Hubbard and Jesus

At our library-ette Saturday morning, I happened to see a DVD about Scientology, the religious philosophy masterminded by L. Ron Hubbard.  Since our hamlet is tiny and is not particularly religiously cutting-edge, I assumed that this DVD would be either a quasi-neutral documentary or an exposé, written from a more mainstream vantage point.  I think the subtitle used the word “overview” rather than “expose” or “examination,” so I guess I should have been more discriminating, but I hadn’t noticed that at a glance, and there aren’t just oodles of choices at our library . . . so off I went with this, two G/PG-rateds, and a couple of kids books chosen by Jedd.

The video proved to be a pro-Scientology series of explanations and ads.  I am not impressed by propaganda. In the 30 minutes I spent with this, I came to an estimate that L. Ron Hubbard was probably frequently more sane than Mary Baker Eddy of the Christian Science religion, and of course much more sane than Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder.  However, the Scientology religion seems to be a syncretistic concoction of one human — albeit a rather unusually high-functioning one — and, as such, it will come to nothing.

As a spiritual inquisiteur, the next question I might ask would concern the distinction, if there be any, between Hubbard and Jesus.  Having quickly formulated an assessment of the former, I find much to distinguish the two figures.  For what it’s worth:  Hubbard thought too highly of himself and created stuff and structures out of nothing, whereas Jesus thought appropriately of himself and created nothing; rather, He simply did His Father’s bidding.

So much of Scientology seems to be me-oriented.  Self-help philosophy and pragmatic religionism abound.  In the DVD, almost all of the clipped testimonials from adherents speak in some way to what Scientology “does for me,” and even the notable charitable activities associated with this religion seem to be myopic.  Scrolling words on the screen encapsulate the purpose of Dianetics, the 1950 book that touched off the Scientology firestorm in earnest:  ” … used by millions everyday to help them lead more stable, happier lives.”  Of course, there is much of consumer-driven Christianity that plays this game, as well, but pure Christianity is different.

Today, newly, I’m thankful for Jesus — His own emphases, and the mission emphases of His progeny — e.g., Philip of Acts 8, Barnabas of Acts 4 and beyond, Saul-Paul of Acts 9 and beyond, and others.  While one might pick up a helpful tidbit or two from reading something like Hubbard’s seminal Dianetics or from taking a course offered by the Scientologists, the words and works of Jesus’ Way are in a different league.  He was, and is, God–His own claims, teachings, and actions are corroborated unequivocally by the writings of the early Christians.

Jesus, I honor You as the unique Word of God to the world.  And I ask You to strengthen my trust in You.

Ivory soap and purity

Many lunar cycles back into TV commercial history, Ivory soap was billed as being 99 & 44/100 percent pure.  If the ads did nothing else, they succeeded in implanting that particular fraction in an entire population’s heads.

The interest in “pure and natural” products appeared to plateau for a while but seems to have surged in recent years.  For instance, in my conference hotel this past weekend, the brand for toiletry items was not “Herbalessence” or “Garnier” or “Clairol Scentsation,” but simply “Pure”–a good management/marketing choice that is sure, these days, to make no one frown.  I mean, who would look at “Pure” shampoo or soap and say, “Bah.  I wanted artificial!”?

Frankly, though, I tire of my own compulsion, now pretty well ingrained, to check ingredients lists and to purchase products based on their relative naturalness, regardless of function.  Yet I cannot escape this compulsion, and my ever-watchful spouse eggs it on.  (Oh, yes, we buy fresh, natural eggs from a local farmer, and these eggs are both better and cheaper; this combination of higher quality and lower cost is unfortunately rare.)  Pure and natural is usually a good thing, and I’ll take even three-quarters natural, let alone 99 & 44/100 percent.

* * *

How pure is our Christianity?  Or what may be infused into it, causing it to be less than 100% pure?  What influences must we acknowledge beyond those of the Lord Jesus and his apostles?

In the wake of the tornadic disasters across our country, I mean no disrespect to the Michigan couple who appeared on a TV news show last weekend.  They were interviewed briefly because they had decided to drive (or maybe ride a motorcycle) to Marysville, IN, to help clean up.  This seemingly pure-minded, genuinely helpful couple were given precisely two sentences (one for each of them) on national TV.  They seemed 100% sincere to me — no fronts, no immediately identifiable agendas or axes to grind.  They were not particularly appealing to behold, but not disgustingly unappealing, either.  I did detect some artificial sweetener, though.  Here’s a facsimile of what I heard.

Reporter with mic:  Why did you come here?

Lady:  The Lord told us to.

[Intervening blah-blah, not engaging the comment just made in the slightest.]

Reporter:  So you have a lot of compassion for these people.

Man:  That’s the way Christians are supposed to be.

