other elements of life. Louis Dupré contends, ... religion must in some way integrate the profane and the sacred. Obviously, Christianity no longer plays an integrating role in the life of modern societies. Certainly for most people in the West, especially in Western Europe, it has lost its creative, formative power. Christianity has become simply one element of civilization among many others, and by no means the most important. In the past religious integration was handed down by a tradition. But that tradition itself has lost its authority in the eyes of our contemporaries, including most believers. (July 16-23, 1997, p. 655) Dupré sketches a historical perspective much as we have been attempting in this series. Why, he was asked, is it especially difficult to be Christian in our time? To that question, he responds, Culture as a whole has become secular in a way that it has never been before. One may plausibly argue that the 18th century was the first nonChristian century. Most leading thinkers and artists, even if they were not opposed to Christianity, ceased to take their inspiration from it: secularization became dominant. Still, even at that time, Western culture was so penetrated by Christian values and ideas that one might mistake entire passages of Voltaire or Diderot as having been written by believing Christians. Eighteenth-century culture was still steeped in a tradition that had been Christian since its beginning, and it was extremely difficult for these thinkers to free themselves from a language saturated with religion. © Grand Valley State University �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page 7   The 19th century was different. It was an epoch marked by a virulent antitheistic campaign to clean the culture slate of all Christian traces. Yet these attacks were the work of an elite; culture at large retained distinct remnants of its Christian roots. Even today ties still exist between Christianity and culture in Europe and more so in the U.S.. But on a more fundamental level, the West appears to have said its definitive farewell to a Christian culture. Little of the old hostility remains. Our secular colleagues are happy to recognize the debt our civilization owes to the Christian faith to the extent that the faith, having been absorbed by culture itself, has become simply another cultural artifact. Christianity has become an historical factor subservient to a secular culture rather than functioning as the creative power it once was. The new attitude of benign atheism was, I think, prepared in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by the three most prominent secularizers of the time, Marx, Freud and Nietzche. The interviewer then asks: Why single them out? How did they differ from the earlier atheists you mention? For Marx, Freud and Nietzche, the idea of forcibly eradicating religion had become unnecessary. Religion for them was a passing symptom that was rapidly vanishing by itself. Already Marx had moved beyond the idea of atheism as a mere assertion of the unreality of God. For Marx, concentrating on atheism distracts us from the positive task of liberating humanity from social oppression. Lenin’s active atheism, in which he used the state to try to destroy religion, is actually a fallback to earlier attitudes about religion. Freud admitted that no one can be forced not to believe. But as rational thought shows nothing in favor of religion and everything against it, to persist in a faith because no argument can decisively refute it is for Freud the sign of a lazy mind. Nietzche preached a spiritual gospel, a new religion without God, beyond Christianity and atheism, that could still learn much from the old faiths. Moving further in that direction, contemporary secular culture, especially in its communications media, shows a surprising openness toward religion. But little suggests that this interest surpasses the purely horizontal cultural level. Culture itself has become the real religion of our time, and it has absorbed all other religion as a subordinate part of itself. It even offers some of the emotional benefits of religion, without exacting the high price faith demands. We have all become atheists, not in the hostile, antireligious sense of an earlier age, but in the sense that God no longer matters absolutely in our closed world, if God matters at all. © Grand Valley State University �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page 8   Further along in the interview, Dupré suggested what I believe will be essential if Christianity is to be renewed and find new and vital expression. He had spoken of the necessity of individual spiritual renewal and then the statement was made, Your view of the spiritual life seems to encourage interfaith encounter. He responded, In our age we have come to understand our faith within the context of the aspirations, desires and needs expressed in so many forms since the beginning of the human race. We have learned to respect these many ways of humankind’s longing for God in the light of our own faith. Some Christians have been inspired to integrate pious attitudes and meditative practices derived from other faiths within their own, without betraying Christianity’s unique identity. In doing so they are following ancient examples. Christians have received so much from the Hebrew mother faith of which they are no longer aware. Also from the fourth century on, Greek fathers generously borrowed Neoplatonic speculation to an extent that, via Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius and Maximum Confessor, late Greek piety has shaped the very nature of Christian mysticism. Why should we then not be allowed, as even the desert fathers were, to borrow meditative exercises that centuries of pre-Christian practice have left us? In fact, here also the analogy of faith urges us to see the existence of other religions in the light of God’s providence. Buddhist silence may help the Christian in deepening insight into the mystery of the Trinity where the Father is the silent source of the eternal Word. And how could God’s omnipresence in Vedantic Hinduism not remind the Christian of the Spirit, qui replevit orbem terrarum—who fills the entire world? Such analogies cannot be fortuitous to the Christian mind, and we do well to heed them as signs of a divine Providence that, with loving care, rules not only Christians but all humans. It would be wrong, however, to regard these analogies as justifying a syncretistic relativism that entitles each person to compose his or her own religious collage. This attitude, all too common today, shows a lack of respect not only for one’s own faith but also for those faiths one so casually dismantles for spare parts. It is yet another manifestation of that radical anthropocentrism, the main enemy of sincere religion, that tempts believers to bring the language of transcendence down to the level of purely human wants and choice. Without detracting from the providential nature of other faiths, Christians cannot ignore the fact that this same Providence has led them to a faith that is not a "choice" but, for those chosen to it, an absolute summons. To relativize faith is, I think, to subvert its fundamentally divine character. Here I think Dupré points to that which we have begun to experience - © Grand Valley State University �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page 9   that encounter with other genuine faith traditions not only leads us to a new respect for the breadth of response to the Mystery in the broad spectrum of religious traditions, but also deepens us in our own faith tradition and enhances our own spiritual experience, enriching it and authenticating it as indeed revelatory and the mediator of grace. What we are recognizing is the distinction between faith as response to the address of God, the Mystery of our existence, and the structure of beliefs that are formulated in response to that revelatory encounter. Such a formulation of beliefs is the human construction of a religious tradition. The encounter is initiated from the other side. Religion is the consequence, a human activity of reflection and the attempt to give some shape to the experience of the Mystery. In the words of Charles Davis, The absoluteness of faith is the absoluteness of total demand and total response in an experience of unrestricted love in relation to hidden transcendence or mystery. Faith is the drive toward transcendence, the thrust of human beings out of and beyond themselves, out of and beyond all the limited orders and human certainties under which they live, in an attempt to open themselves to the totality of existence and reach unlimited reality and ultimate value. It is a total response to the felt reality of a total demand. That absoluteness of faith should not be confused with a certitude of belief. (p. 67) Faith, Davis points out, gives assurance of a lived relationship, not absolute intellectual certitude. The human construction of religion