Christian Piatt Blog

Spiritual, not religious: Your own personal Jesus

Brian, the pastor of a new church in Plano, Texas, works evenings at a coffee shop to make ends meet. His wife stays at home with their children, and their church is not to the point that it can support a full-time pastor.

As coffee shops grow in their social importance, pastors like Brian are realizing the value of spending time there. Some ministers have started book groups, knitting circles and even one-on-one counseling sessions at the corner coffee shop. Starbucks has become an extension of twenty-first century ministry.

As Brian prepared a drink for a young customer, they got into a discussion about occupations. He mentioned that he was the pastor of a church, to which she replied that she was spiritual, but not religious.

“Hey,” proclaimed Brian with a smile, “I’ve read a lot about you!”

In his book, Spiritual, but not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America, Robert C. Fuller says that one-fifth of the American population identifies themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” Approximately one in two Americans who do not attend a church identifies themselves in this way.

This means there are sixty million people in this country who feel some affiliation with a higher power, yet who are not connected to a religious organization. This is enough to make any pastor’s mouth water. The issues with reaching these folks in a meaningful way, however, are complex.

Prior to the 20^th century, says Fuller, the two terms “religious” and “spiritual” were used almost synonymously. This was partly because people considered spiritual life to be a public, shared experience. Since then, spiritual experience – along with many other experiences – has become increasingly private. While churches historically have been built to accommodate a corporate worship experience, the values of the culture around it have moved away from the model we still use.

Another big issue is a negative perception of church. From emotional, physical or sexual abuse to a more vague sense of alienation, people have been hurt by church. There is accountability for both parties in this case. Many churches still are reticent to engage people about the pain they’ve experienced in church, and chances are the last place people want to do this is at a church.

However, negative past experience isn’t an excuse to give up on organized religion. I have been hurt by church too, but I’ve also been hurt by family, friends and pretty much any other group of which I’ve been a part. Generally, we don’t walk away from these, so why should church be any different? Walking away not only means that the person who was hurt loses the chance to find healing from the source of their pain, but it also allows the harmful dynamics within the church to continue.

Finally, research shows that most people who identify themselves as spiritual but not religious don’t see the church as the only means – or even the best means – for spiritual growth. The perception is that we’re not doing our job in offering a large contingency of the public what they feel they need to be spiritually enriched.

We need to ask ourselves whether making connections with people is more important than our church membership. If we could meet weekly with a group of people at the coffee shop, but who would never attend our church, would we invest the time?

Those who solely measure success by worship attendance and giving totals will continue to struggle to reach this group of sixty million. Ministry to this group may not pay the bills, but it’s as important as any work we do within our institutional walls.

Intelligent design: Making a mockery of science

By Christian Piatt

(This column originally appeared in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper)

I listened to a sermon series on intelligent design recently. The minister went through the many sophisticated organs, cells and systems within the human body, and after each example, he pulled out a coin. He went from cellular mitochondria to the visual cortex, pointing out each time how unlikely this system was to occur by accident. Each point was punctuated by another coin.

Many systems within the body are built upon preceding ones, and conditions had to be just right for us to become what we are, he pointed out. By the end, he had fifteen coins laid out on the lectern. The odds of flipping those fifteen coins and having them all land heads-up was about one in thirty-three thousand. How much more unlikely, then, are we to be here?

That depends. If you believe in infinite time and space, then you have to accept the concept of infinite probability. Given time and space without boundary, it’s reasonable to expect that everything that can happen ultimately will. This would include earth, humans, and other forms of intelligent life.

At this point, we can’t say how big or old the universe is, any more than we can claim whether or not this is the only universe there is.  For all we know, there are millions of other universes that existed before ours, or maybe they even exist in parallel to ours right now. If time has a beginning and an end, or that there are limits to the boundaries of the universe, our existence becomes less likely the product of random chance.