Now, let’s put their words into the Sincerity Centrifuge.  My “purity” rating of the man’s response:  94%.  (No one’s much better than that.)  The woman’s words, though, seem tainted by something less than genuine.  Note that I said her words are tainted, not her heart or intentions.  Again, from what I could detect based on a total of 30 or 45 seconds of TV spotlight, they seemed like genuine, decent people.  But the words of the woman are doubtless influenced by what I’ll call false charismatism.  Whether it was a live preacher/pastor or a book or a televangelist, or a combination, something or someone with a lot of charisma, and probably a belief in continuing charismatic gifts to boot, has influenced this woman to think and say something false about God.  And the saccharin left a false aftertaste in my mouth.

It’s not that I don’t believe God could have said to her, “Linda, you and Larry need to get on your Harley and get on down there to Marysville.  Go on Saturday.  If you leave in the late morning, you’ll avoid a traffic jam around Indianapolis and still be there to help before sundown.”  No, the question is not whether He could tell them such a thing.  It’s that I don’t believe he did tell them anything.  I want to be utterly clear on this distinction–both for the sake of my credibility and “hearing” in the world, and for the sake of my eternal soul, because I would be on shaky spiritual ground if I were to suggest that God doesn’t have such power.  However, if I’m right that no inter-spiritual-plane communication occurred between God and Linda, please entertain with me the suggestion that her words (although not the intent, or the heart, necessarily) are less than pure.

Now, all this armchair judging may seem purely cynical or artificially concocted.  Maybe so.  So I’ll leave my half-cocked assessments and move to analysis of effects.  It is my feeling that if the man’s words alone had been aired, at least a bit of credit would have accrued to our Lord’s account in the minds of non-Christians who heard and saw.  In other words, this small deposit to the account would have been nice, especially given all the liquidation that occurs on an almost-daily basis because of the bias of most journalists.

On the other hand, I think the woman’s words had the net effect of debiting the “Christianity account.”  Anyone with an anti-Christian bias (or even some with a pro-Christian bias, e.g., yours truly) would have been turned off by that unattested¹ assertion that God had spoken to her directly.  The effect on the world’s perception of Christianity was a negative one, and all because of something less than pure.  It is my opinion that the assertion that “God told me X,” no matter how sincere and well intended, does more to harm pure Christianity than it does to build it up.

Again:  what superimposed influences must we acknowledge within Christianity?  What false sweeteners or other flavorings or preservatives have been added?  How pure and natural is our current concept of our faith?

============

¹ I just decided to refrain from adding the modifier “rather silly” here.  (The reader will kindly disregard the preceding note.  But maybe not the next sentence.)  The notion that God speaks words to humans today brings the careful listener a little too close to the lunacy of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, the silliness of people who falsely predict the end of the world, etc.

² For those with some additional reading time on their hands (I don’t know many such people, but maybe they exist somewhere), I commend to you many of the writings of Roger Thoman on “simple Christianity.”

http://www.rogerthoman.com/

http://simplechurchjournal.com/

Mormon bunk

Ostensibly in relation to the Mitt Romney campaign, The New York Times recently reported on a Kansas City Baptist leader who is spreading a message of “countering Mormon beliefs” (read full article here), and I am sympathetic.  Far from a mere partisan, political opinion, we are talking about profound “unease” here.

It’s almost as though the author couldn’t sort things out, though.  Please read this:

“I don’t have any concerns about Mitt Romney using his position as either a candidate or as president of the United States to push Mormonism,” said Mr. Roberts, an author of “Mormonism Unmasked” and president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who said he had no plans to travel to South Carolina before the voting. “The concern among evangelicals is that the Mormon Church will use his position around the world as a calling card for legitimizing their church and proselytizing people.”

This quotation baffles me.  How can you not have any concerns about a prominent Mormon’s using his position to “push Mormonism” at the same time as you do have a concern that he will use his position to legitimize said Mormonism and proselyte people?  Sometimes I get things in my head that keep me from hearing, so maybe someone could help in interpreting what I take as a lack of proofreading of this passage in the Times.

Regardless, I am among those who are concerned–not necessarily that any appreciable number of people would be influenced to accept Mormonism if Romney were elected president, but that anyone affiliated Mormonism is one of two things:  idiotic or disingenuous¹.  (And, to this short list of labels, when considering founder/”prophet” Joseph Smith, I must add two more possibilities:  fraudulent and delusional.)

Here, I mean no personal slam–not even against the long-deceased Smith, and certainly not against current-day Mormons who are to some extent the victims of circumstance.  I’m not calling them worthless souls.  I’m saying they’re either not mentally strong enough to recognize a hoax, or they’re not being honest.  The problem here is that Mormonism is founded on a ludicrous set of bunkish beliefs that no sane person should accept.

Therefore, in the Romney case, it seems to me that we have two possibilities:

1. that Romney is idiotic — a bear of very little brain, not being able to sort out fact from fiction
2. that Romney is disingenuous — undeniably affiliated with Mormonism and not really accepting the bunk

Which is it?  As Fox News, which I find almost as annoying as any other news show, is fond of saying, you decide.