takes the form of concepts and propositions. These cannot give absolute certitude; they are human constructs, not to be identified with the Divine. They are pointers, gropings, partial, limited, in a word - human. As David claims, Faith has a paradoxical character. It is a presence that is at the same time an absence, because no positive experience can lay hold of the transcendent. At the heart of faith is a negative experience, an experience that seems like a non-experience, because it is the breakdown of every finite experience, of all our concepts, images and feelings. Faith follows a narrow path between idolatry on the one side and nihilism on the other. Much religion is idolatrous inasmuch as it absolutizes some finite experience or expression. When faith is not idolatrous, it is difficult to distinguish from nihilism, because the presence it mediates is as transcendence, an absence on the human level, its plentitude is a void or emptiness of finite reality and meaning, its love co-exists with a sense of abandonment. What distinguishes the negative experience of faith from the unfaith of nihilism is precisely the refusal of closure, the willingness to accept a world without boundaries, even though on the cognitive level that © Grand Valley State University �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page10   demands the surrender of a stable truth, a fixed center, a final meaning of our religious texts and of our human existence. (p. 76) Is Christianity dying? In its present form, unless it undergoes creative transformation, "Yes." But, God is not dead; the Mystery continues to breathe through the whole cosmic process, enlivening all that exists, beckoning us toward fuller spiritual life. And the concretization of the Mystery in the humanness of Jesus, in which our faith tradition finds its center, still challenges us to humane existence lived in the Presence of God. This is the amazing possibility to which this incredible moment in our life together calls us; this is the opportunity of a lifetime. We are cut loose, set free, not to separate ourselves from our spiritual heritage, but to open ourselves to a whole new appreciation of the encounter from beyond ourselves, calling us beyond every limited understanding and formulation to wonders not yet dreamed of. Thus, Christianity will not die, but live, transformed, standing in continuity with the heritage of faith we have entered into, continuing to provide us with insight, meaning and confident assurance. Its authentication will be its capacity to connect with our ongoing human experience. No longer will authoritarian claims, whether of tradition, Church, or Bible, be submitted to. That is not to deny the reality of divine revelation; it is simply to recognize in Davis’ words, that The appeal to revelation belongs to a culture in which the important truths concerning human life and society are handed down by teachers having authority and are proclaimed for acceptance as sacred. Such a culture no longer exists for us. Post Enlightenment, the appeal is rather to critical rationality and that presupposes an open community of discourse in which all the members participate in seeking knowledge and in which any claim to acceptance must rest upon evidence and argumentation open to scrutiny and criticism by all. Biblical criticism will not be reversed. We simply know, as Davis declares, The typical biblical book does not come down to us all of a piece from some acknowledged prophetic figure or divine messenger, but as the documentary sediment of the history of a people, with originating factors too complex for disentanglement with more than changing probability. This has changed our understanding of the authority of a biblical text. It is © Grand Valley State University �Is Christianity Dying? Richard A. Rhem Page11   not that of an oracle from on high but that of an expression of the religious identity of a particular people. (p. 110) Nevertheless, what we find in the Bible are paradigms of faith, expressions of the total response of persons and a community of persons whose experience of having been addressed elicits the absoluteness of trust in the Mystery of grace. Habakkuk found himself in turmoil over the ways of God; his parochialism was shattered; he did not pretend to understand. But his encounter with the Holy One of Israel issued in that beautiful expression of trust with which his writing concludes. In a word, he says, "Strip me of everything, let disaster come; Yet I will rejoice in the Lord; I will exult in the God of my salvation. God, the Lord, is my strength; he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, and makes me tread upon the heights. Such trust is absolute, even when life is confusing and answers to our questions evade us. Such trust is enough in life, in death. References: Charles Davis, Interview, The Christian Century, July 16-23, 1997, p. 655f). © Grand Valley State University � https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/db1c0b8c4e1d51a10971cd4c559cc50d.mp3 08823404cd64b316f074b5e2c0838f97 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Pentecost XII Series Tough Questions: No Easy Answers Scripture Text Habakkuk 1:1-5, 3:17-19, Luke 3:1-9, 19:37-38 Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI References Charles Davis, Interview, The Christian Century, July 16-23, 1997, p. 655f. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-19970810 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-08-10 Title A name given to the resource Is Christianity Dying? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 application/pdf Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on August 10, 1997 entitled "Is Christianity Dying?", as part of the series "Tough Questions: No Easy Answers", on the occasion of Pentecost XII, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Habakkuk 1:1-5, 3:17-19, Luke 3:1-9, 19:37-38. Mystery Nature of Religion Pluralism Religion as a Human Construct https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5827e37aa50ce9f71c9526ff99d49754.mp3 088f9351edf9757d6069d78292b7d1ea https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/431aa956a5c731992a92af0843138bf9.pdf 3aac182e9a717ad4cc7a2a5aa0096c60 PDF Text Text God, Freud and Fathers Fathers’ Day Scripture: Psalm 103; Luke 11:1-13 Richard A. Rhem Christ Community Church Spring Lake, Michigan June 16, 2002 Transcription of the spoken sermon A Reading From the Present: ... I know that my own world was defined by a polarity between a happy but somewhat impractical father and a wise, no-nonsense mother. It seems logical to me that I should see the cosmos in much the same terms. There's a wise, no-nonsense, loving feminine side to it and an impulsive, creative masculine side to it. My ideal of a whole, wholesome human being is one who combines both, whose maleness is tempered with wise femininity, or whose femaleness is balanced by a certain male impulsiveness. It doesn't take an advanced degree in philosophy or theology to note that people's ideas of God more or less tell you nothing about deity, but a good deal about the sort of parents they've had. It is an article of faith that we are made in the image and likeness of God, but in whose image and likeness do we form our ideas of deity? Most of us, all unconsciously, pattern the image after our mothers and fathers. If our parents were loving and understanding, we tend to see God as a benevolent provider. If our parents were strict or distant, we tend to see God as an aloof disciplinarian. All theology in the world, whether administered in Sunday School or at our parents' knees, won't undo the sense of Godhood that we unconsciously develop from being around our parents. John Allen's Journal, Vol. 1, No. 39, 6-13-90 That, too, is a word of the Lord. Well, it is Fathers' Day. As I was thinking about Fathers' Day and thinking about fatherhood in terms of God and human relationships and the family, I was reminded of Freud, the psychoanalyst and great scholar, who has put his imprint on all psychological understanding subsequent to his own life and scholarship, although certainly there have been those who have come along to correct him here or there or challenge him here or there. It was the conviction of Sigmund © Grand Valley State University �God, Freud and Fathers Richard A. Rhem Page 2 Freud that religion's origin rests in the helplessness of the human being, that we come into this world helpless infants, totally dependent, and there is an initial attachment and bonding with the mother who is the provider of all things necessary. Eventually that relationship bonds also with the father who becomes the strong protector figure. It was Freud's conviction that human religion can be explained in terms of human impotency and the vulnerability, the helplessness and the fiercesomeness of the human experience that cries out for comfort and support and protection and security. Freud was an atheist but, I think, an atheist in terms