Is online dating affecting the church?

In the view of one of the contributors to the story, online dating is a bit of a game changer in the way we approach relationships. The contributor expresses that it used to be relationships focused on compatibility then attributes. However, online dating has put the focus in relationships on attributes then compatibility. 

How does this affect religion? I don’t know but here is a thought: A person now will church shop for just the right set of attributes they are looking for (children’s ministry, good preaching, small groups, youth program, etc.) then if these attributes are attractive then the person will look to invest in a relationship with the church. This is not an evil but it does put the desires of the individual seeker as primary to the needs of a community.

This approach also gives us all an easy out for committing to a relationship with a church community. If the attributes are not all lined up then the person can disengage with the church with little question. If the person does not like the attribute of the preacher then the person can leave. If the person has a problem with the attribute of their small group then there is no reason for the person to stay engaged in the group to try reconcile. The person can just leave the group and disengage.

This approach also gives the church a marketing strategy. We advertise our attributes. Worship times. Pictures of young people in the pews. Egg hunts. Sermon series. We can create a profile of our churches which others can look at our attributes.

But, like all profiles, there are just some things that you cannot see on a profile. And it seems to me that the things that cannot be seen on a profile are the things that really matter. A church profile can tell me attributes of different programs but it cannot tell me if the people of the church are on the way of Christ. It cannot tell me if there is a deep sense of wonder and trust in the community. It cannot tell me if church talks about God or talks to or talks with God.

It seems to me that it is the things that I cannot see on a profile are the things that really matter to me. This is why Jesus’ call to the disciples are different. Jesus just says, follow me. The disciples don’t ask about the different attributes of Jesus then, after liking what they see, then decide to follow Jesus. Rather they are able to see themselves with Jesus and then over the years learn about the attributes of Jesus.

The call of Jesus is not come and see me, but come and follow. And so should the Church’s.

Aristotle, Plato, Communion and the Internet

A few posts ago there was a mention of our time’s preference to the Aristotelian ideal over the Platonic ideal. That is a fancy way of saying that we put the emphasis on the material (what we can see and measure) over the transcendent. Recently the UMC is engaged in a conversation about the viability of online communion. Online communion is the idea that an elder can invite someone at their home who is participating in worship via online/television to grab some bread and juice and take communion at their home.  

Needless to say people weighing in on the validity of the sacrament via the internet. I wonder if our resistance to online communion is rooted in the idea that what is real is what is material. "Real" community is those who are in the same physical space breathing the same physical air. "Real" community is that gathering of people that can be touched, counted, measured and seen. Could it be that our understanding of community is influenced more by Aristotle's teaching of what is "real"?

In a conversation with my friend Kyle he mentioned that the online communion conversation sounds something like reverse Gnosticism. Whereas Gnosticism elevated the Spirit over the material today we elevate the material over the Spirit. 

Elevating the Material or the Spirit over the other is neither helpful nor loving. 

If the Body of Christ is mystical, if we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, if we are all tied together in the single garment of destiny, then can we really say the sacraments are only valid in the material or the Spirit? 

Truthiness and Christianity

While on a retreat I was reminded of the 2006 Merriam-Webster's word of the year - Truthiness.

Truthiness may not be a word everyone is aware of, but if you are a Colbert Report fan, then you are well aware of the definition of "truthiness". The best definition I have heard came from Loyd Allen who defined it this way: "the preference for facts we wish to be true over the facts that are known to be true." 

During a time in the retreat I was on, the question came, "if you believe in God, then turn to you neighbor and tell them why you believe in God." 

I heard in my group a series of people say that they believe in God because humans cannot make trees or the sun so there must be a God. I hear other people say that they believe in God because it holds their beliefs together - to remove God from the structure would result in a collapsed worldview. Others tried to express they believe in God because of some evidence that points them in that direction. 

I get it. It is difficult to express why we believe in God. However most of the conversation that I hear about why people believe in God (or much of anything for that matter) comes back down to our preference to truthiness than Truth. 

And so, I want to offer up a reminder that Christianity is not a religion that primarily seeks Truth. Christianity is a religion that primarily seeks Love.

I am not afraid of truthiness because we all - atheist and deist alike - have a preference for the facts we wish to be true over the facts that are known to be true. I try not to waste my time in changing other people's minds. I will spend my time changing people's hearts. 

This is the change I wish to see.