In related news, “the world’s leading Internet Evangelist” (which I had heretofore never heard of!) has launched a similar campaign, with the goal of educating a largely biblically illiterate public about what Mormons really believe (read full article here).  I appreciated this no-nonsense passage:

Keller concluded, “Mitt Romney is a ‘temple Mormon,’ meaning he has gone through the secretive temple rituals, including taking a blood oath to his ‘church’ above everything else, and wears the temple garments (magical underwear) with satanic markings that he believes protects him. Listen, if people want to vote for a man who believes he will die and become the god of his own planet, have an endless supply of women to have sex with and create spirit babies, that is fine. All I have ever asked Romney or anyone in his cult like Glenn Beck to do is be honest about what they really believe and to quit lying to people!”

At this writing, it seems that Romney is seen as the most likely to win the Republican nomination.  Whether a man with such bunkish beliefs is mentally fit to lead a country is my concern.  (Whether he could beat President Obama is another story, and whether any of this process really matters in the country’s trajectory is yet another one.  I believe all of this political stuff is eclipsed by the light of the Kingdom of God.)  We are not talking about different brands of mainstream Christianity.  We are not talking about amorphous, minor, theological differences.  We are not even talking about the string of Roman heresies or the unfounded silliness found in most denominations.

We are talking about the historically attested, essence of Christianity vs. the fraudulent fiction that is Mormonism.

============

¹ Disengenuous:  lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating (Merriam-Webster online).

A little loopy

The past few days have been a little loopy for me — driving loops (Buffalo, Olean) and mental loops and an emotional loop or two.  So, I’ll ask those who read this to be forgiving if the terse remarks I’m about to make sound loopy.

On TV a day or three ago, I caught a glimpse of Mitt Romney, and of a piece of his legislative legacy.¹  This man scares me.  Rather, I should say that the prospect of having this man as president scares me.  I know so very little about him, but his affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is reason enough to write him off.  Anyone who would swallow the hogwash that is at the core of Mormon doctrine cannot be mentally fit.  Romney has had more than enough time to repudiate LDS doctrine yet apparently is still aligned with it.

But more to the current point:  what I heard the other day amounted to the disavowal of President Obama’s health care plan in the same breath as he stuck to his guns viz. his own Massachusetts health care plan from a few years back.   Both plans mandate health insurance for all citizens.  Now I know that there are infinite complications.  (I’ve read that “Obamacare” left legislators with thousands of pages to sift through.)  But in this universal aspect, Mr. Romney, the difference is only a matter of degree.  The naivete that has you trying to distance yourself from Obama — steering clear of his plan while you’re affirming your own past efforts — should give the public reason not to trust your intellect too far.

Now, the news media could well have omitted important add-ons that would have explained Romney’s apparent inconsistency.  But mandating health care is as silly as mandating safety (seatbelt laws, cell phone laws, etc.) … and all this approaches the ludicrousness of the LDS Church.

========

¹ I am, by conscience, not politically active.  This admittedly odd circumstance ought to earn me one of two things:  1) the right to speak as a non-invested, perhaps objective party, or 2) the status of a clanging cymbal (I Cor. 13:1) without a musical texture into which to fit.

Founder as foundation

Viola and Sweet, in their new book Jesus Manifesto, point out that in a few major world religions, the founder is important (see p. 82).  That makes sense.  Think Siddhartha Gautama, Mohammed, Confucius, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy. I don’t know about Scientology or Swedenborgianism.  In Animism or Atheism, in the sense that those are religions, relationship with the founder seems negligible.

In none of these other religions–and let it be clearly said that Mormonism is other than Christianity, along with Hinduism and all the others–is relationship with the founder crucial.  Think about that.

In Colossians, the centrality of Jesus is significant from the outset.  He is lauded and praised and given credit and honor and is generally placed at the core.  Paul’s placing of the Savior at the center seems to be an answer to something in Colossae’s situation.  In other words, whether it was Gnosticism, or some hybrid form of it, or the beginnings of the apathy that later surfaced in the nearby Laodicea, or a plethora of threats to authentic doctrine about the Christ . . . whatever it was, Paul wouldn’t have said the things he said about Jesus if it weren’t called for by the situation he was addressing.  This is an occasional letter–one addressed at a specific time for a specific purpose or set of purposes–not a formal epistle.

It has been noted by scholars that the wording in Colossians of a certain Christ-expression is emphatic, if not unique.  Chapter 2 verse 6 has this:  ton Christon Iesoun ton Kurion (caps added)–which, when literally, awkwardly translated, means the Christ Jesus the Lord.  The reiteration of the article “the” provides the special emphasis:  The Christ Jesus (who is) The Lord.  This word formulation, I suspect at this early stage of studying Colossians, is just one indication of the centrality of Jesus the Christ.  “Christ,” a scholar noted, has by this time in history become part of a formal proper name and not only an adjectival description of Jesus’ identity.

Given Jesus’ centrality, we must of course seriously consider how to begin — and stay in – relationship with Him.