of traditional, orthodox theism. He was, he said in his own words, "a godless Jew," and yet he was fascinated by religion and he continued to think about it, and particularly in the last decade of his life he was almost exclusively concerned with the nature of religion. He never changed his mind about his conviction as to religion's origin rooted in human helplessness. And he saw the religious structures, the religious forms and institutions that we have created as human beings, he saw that all as wish fulfillment. The deep-seated wish that things were safe and secure, the deepseated wish that there would be some buffer against the fate, against the vicissitudes of life, against life's terrible vulnerability and, especially, assuaging of the painful thought of death. And so, in the creation of, in his case, Judaism, or Christianity, Western religion particularly, there was the projection of the strong father figure, that primal figure who was the security and the final arbiter of all things, so that finally life would be reconciled in all of its complexity, and ultimate justice would prevail, extending existence into another life. Freud has not been universally followed, by any means. Nonetheless, his was an honest wrestling with the nature of religion. He also dealt in another whole dimension of his thinking which I am not able to go into, nonetheless, in his recognition of the conflict between the human being and that father figure. The one who provides comfort and security is also the one who causes resistance because of the control and the domination. And so, that conflict intrinsic to the human being, the conflict of a helpless and impotent being wanting safety and security, finding it in this primal figure of the father who is projected on the screen of reality and called God, but a God, then, who is also controlling and almighty, against whom we resist and revolt. So, the love-hate relationship, the desire for the affection and the affirmation of the father, and yet the resistance to the control and the domination of the father - all of that Freud saw in the human being's religious struggle. As I said, Freud hasn't been followed on that altogether by any means, and he has been challenged seriously by other voices. But, the one thing that he did bring out which, frankly, I have come to conclude and I have shared with you in one way or another many times is that he is right in the fact that religion is a human product, a human imaginative creative construct. That religion didn't fall out of heaven, that it is not the consequence of some revelation of God which through the Holy Spirit was enscripturated in a book so that what we have in our Christian faith is © Grand Valley State University �God, Freud and Fathers Richard A. Rhem Page 3 a divine religion authored by God. No, for all human religion is human religion. It is creative, it is imaginative, it is a human construct, and it is put together in order to meet the deep exigencies of our human situation. It is creative in order to enable us to live in some kind of serenity and tranquility in the very vulnerable position in which we find ourselves. People create religion. The religion that we create is either good or not so good. It serves our deep-seated needs and desires, or it doesn't, and what we do, we do here, understanding that. For example, the baptismal service is a beautiful service with deep meaning, the sacramental moment in which we consciously are aware of the gift of life, the gift of a child, and of the necessity for nurture and for care, and all of that which goes into it. Likewise, the Eucharist and all of the sacraments of the Church, all of the things that we do, the vestments, everything about us. These are the things that we have created over centuries which convey meaning that enable us in an observance to bring us into the conscious awareness of the mystery that sustains us. The only difference I would have with Freud is that he, based on Feuerbach and the projection theory of religion, says that all religion arises here in human need and is projected outward and there is nobody "out there." The only difference I would say is that that human need and that sense of vulnerability and that desire for security and comfort and some meaning in this miasma of human experience is a response. It is not the initiatory action of the human being, but it is the creative response of the human being to the mystery and the reality of our human situation. Freud set us on the track of all of that kind of thinking and he was in line with what was going on in his own time, in Feuerbach and Karl Marx and eventually in Nietzsche. All of that development of 19th century atheism was a reaction over against that old conception of theism, of a deity "out there" in control, pulling strings, pushing the gears of the universe. As the whole scientific method took hold after a couple of centuries, and historical consciousness came to being, the whole faith structure was examined with critical rationality – the rule of the day– to where the human dimension of religion was exposed and came to be understood. Now, I say it came to be understood. It still is not understood in the church at large. This time of the year I always go into a severe depression because, sick person that I am, I still read the newspaper about the accounts of what is going on in the respective denominations, and, if you once see religion as a human creative, imaginative construct, then you read these grand proclamations of the respective synods of the church - "God's will, God's word, God said ... God said yes, God said no. God said women should be in the clergy. God said women should not be in authority over clergy people. God said this, God said that”– it is so ridiculous. I don't know how I lived in that house as long as I did. So we still, in the church at large, have not faced up to the kind of insights that surfaced with © Grand Valley State University �God, Freud and Fathers Richard A. Rhem Page 4 Feuerbach and Freud. But, on this Fathers' Day, I want to say that the possibilities for us are better than ever they have been for the recognition of the humanity of fathers, of the whole being of the male which does not exclude the female. In the church today, that struggle is still going on. In fact, to my despair, it is in the church where these insights are resisted, and what it is is a threat to authority, of course, by male clergy all masked by faithfulness to the Bible as the word of God, all of that. It is so distressing. But, we could move beyond it and we have moved beyond it here, thank God. We have come to see, as the little piece I read a moment ago, that the human being is not biologically determined according to cultural stereotypes, that all of us bear within ourselves the male and the female, and that it is not the cultural stereotype that says the male is this and the female is that by which we have to live. We can break free of that. We can get beyond that, so that there is not a pre-described or a preset determination of what is a man and what is a woman and what is the role of the one and what is the role of the other. We are at a time when we, I think, with critical rationality and insight that we have from all of the sciences, can see that there is such a thing as maleness and femaleness and that they are not destined biologically as ultimate absolutes. Rather, it is a cultural determination as to how the genders mix and how they can proceed in the execution of life in all of its dimensions, once again, in the church, so that the role of man or woman in the church is indifferent. There is not a reason in the world why there should be any question about whether or not a man or a woman is qualified for leadership in the community of the people of God. On the other hand, the good news for men is that while the feminist movement has brought all of this to our consciousness and has refused to go along with those deeply ingrained cultural stereotypes, it has allowed also the liberation of the male, so that the male no longer in order to be male, in order to be a man, has to act out some kind of macho role, one in control, dominating and authoritative. That in the mutuality of male and female there can be the adjustment that fits any particular pairing which is a wonderfully freeing insight, so that no longer do we have to operate on the basis of what culture or society at any particular time has determined is the role of the one or the other. The Bible is a book that comes from a patriarchal society so that you can't go to the Bible to solve questions of gender equality or the mutuality of male and female. It just isn't in here. And yet, there is within our tradition, wonderful treasures that can be retrieved, and I read one of the most beautiful ones this morning. Psalm 103, in the eighth verse, speaks about God being merciful and gracious, and the Hebrew root of the word merciful is the same root for the word womb, and what the text is