Asking ‘What are the odds?’ alone doesn’t really bother me, although I think it’s a weak argument for the existence of a Creator. But this same argument is the cornerstone of many proponents of teaching intelligent design in our schools, as an alternative to evolution.

There’s one big difference between evolution and intelligent design: the former is science and the latter isn’t. For an idea to be part of the scientific body of thought, you first have to develop a hypothesis and test it using scientifically recognized processes. If your findings support your initial hypothesis, you share your findings with the rest of the scientific community and allow them to try to replicate your results.

Over time, if your hypothesis continues to be supported, it becomes a theory. If evidence arises later that challenges the theory, it’s either changed or discarded. There’s no such thing as a scientific absolute. We only have theories waiting to be disproved.

Some may cry foul, claiming that intelligent design can’t be tested like this. After all, if we can’t prove the existence of God, how can we prove that any of the resultant byproducts are of God’s hands?

That’s why intelligent design isn’t science.

Although I believe personally that God created the universe, I don’t confuse my beliefs with the human-conceived scientific system. There are places in school for discussions such as these, including philosophy and comparative religion classes. I also think each family can impart their beliefs to their children, both at home and at church. But to cloud our understanding of what science is, promoting a religious agenda under the thin veil of scholarship, threatens to contaminate both science and faith.

Some scientists are guilty of making a religion of science. They confuse theory with fact and proclaim the human intellect as the prevailing standard by which all things must solely be measured.

Aristotle, the father of modern science, wisely recognized the limits of science and logic. Thomas Aquinas later claimed that this point where logic breaks down is where faith helps complete the picture.

The difference is that both Aristotle and Aquinas knew not to confuse faith and logic, and both understood the limits of each. The current creation-versus-evolution debate suggests that we haven’t evolved toward a greater truth in the meantime.

(Christian Piatt’s new book, “Lost: A Search for Meaning,” is available for pre-order at most online bookstores now.)

School shootings: We ask why, but need peace

By Christian Piatt

 (Originally printed in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper)

On Monday, Charles Carl Roberts entered a peaceful one-room Amish schoolhouse with the intention of slaughtering all of its young female occupants, as well as himself. As of Monday afternoon, four children, a young teaching assistant and the attacker all were dead, with five more still in critical condition.

In a call to his wife, and in notes he scribbled out prior to the attack, Roberts evidently was acting on some two-decade-old grudge, seeking revenge for some injustice he suffered some time back. Reports reveal that Roberts may have had a history of sexually abusing children.

Roberts was not Amish, and seems to have no particular connection with the community or the school he attacked. It is thought that his choice of targets was based more upon convenience.

This is the third attack in a school setting in a little more than week, and the whole string of incidents smacks of the Columbine shooting, which occurred in Denver several years ago. My wife, Amy, was a youth minister in Denver at the time, and one of her girls was a friend of the shooters. She spent weeks counseling the girl, her family, and others who were less directly affected, yet impacted nonetheless.

The first question that most people begin with has something to do with why such a senseless, violent event has to take place. How does the human mind end up accommodating such diabolical notions? How divorced from one’s divine spirit must one become to even consider the murder of children? How does someone so young, with so much ahead of them, determine that their time on earth is complete, to be cut short by their own hand?

I’ve found that there are no satisfactory answers in cases such as these, and I’d go so far as to suggest we’re not really seeking answers. What we want is to reclaim a sense of peace. Such things cannot ever be understood, any more than an act of so-called “justice” could satisfy the survivors. No matter what, we’re left with pain, confusion, anger, despair, and in some cases, abject hatred.

So how do we go about rediscovering a sense of peace amid so much suffering and bloodshed?  After all, it’s not a natural part of the human condition. Those who ascribe to the “everything happens for a reason” mindset have a particularly difficult time with such tragedies, as they must reconcile what they believe about God’s plan with such horrendous human-made consequences.

