For Reflection

As we move into Sunday, the Washington Post had this article on Anne Graham Lotz, Billy Graham's daughter. This section caught my eye:

Lotz, 61, has been staying busy as an evangelist and author in her own right. Her new book focuses on the biblical story of Abraham. She said Abraham, considered the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, did not have a religion but a relationship with God.

"Religion is, I think, one of the biggest hindrances to finding God," Lotz said. "God described Abraham as a friend. . . . I want to know God in a relationship that one day he will describe as a friendship. God loves you and wants to know you. He's calling you to a personal relationship."

Christians too often feel their faith is fulfilled when they are saved and attend church, Lotz said. "That's such a shallow understanding," she said. A relationship can begin at church, she said, but it can't end there. "Being a Christian is a personal relationship with God, a thriving relationship, based on communication."

The problem, she said, is that too many people are "too reliant" on the church and that too many Christians "have fallen into a convenient pattern of allowing their church experience to be their sum total of experiencing God."

Growing up in the Graham house, Lotz said, she learned to keep Sunday as a day set apart. But people shouldn't rely on a kind of Sundays-only spirituality, she said. "If something happened and you could no longer go to church, if you were homebound and lost your friends at church, how strong would your relationship with God be?"

What do you think? Do you agree that religion one of the biggest hindrances to finding God? If so, what does that statement mean? Do you think attending church has become a convenient pattern for people? If so, what does that statement mean?

I know it has become en vogue to criticize churches and religion as somehow being the culprits in people's lack of spiritual experience. Yet, we must admit that anything can become a hindrance to deeper spiritual experiences. I would still say, however, that gathering as a family of faith can indeed be an important time in one's spirtual experience.

Divine Constitution, Part II

I hope you have read the comments posted to the original "Divine Constitution?". Those reactions should generate some more thinking about the assertion of the Constitution as something given to us by God.

I wondered then whether Glenn Beck promoted such an idea. It is very possible that he does. Salon.com posted a piece about Cleon Skousen whose writings and ideas seem to be a major influence on Mr. Beck, by his own admission. That article can be located at: www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/.

In response to that last "Anonymous" comment on that previous post that I received, I would say this:

First, I stand by my comment that the words from the sign I mentioned were more in keeping with typical descriptions of Holy Scripture made by faithful believers than with someone who merely thinks the original writers may have been influenced by God. It suggests a level of divine truth that is meant to be seen as inerrant with every word given expressly by God - again, think of Holy Scripture - and that goes beyond mere human words.

Second, I have not read that any of the writers of the Constitution meant it to be more - or less - than a "Godless 'charter of negative liberties'". I know many people read their own views back into historic documents and those views may or may not be accurate.

Third, my reference to the 9 principles and the 12 values was only to set the stage for the sign. As I indicated, I have not paid any attention to the 9/12 project before, since I am not a devoted follower of Mr. Beck. I did find out, as I looked briefly at the website, that the project purports to be a call for all citizens to return to the sense of unity experienced in the country in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11. Yet, in Utah at least, as the SLC Tribune reported, the rally was very much a partisan political event with the speakers calling for a return of the Republican Party to national leadership.

Divine Constitution?

Last weekend, SLC saw a 9/12 rally. For those of you who are like me and are not Glenn Beck fans, it would be instructive to search for the 9/12 project and read the 9 principles and 12 values that Beck says ought to define America.

The SLC Tribune ran a story about the rally with a picture. It is the picture that caught my eye. In it, there is a sign. While the wording on the sign is not all visible, the last phrase is. It reads:

We the People declare that We will Never
Yield to those who would place us in
bondage. We will live for the Constitution
and we will die for the Constitution, for we
know that it was inspired of God for all of his
Children.

Now, I am as ardent a supporter of the Constitution as any - though I come to different conclusions from the "patriots" on the airwaves about what the different phrases mean - and I marvel at the genius of those who produced it, but I question using that kind of language to describe the Constitution.

Asserting its divine inspiration places the US Constitution on par with holy scripture. It suggests that the Constitution should be considered inerrant. Implicit in such claims is that there is one and only one true way to read and understand the words.

Do we really want to make such claims? Is our country better served if we do?

I wonder whether those patriots who gathered at the state capitol in SLC believe that the original manuscript of the Constitution that relegated women and slaves to second or third class status was the way God intended it to be? I wonder if those patriots who gathered think that the amendments to the Constitution, with the exception of the "right to bear arms" of course, should be eliminated, since they were not part of the original "inspired by God" words? I wonder if this is what Glenn Beck is preaching to his faithful ones?