literally saying, by way of the Hebrew poet in Israel who centuries ago had come to an insight that that mystery which is the mystery of life is womb-like. The word gracious has as its Hebrew root the word that © Grand Valley State University �God, Freud and Fathers Richard A. Rhem Page 5 describes the wailing of a woman for her young that has been removed through weaning, so that in the Psalm 103, eighth verse, you have two powerful feminine images for God - a womb and the wailing of the woman for her young, that maternal yearning. And then in the 13th verse we have "God is like a father, a father who pities his children, a father who understands us fully, God who knows our frame, who remembers that we are dust." It is the most beautiful image, an image of God full of compassion, full of understanding who says, in effect, it's okay to be human. In all of your humanness, you are accepted. In all of the ambiguity of your being, in all of the ambivalence of your person, in all of the light and shadow of who you are, in your masculinity and your femininity and all points in-between, God knows your frame and God is merciful and compassionate, like a father. It's not exactly the father of Freud where there is no ambiguity there. This is a God of whom the Psalmist can write in powerful feminine terms and then speak of God as father, merciful, gracious, compassionate. Of course, out of that Hebrew tradition comes Jesus, and the New Testament scholar, Edward Schillebeeckx says that the key to the insight of Jesus in his relationship to God was his use of the word Abba as the form of address. Abba, father. In the New Testament it says, "Abba, father," but father is a translation of Abba. Abba is more intimate than father. It is the most intimate address of a child to a parent, to a father, Abba. Jesus had that sense of intimacy in relationship to God. And he lived in that kind of spirit, obviously, because one day they said to him, "Teach us to pray." He must have lived in a kind of transcendent atmosphere such that they said it's contagious, teach us. And so, he said, "When you pray, say 'Father...'" In our own cultural situation this has become such a problem. The feminist movement which I affirm totally has necessarily had to be aggressive and abrasive sometimes in forcing us to face the language problem. And so, in a little bit we will sing "Creator, Christ and Holy Ghost," in the Doxology, and that is a compromise. That is an acknowledgment on our part that Father, according to Freud, has been a problem for many, that that controlling, dominating figure has been a block to some in their attempt to have an intimate relationship with God. So, we will sing Creator, Christ and Holy Ghost. It doesn't do it. I don't know how to do it any better, but it doesn't do it. Creator is not Father. We could better say Father-Mother. We could better say to you, "Say Father-Mother," whichever feels good to you. Maybe we could say Father-Mother real quick. And anybody that has a problem with that is not reacting rationally, they are reacting emotionally. Of course, in all this stuff we react emotionally because we play these cultural linguistic games and we have our identity all tied up with certain ways to do it, certain words. Language is so terribly important. Language is so important that we have to deal with language, and so we sing Creator, Christ and Holy Ghost. © Grand Valley State University �God, Freud and Fathers Richard A. Rhem Page 6 Now I know, I watch some of you. You've never been willing to do it and you keep saying Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Well, go ahead. Bless you. But, some of you might as well say Mother, Christ and Holy Ghost. What I am saying is that we have had enough time and enough intelligence to begin to be reasonable about these things and to be able to go back to the scripture and, instead of taking a couple of texts from St. Paul in some kind of ridiculous argument that God is male and Jesus was male and therefore it is only male authority in the Church and in the home, the father. This is a strong strain in fundamentalist culture in our day. The strong headship of the father in the home. It's ridiculous. We need strength and authority and compassion and love in the home by fathers and mothers, and this idea that somehow or other God has appointed the male to be a dominant authority figure just doesn't figure. On this Fathers' Day, I want to say, "Fathers, you don't have to be so tough anymore. You can be free from that cultural stereotype that says you need to be in charge and control, and, consequently, you mothers will have to fill in the slack. Of course, that's what's been going on all of the time. It has just been a charade. We know that. Brian Wren, the poet and hymn writer, has written a book about language and God. It's a very good book, too, and he wrote this poem: Gallery: A Song for Boys and Men: Can a Man Be Kind and Caring? Can a man be kind and caring? Jesus was. Can a man who's kind and caring be adventuresome and daring, bravely doing right, walking in the light? Jesus did, and so I can: I will be a Jesus man. Can a man be sad with crying? Jesus was. Can a man who's sad with crying, shed his tears, yet keep on trying, loving to the end, enemy and friend? Jesus did, and so I can: I will be a Jesus man. Can a man be hurt and broken? Jesus was. Can a man who's hurt and broken show his friends how God has spoken, giving to us then, power to start again? Jesus did, and so I can: I will be a Jesus man. © Grand Valley State University �God, Freud and Fathers Richard A. Rhem Page 7 From What Language Shall I Borrow? God-Talk in Worship: A Male Response to Feminist Theology, Brian Wren, 1989) If more of us men would be Jesus men, the feminist movement would evaporate in a moment. There would be no need for it. © Grand Valley State University � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Fathers' Day, Pentecost IV Scripture Text Psalm 103, Luke 11:1-13 Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-20020616 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002-06-16 Title A name given to the resource God, Freud and Fathers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 application/pdf Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on June 16, 2002 entitled "God, Freud and Fathers", on the occasion of Fathers' Day, Pentecost IV, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Psalm 103, Luke 11:1-13. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives Compassionate God Religion as a Human Construct https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/799516baa3c3c1dc0c031b1146ef77ab.mp3 ed099916fc9e7ac75f3c1176e5c881e9 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a3030a4290dea7563fc2bea6b7ec506d.pdf ab5f0bd6d14211eab6f5f99381277485 PDF Text Text When god Dies… From the series: Religion: Significant Critique and Fresh Expression Text: Psalm 42:2; Romans 1:20 Richard A. Rhem Christ Community Church Spring Lake, Michigan August 13, 2000 Transcription of the spoken sermon We have been considering the significant criticism of religion that came to expression in the nineteenth century in order to understand it and to find fresh expression for the reality of the experience of God. It seems to me it is really not possible to find a fresh expression that will be adequate for the twenty-first century unless we have some understanding of the philosophical and theological discussions of the modern period, particularly those of the nineteenth century. What came to expression at that time was the realization that religion is a human construct. Of course, the faith communities fought that idea. They claimed that religion was a divine revelation, a largely ready-made religion that came from heaven. But the insight of the nineteenth century certainly is true—religion is a human construct. From all we know today about the origin, function, and nature of religion, all we know about historical development, it is quite foolish to deny that religion is a human construct. On the basis of this insight, the nineteenth-century German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach said that God was nothing but an illusion, a projection of human fears and hopes and aspirations. God, so to speak, was created in our own image. That assumption or declaration became the foundation for nineteenth-century thought. Religion—a human construct, yes. And based on that, God became a human projection. Now there was no one home in the universe; nobody out there, so to speak, no counterpart to that human projection and aspiration. While it would be very foolish for us to try to deny that religion is a human construct, once one has assented to that, it does not follow that no one is home. For understanding that religions are human constructs is understanding that religions are human responses to the Mystery that encounters us, that upholds us, that permeates reality and encounters us in our human existence. So although