The only way we find peace is to try to transcend the very humanity of the experience. At the essence of life is suffering, and if that is all we lay claim to, it’s all we’re left with. But in acknowledging that we not only don’t understand life sometimes, but that we also cannot control it, we are relieved of the curse of why’s and how’s that get us nowhere closer to the peace we desire.

Ironically, this transcendence, for many, is found in a community of faith. For the Amish, the very bonds that hold them together are the same ones that marry them to their faith. The two are inseparable. Yet even when this peace-loving and peace-living community is encroached upon by the violence of the outside world, you hear no cries for retribution. You don’t even hear complaints of the unfairness of life. What we witness is a community that comes even closer together to support one another, to remember and begin the slow healing process.

No one can make sense of these recent events. We may never completely understand Roberts’ motivations, and even if we did, we would still live with the stain of his murdering binge. However, the prayerful, peaceful response of those who suffered the most – as unnatural as it may seem – makes all the sense in the world.

Church and sex don’t mix, but they should

I was the music minister at a small church in Texas for a few years before coming to Colorado.

My wife, Amy, worked with the youth group, which varied in size from two to six kids at any given time. There was one 16-year-old girl who was mature beyond her years. She was intelligent, had plans for college and was a natural leader.

Then she got pregnant.

After conferring with her mother – a single mom raising both her and her twin sister – she opted to keep the baby, who was eventually adopted by a couple within the church. The child found a loving home, a couple’s dream for a family was fulfilled, and the young woman was able to continue with many of her future plans.

Although this was a best-case scenario given the circumstances, even this situation was emotionally, physically and financially traumatic. Unfortunately, most consequences of teen sex are not as easy.

Per capita, teens in the United States are twice as likely to become pregnant as their peers in Canada and Great Britain, and they are four times as likely as those in France and Sweden. Almost 50 percent of American high-school students report having sex, and one in seven report having four or more partners before they reach graduation. Eighty percent of first sexual encounters involve drugs or alcohol, and 60 percent of sexually transmitted diseases and two in three unwanted pregnancies occur when one or both partners are intoxicated.

These are only the tip of the statistical iceberg, but it’s enough to demonstrate that anyone willing to ignore the reality of teen sex and its consequences are doing so willfully. So who’s to blame for the lack of adequate information our teenage (or younger) children possess about sex?

Most churches are reticent to openly discuss sexuality at all, let alone with their youths. For many, the church’s stance on sex is that all parts under the belt are dirty, not to be used for any pleasurable activities until marriage, and all indiscretions – and even thoughts – should elicit shame. End of lesson.

Many parents depend on schools to teach kids what they need to know, yet they rarely take the time to review the curriculum or qualifications of the person teaching the class. Meanwhile, most schools offer only a superficial biological survey of sexuality at best, with little practical discussion about the emotional, social and hormonal pressures that a newly sexualized teen faces.

Biblically, shame is historically interwoven with sex too. From the chastisement of Adam and Eve to Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of the hemorrhaging woman, there are plenty of examples to draw from to impart indignity upon sex. If we want to assert that not only the act of sex is dirty, but also the parts of our bodies and feelings associated with sexuality, we can use the Bible to back us up.

Meanwhile, our children continue to engage in activities they hardly understand, and which we are hardly prepared to discuss with them until it’s too late.

We, as God’s creatures, are entirely made in God’s image, genitals and all. We are created to be drawn together sexually, to share intimately with one another, and, in most cases, to multiply.

Sexuality, and even the act of sex, is not a dirty thing. It’s the abuse of this power that causes damage for those both directly and indirectly involved.

There is a nonprofit called CLER Ministries that is committed to sexuality training for clergy and laity and the children they serve. It offers weeklong camps for eighth-grade kids, workshops at churches, and it works from the premise that it is a central mission of all of the nation’s churches to engage young people about their sexuality.

Some will disagree that church is an acceptable place to talk openly about sex.

If not in church, where? If not now, when?

Christian Piatt is a nonprofit consultant, freelance writer and music minister at Milagro Christian Church. He can be reached at cpiatt@milagrocc.org .