we won’t deny that our religion is a human construct, if we will continue to be religious, we will do it on the basis of our conviction that for better or worse, religion is an agency, a medium by which we come into communion with that © Grand Valley State University   �When God Dies… Richard A. Rhem Page 2   Ultimate Mystery of things, that infinite and inexhaustible ground of all being, that source, guide and goal of all that is. This, of course, is the issue as we look for fresh expression: to hear the significant criticism and then to find a way to say “God,” nonetheless. The nineteenth century came to its climax in the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, whose name conjures up nihilism—nothing means anything. Nihilism, or nothingness. There is no foundation, no meaning, no purpose. Just capricious, purposeless reality as it exists. Nietzsche died one hundred years ago this month, August 15, 1900. He is famously known for his claim, “God is dead,” to which he added, “We have killed him.” The last decade of Nietzsche’s life was one of misery and terror. He moved into insanity and died a pathetic and broken person. But Nietzsche had come out of the rich soil of Protestant Christian faith and experience. He was buried next to his Lutheran pastor father, and his mother’s father and grandfather likewise were Lutheran pastors. Yet in his work and study Nietzsche had come to the conclusion that the God of his tradition—the God of Western civilization—was dead, and this sensitive and brilliant thinker had the courage to draw the implications of the death of God. At this point it would be typical of pulpit rhetoric to say, “You see what happens when you deny God?” But that would be to miss the point altogether. For Nietzsche to conclude that God was dead was an anguishing understanding. Nietzsche wrote, “How much collapse [will follow], now that this faith has been undermined, because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it, for example, the whole of European morality.” Nietzsche looked at it all, opened his mind to every bit of knowledge and understanding available. Then he drew the conclusion that God, as God had been conceived, was dead, and he was horrified by the thought. Thomas Altizer, one of the leading death of God theologians in the 1960s, wrote about the contemporary situation, calling it “a new chaos, a new meaninglessness brought on by the disappearance of an absolute or transcendent ground, the very nihilism foreseen by Nietzsche as the next stage of history.” Altizer also wrote, “No honest contemporary seeker can ever lose sight of the very real possibility that the willing of the death of God is the way to madness and dehumanization.” A Jewish thinker, Richard Rubenstein, in his book After Auschwitz, said no one could believe in the traditional God of Judaism and Christianity after Auschwitz. He wrote of “the ambiguity, the irony, the hopelessness, and the inevitable meaninglessness of the time of the death of God. ... If I am a death of God theologian, it is with a cry of agony.” (p. 263) So what we have in these particular thinkers and in this particular development is a conclusion reached in the light of the critical rationality of the modern period, the kind of knowledge that all of us take for granted in the world in which we live, © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University �When God Dies… Richard A. Rhem Page 3   a world of scientific breakthrough, of technological advance, of historical understanding of human development, of the behavioral sciences, of sociology and anthropology—all of the knowledge available to us. These particular thinkers said God is dead. That is, the traditional God as conceived of in Western civilization and in Western Christendom does not exist. If you think about it for a moment, we have noted how, in the early dawn of humankind, religion was a part of that dawning human emergence. In paganism or in primitive forms, whatever you want to call it, humans became conscious of their vulnerability before the forces of the universe and created religious systems. In these systems they personified and deified the forces of nature, and then worshiped them, offering sacrifices and prayers in order to find security in this very insecure universe. So in large measure the origin of early religious expression had a great deal to do with securing human beings as they came to consciousness and realized the vulnerability of being human. With the development of the great monotheisms, one God as creator of all, governor of all, provident ruler of all—the omnipotent omniscient God—that particular God became the ground of morality. That God was Moses’ vision of God issuing the Ten Commandments. But all religion began in a founding experience with a certain understanding or teaching or dogma, developing ways of ritual and worship and a way of life or culture. If the God of any one of these religions dies, then on what authority does one base one’s morality? Nietzsche said, “God is dead, and now everything is permissible.” Not that he was advocating that, but he was saying the whole foundation is gone. Without that absolute transcendent ground, the whole European morality is gone. The human is free-floating, and that was a terrifying thought for Neitzsche. Indeed, it drove him mad. But he was one of those who, understanding what he saw, had the courage to draw the implication. There are not many in the human family who, seeing deeply and profoundly, have the courage to draw the implication when it leads to the abyss. Better that the people go blindfolded or in their naiveté than to tell the truth which could lead to chaos. The nineteenth century was a watershed, and those who would think deeply and clearly and ruthlessly must come to terms with the claims of modern knowledge. Perhaps one will not find God at the end of the scientific quest. But the religious experience must at least be conceived of in terms of our broadest understanding of reality. Otherwise, our head is in the sand, or we go through life blindfolded, or we go through life fearfully denying what is there on the horizon. Nietzsche said God is dead, and in the 1960s scholars said, “That’s where we are.” But nothing really came of it because there was such strong reaction; because it is such scary business. © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University �When God Dies… Richard A. Rhem Page 4   There have been responses on the part of the Christian community. For example, if you have experience with the Roman Catholic tradition, you know that it still tries to operate in an authoritarian manner, by fiat, by the teaching the Office of the Congregation for the Faith to convince the faithful of what is true and what is not true. But authoritarianism has been thrown off in the modern period and I cannot conceive of it finally ever gaining its foothold again. Then there is the global phenomenon of Pentecostalism that Harvey Cox has documented in his book Fire from Heaven. Everywhere on the globe there are people who are having the experience of God in an ecstatic experience. They are experiencing God apart from their rational faculties. They are experiencing God at the gut level, if you will, highly emotional and very satisfying temporarily. The thing about emotional fixes is that you have to have a fix again and again and again. This is not a criticism of those who find their mode of operation through that means. But certainly for us who want to engage our reasoning faculty as well, it is not enough. Pentecostalism is working, working its way in a world that became arid through the intellectualism and the skepticism of the nineteenth century. I suppose it arose in reaction to the claim that God is dead. But Pentecostalism will not work for some of us. Bless those for whom it works. There is also the reaction of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism would like to claim to be the old, old faith, but actually it is a relatively new faith. It is a reaction to modernity. It is a reaction to Feuerbach and Marx and Freud and Nietzsche. It is a reaction to the liberal Christian Church that tried to accommodate the insights of the nineteenth century into an understanding of the Christian faith. But Fundamentalism cannot long persist because it lives by assertion of that faith; it lives by saying it over and over and more loudly. But simply to affirm does not make it true. The Evangelism 2000 Conference recently ended in Amsterdam with some 10,000 evangelists from around the world gathered by Billy Graham as his last great effort. What came out of that conference again establishes Fundamentalism: Jesus Christ alone is the only savior of the world and all that goes with that exclusive claim. I do not believe it is where Billy Graham is personally, but there were ten percent of those ten thousand people who signed a document even more rigid than the conference statement itself. Well, if you were an evangelist, wouldn’t you like to have the only key to the truth, the only key to the salvation of the world? If there were other “keys,” suddenly yours could lose its power. I suppose such a conference, such a rally, would be the last place in the world where the implications of the interfaith dialogue would be expressed. Then we have the whole area of “Christian Science.” Isn’t it amazing that in the twenty-first century there is still controversy about evolution and Creationism? Isn’t it amazing that there are very intelligent people in our country who are © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University �When God Dies… Richard A. Rhem Page 5   giving all of their energy and all of their minds to the establishment and the buttressing of a literalistic view of an ancient book that was a marvelous mythological presentation of the creation of the world? It is very difficult for me to understand Creationism, and I do not believe that it can possibly prevail. But in our society today it is a living issue. I cannot comprehend that this whole effort can succeed in the long run, in the light of day before those who would be open to pursue the truth through the use of critical judgment. In the title I used a small “g” for God because it is not God who has died, but god who has died. The respective images of God that come to expression in the various religious understandings of the world no longer connect with our knowledge. Western Christian, Protestant faith in the God who is still the governor, creator, omnipotent, omniscient ruler of all—that God is the God about whom the death of God theologians speak. That is the God Nietzsche said was dead. But to say that a particular image or conception of God is dead is not to say that God is dead. It is to say nothing about that ultimate ground of being that emerges or surrounds or embraces us and comes to expression in the creativity of the Spirit in the midst of the cosmic flow of things. The God of traditional Protestant expression—that god is dead. I experienced the death of that god yesterday at the funeral of my sister. In my old home environment, the place from which I emerged, I was very much a stranger, very alien. The expression of piety in that funeral was far, far more emotional and sentimental than anything I had grown up with. Mine was a much sterner expression of Dutch mystical pietism. But there I was in my old home territory where my family still worships and I heard emotion in the musical expression, emotion in the “open mike” testimony and in the statements of the pastor, and I noted the frequent use of “we know, we know, we know.” I wanted to say, “You tell me so often how much we know because I suspect you are trying to convince yourself that it is true.” I had to admit that the god of my childhood is dead. That god will not serve for me. I do not begrudge anyone an expression of faith that is satisfying and comforting, but I know that the god they addressed is dead for me and that god will not bring fresh expression to the twenty-first century, to a world that is breaking open in the wonder and the mystery of it all. That god of my childhood died, but God has not died. I read Psalm 42 and I identify with that, don’t you? My soul longs for God, for the living God. When will I come and appear before God? O God, my soul is cast down. Why have You forgotten me? © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University �When God Dies… Richard A. Rhem Page 6   I long, I yearn for the experience of God. Hope Thou in God. I shall yet praise him, my God and my Lord. That expression touches me as deeply as it did the Psalmist. But it is a God conceived quite other than the Psalmist’s image I’m sure, which is as one would expect. It should be because of the tremendous explosion of knowledge, of reality, of the world of the human being, of social reality. Of course, the image is different. And when I use the old phrases or sing the old hymns, I can do it understanding it as poetry, as the imagery of a generation of faith that preceded me, that handed faith to me. But if I want to give fresh expression, I have to find new language and that is not easy to do. If I am not honest about that, if I cannot say that god is dead in the emotionalism, in the grieving and all of that which came to expression in a service that was a marvelous testimony to my sister, my own spiritual life will wither. It was a language I can no longer use and I must say, then, that god is dead. But only a small “g” god is dead. God continues to be the mystery toward which my soul longs, longing still for living waters. When god dies, if it is the god of the small “g,” there is no need to panic. Trust. Wait. Nietzsche said, “I live between two ages, one that is dead and one powerless to be born.” We haven’t moved very far. We’re still between. Most of us are not ready to give up the old. For some of us who have had to do that, the new is not at all clear. Yet if I trust God, I can wait in hope, in the darkness, with the longing of my life reaching toward the mystery that is beyond us and beneath us and permeating the one reality into which our lives are woven. That is our quest. References: Rubenstein, Richard L. After Auschwitz. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill, 1966. See a discussion of Nietzsche in Richard Elliott Friedman’s The Hidden Face of God. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1995. © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Pentecost X Series Religion: Significant Critique and Fresh Expression Scripture Text Psalm 42:2, Romans 1:20 Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI References Richard Elliott Friedman. The Hidden Face of God, 1995. (For a discussion of Nietzche). Richard L. Rubenstein. After Auschwitz, 1966. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-20000813 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000-08-13 Title A name given to the resource When god dies... Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 application/pdf Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on August 13, 2000 entitled "When god dies...", as part of the series "Religion: Significant Critique and Fresh Expression", on the occasion of Pentecost X, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Psalm 42:2, Romans 1:20. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives Divine Mystery Religion as a Human Construct https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/9073add7a8137211f80237522884aa26.mp3 57aed479e1ff50d7aad2361b2159fd34 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/55610773190b4889fd30ac3be3a70103.pdf 7e3ba49d87605e6082114930d46cdc15 PDF Text Text Religion Made On Earth From the series: Religion: Significant Critique and Fresh Expression Text: Isaiah 44:18; Acts 17:27-28 Richard A. Rhem Christ Community Church Spring Lake, Michigan July 23, 2000 Transcription of the spoken sermon Today and for a few weeks to follow I want to speak to you about religion in order that we might understand more clearly that in which we are engaged as a worshiping community. I want us to consider the nature of this phenomenon of religion which for us is still important and informs us not only in our worship, but also in our way of life. For many people, perhaps, religion is less important, and they have fallen away. And yet, back over the eons of time religion has been endemic to the human situation. As long as there have been those whom we would denominate human, we find traces of religion. The practice of religion is really the attempt of the creature to come into relationship with the Ultimate Reality. Call that Ultimate Reality what you will— God, the mystery, the sacred, the holy. Think of it in terms that are personal or think of it in terms of some life force, whatever that may be, and that Ultimate Mystery has been thought of in all those ways. As a matter of fact, human beings try to figure out what in the world is going on, who we are, where we have come from, and what will be the issue of our being here. Is there any meaning to the practice of religion? Is there any purpose? Is that meaning or purpose intrinsic in the process of itself, or is meaning something we bring to the process and create in the midst of it? All of those options are open. But I believe to be human is to be religious, because to be human is to live in the presence of a Mystery. We didn’t create ourselves. We are here by a grace or a fate, and we live and move and have our being. We live before a Mystery that is beyond us, that cannot be fully grasped but has been experienced— according to the testimony of people down through the ages who have encountered it in some concrete way. That Ultimate Reality breaks through, or bubbles up. In any case, to be human is to come at some point to recognize that life has an ultimate ground and source and to wonder about it. The religions of the world are human phenomena that are the consequences of someone’s experience, the © Grand Valley State University   �Religion Made On Earth Richard A. Rhem Page 2   results of which gathered a community or cult that developed a way of worship, liturgy, prayers, hymns, sacraments, and rituals of various kinds. The community, the cult, called those who followed that way to a way of life, an ethics, a morality. Religion is a human phenomenon, and what I want to say this morning in this first message is very simple, but if you really hear me, it’s very radical. You won’t hear it often in church, but I believe that it is simple and it is true: religion is made on earth; it is a human construct. Religion didn’t fall ready-made from heaven. There is no absolute religion with God’s stamp on it as over against all of the other religions practiced by the diversity of humankind. All religion is made on earth and is a human construct. If you could buy that, I wouldn’t have to preach anymore. We would recognize together that what we have is a story, a way of devotion and a way of life which is the consequence of long history. It is the consequence of some who had an encounter with that Mystery, told their story and created what has become for us the Christian tradition, flowing out of the Jewish tradition, and of course, the biblical tradition. One might ask, “Well, isn’t it true?” Is a sunset true? Is a poem true? Of course, it’s true. It is true in the sense that it puts us in communion with God. It satisfies the hunger of our heart. It elicits from us what is noble and best. It gives us a reason for being. It gives us a hope. It enables us to go on to tomorrow. Of course, it’s true. But religion is not true in the sense that a chemical formula is true, not in the sense that the hard stuff of the natural sciences is true. It is not empirical and verifiable. Religion is a judgment call. Religion is a choice. Religion is a response to a story. It is engagement in worship and community; it is the following of a way of life. Religion can be good or less good, but not true or false in a sense in which we deal with true and false in a world marked by the scientific method, empirical investigation. No, religion is a human construct and all of them alike are made on earth. Now if you can receive that, you will have learned a very radical and very important truth this morning. Oh, I suppose you know it and have known it for a long time, or you probably wouldn’t be hanging around here. But nonetheless, I want to underscore it as we begin a series of contemplating the nature and the function and the practice of religion. In the dawning of human consciousness there were those ultimate questions, the questions which arise because we are human, self-conscious and conscious of the other. The great religious traditions of the world are the consequence of communities gathering around a visionary experience, a founding story. © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University �Religion Made On Earth Richard A. Rhem Page 3   The problem was, and still is, that there is also something intrinsic in our human nature that wants to take that which is valuable and good and helpful and absolutize it. We want to make it the exclusive way, the exclusive truth. We want to assert dogmatically that the visionary experience we have had, our insight, our intuitive grasp of things is the only way, is the only possible understanding, is the only door to eternal life. Monotheism, the idea of one God, was a step forward. To say God by definition is to say that Ultimate Mystery, that ultimate source of things. Finally there could be God and none other. There’s no problem with that. That was an insightful move. The problem is when, as a monotheist who affirms with some understanding that God can only be one, I claim that one is the God of my particular religious vision, rather than recognizing that my image is a groping after the Ultimate Mystery that lies beyond every concrete God image. In Babylon the Jews were in exile and they were losing their grip, and so the prophet, trying to get them to hang on to their God of Israel, writes this taunting, mocking piece in Isaiah 44. It is full of satire. “Look how stupid is this idol worship of the Babylonians. Craftsman takes a tree, cuts it in half, with half the tree he builds a fire, warms himself. He cooks his meal. And from the other half he shapes an image. And then he bows down and worships the image. How stupid can you be?” says the prophet. Not a very nice attitude. Did you catch that? How stupid can you be? The same tree: part of it for a campfire to cook over and to warm him, and the other part of it for an idol, a block of wood shaped and formed, bowed down before. How stupid! Oh, really? If the prophet had been honest and fair, he would have known. I suspect he did know some of the liturgy of the Babylonian cult. They weren’t stupid. They were fully aware that a block of wood shaped into an image was a mediator of the mystery. There are prayers in the Babylonian liturgy that plead for the God of heaven to come down and indwell this image so that God might have a concrete existence in the midst of the people. Hmm. Sounds like the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Maybe they knew what John knew when he said, “No one has ever seen God, but the only Son has made God clear, or revealed God.” The prophet was using satire and ridicule because he had this little rag tag band of exiles, and he was trying to hold them together for Yahweh God. It was harmless. That only becomes dangerous when a group manifests that kind of attitude and spirit and then gets power. If you have power to enforce your monotheism and your exclusive claim, you can become a very dangerous person. Someone once wrote that history is bound to be bloody when it’s made by people © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University �Religion Made On Earth Richard A. Rhem Page 4   who barely understand themselves, yet declare that they understand God perfectly. Then they meet other people who think the same, only differently. And then you have the violence and the hostility and the bitterness that fuels so much of the unrest in the human family. This has always been the case and remains so in our day. Religion is a human construct. That doesn’t mean that it is not the mediator of revelation and saving grace. We believe that Moses was encountered by the living God, but the only way that could come to be a religious movement was through human language, human articulation, human formulation, human cult, liturgy, prayer, ritual, commandments, and a way of life. Every religion has those aspects. Every religion has a story, an experience, an encounter, a vision which issues in a mode of worship and in a way of life. But you see, if I would claim that my Christian faith or my Jewish-Christian, biblical tradition is true and true alone and the only truth, I would also be saying that Mohammed was just blowing smoke, that what happened to Moses couldn’t happen to anyone else, that the Buddha in his moment of enlightenment was not dealing with any ultimate truth breakthrough, that all of the founding stories of the great religious traditions were false, and mine is true. Well, we have dealt with that often enough here, but I am still struck with its ignorance and its arrogance. Every religion is made on earth. It doesn’t fall out of heaven. If it is a good religion, it puts earthlings in touch with heaven. If it’s a good religion, it mediates between humans and that Mystery whom no one has ever seen, nor can we know, apart from a gracious unveiling here and there, now and again. But religion is a human business. Religions are not all the same. Some are better than others in terms of the grace they mediate, in terms of the fruit that follows from the observance, and that can be discussed. As a matter of fact, what cannot be denied is that all of us humans who are religious are engaged in a structure of story, worship, and life which is a human construct. So then, how do you judge religion? Well, let me suggest a few things. Good religion opens the mind. It’s easy enough to say, but also indicative of the fact that there has been an awful lot of bad religion, because most religion has not been about opening the mind, but about closing it. It has been about the statement of an absolute deposit of faith beyond which one ought not to think. In other words, it has been about the creation of a box within which one can think all one wants to as long as one doesn’t get out of the box. © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University �Religion Made On Earth Richard A. Rhem Page 5   But good religion will open the mind. Good religion will open us to the reality of this world. It will give us access to all of the sciences and the explosion of knowledge which is so amazing in our day—amazing breakthroughs in biology, for example, that deal with the human being; the Genome project, the DNA mapping, that kind of thing. We don’t need to be threatened by that. A good religion will say to us, “Go for it! Understand it. Be fascinated by it, and profit from it.” Good religion opens the mind. Good religion will help us to understand our own religion, and to understand the historical conditions of every religion. We’ll begin to see how other religions arose, how they developed, and why they are what they are. Without a kind of absolutism that says mine is true and all the rest are false, I’ll come to Isaiah 44 and say, “Prophet, I understand what you were doing in that context, but I don’t like your attitude. And you were not fair to Babylonian religion.” It will enable me to say to Paul, who comes to Athens and sees all the temples and all the statues and becomes frustrated and disturbed, that the Athenians were simply seeking the same ultimate Mystery he encountered. He was disturbed because he had this amazing vision. He was gripped by a vision. He believed that all of this imagery and all of these gods and goddesses represented in the city of Athens simply didn’t measure up to that which had gripped him and grasped him. He wanted to tell the whole world about the God of Israel who had become incarnate, not in a block of wood, but in a human face. And it is natural, good and right that he should have shared his vision, as long as he didn’t do as the prophet did and denigrate those who were groping after the Mystery. After all, that is what human religion is—groping after the Mystery. Good religion will help us to understand that. Good religion will give us a sense of why things are the way they are. For example, in our house right now, the aroma is marvelous. There’s a pork loin roasting. The clan is coming over. But we didn’t invite our Jewish friends. Because of the dietary laws, I wouldn’t invite my Jewish friends over for a pork loin. Now why did the Jews have a restriction against pork, or any of the dietary laws? They had a hygienic basis. I suppose they thought pigs were full of trichinosis, and they probably were, and it wasn’t healthy. It became a religious thing, but it had a very practical base. Now you tell a pig farmer today that his pork is not the “other white meat” and he will be offended, because those pigs live in palaces now. Well, then, the dietary law is not necessary anymore, is it? Not really. But is it okay still not to eat pork? Of course, it’s okay. But you’re not dealing with something that is part of the ultimate structure of reality. It is a choice. A Jewish person might say, “I belong to a Jewish community and we have dietary laws, so that when I eat, I am reminded of God. When I eat, the very way I eat, the things I © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University �Religion Made On Earth Richard A. Rhem Page 6   eat, the things I don’t eat remind me that I am a child of God, the God of Israel is my God.” And that’s good. Or maybe there is something we can identify with a little more: the Sabbath, the Jewish Sabbath. What a wonderful institution! I commend it to you. I commend it to myself, for whom every weekend is shot to heaven. But I heard on the news last night that at Camp David yesterday the conversation between Barak and Arafat was casual. Why? Because it was the Sabbath. Now who knows what they really did in the bushes, but for the face of the world, the Sabbath was observed. Is that good? Sure, it is good. Does it reflect something in the ultimate structure of things? No. The problem is, if everybody was as observant as the Jew and an American Christian who is trying to get an Arab and a Jew together, you’d have the Arab Sabbath on Friday and the Christian Sabbath on Sunday. So you’d have Friday, Saturday and Sunday just written right off and you couldn’t get anything done. On the other hand, if three days were spent by our world leaders in the contemplation of Creation and God, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday might be more profitable. But is it something that is in the ultimate structure of things? No. Is it a fruitful, helpful choice? Absolutely. It is good for all of us to observe Sabbath, not because that is the way reality is, but because that reality constructed by us is a very good way to be. Good religion will help me to understand those things, so that I know that a lot of the things I do are arbitrary. They are judgment calls on my part, and the thing I have to be satisfied with is whether or not it is a means by which I am in communion with, I am in touch with, that Ultimate Mystery. Is it a way that is fruitful in my life? If it is good for me, does it have to be good for you? If something else is good for you, do I have to deny that the something else can be a means of grace for you? No, not at all, because religion is made on earth and it is a human construct. The point is that religion be faithful and fruitful in mediating to us that Ultimate Mystery that embraces us and undergirds us and overshadows us and gives us life as a gift and hope for the future. And then, good religion will lead to compassion. I am reading Karen Armstrong’s Battle for God. Incidentally, I talked to her in London last week and she is going to come here in October of 2001. She stresses again, as she stressed in her History of God, how all the great religious traditions call for compassion. Good religion will warm the heart. It will open the mind and it will warm the heart, and it will result in a compassionate people. A lot of good religion has a pretty bad track record, and we still haven’t been able to master that one. Did you see the ABC Evening News at 6:30 last night? I perked up my ears when they said there was a religious problem somewhere in the country. Well, it happened to be in a suburb of Chicago, Palos Heights. On the news screen was © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University �Religion Made On Earth Richard A. Rhem Page 7   the story of a Muslim community that has outgrown their facility and they were going to buy a church building which was for sale in Palos Heights. Then the Palos Heights Reformed Church appeared on the screen. (I spoke there a few years ago, but they haven’t asked me back lately.) The Muslim congregation was going to buy that building until there was an uproar in this suburb of Chicago that is filled with many, many Christian people. And so the City Council offered the Muslim community $200,000 to just walk away, and they were going to do it until, bless his heart, the mayor said to his council, “Number 1, you say you’re going to use that for a recreational facility. A year ago you turned it down because it wasn’t large enough. Number 2, we don’t have $200,000 just to pay out. And number 3, the reason you’re doing it is wrong.” That’s right down the lake, folks. It’s not just a religious thing, it’s a human thing. It’s the fear of the other; it’s the threat of that which is different. Good religion will break through to us where we say it cannot be. The world cannot continue in all of the intricacy of the human community to live with that kind of paranoia, that kind of divisiveness, that kind of fear of diversity. Good religion will result in compassion, or it’s not worth anything it claims to be. Good religion will elevate the aesthetic tastes, because there was a day when the Church was the womb of the arts, of magnificent architecture, the beautiful paintings, the lovely music that moves the soul—all of that comes out of the spiritual center that is elevated by the encounter with God. I look around today and see such a terrible loss of the aesthetic sense and the deterioration of religion. Friends, to be ultimately committed to one’s faith and vision does not necessitate the claim that it fell out of heaven. To be totally committed and deeply nurtured in one’s faith vision does not necessitate the denial that it is a human construct flowing out of the human experience of God, winning its way through liturgy, prayers, and an effective way of being human. But to acknowledge that religion is made on earth is to be able to join hands and hearts and arms with all God’s children, for good religion will understand itself and feel compassion for the other. © 2013 Kaufman Interfaith Institute and Grand Valley State University � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Pentecost VII Series Religion: Significant Critique and Fresh Expression Scripture Text Isaiah 44:18, Acts 17:27-28 Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-20000723 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000-07-23 Title A name given to the resource Religion Made On Earth Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 application/pdf Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on July 23, 2000 entitled "Religion Made On Earth", as part of the series "Religion: Significant Critique and Fresh Expression", on the occasion of Pentecost VII, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Isaiah 44:18, Acts 17:27-28. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives Compassion Pluralism Religion as a Human Construct