Regurgiturgical

Good Tuesday, ladies and gents.

Is it just me, or did Brad sound exceptionally holy this morning? Thanks to the sound guys for that excellent echo. It really made it seem as though Brad was speaking for God. [Which I'm sure he enjoyed thoroughly.]

Prepare thyself: I'm about to say something marginally positive.

Though I think it's probably safe to say that most of the student population, if given the option, would not have chosen to follow the liturgical format in chapel this morning, I actually enjoyed it. Well, maybe not enjoyed . . . I didn't hate it.

Let me explain. It is my opinion that the Christian religion, as we experience it in North America, exposes its inherent weakness by allowing itself to be a chameleon. I realize that adherents to the Christian faith will argue that the malleability of their religion is one of its positive characteristics, allowing the church to relate in new and relevant ways to each generation; however, I think this malleability, when allowed to persist over a course of time, becomes nothing more than reinvention. With each change the Christian religion becomes something completely different and foreign to the generation before. The Christianity that our generation practices is not that of their grandparents, and certainly not the Christianity of first century Judea. It may be true that a portion of the core ideology remains the same with each successive mutation, but the practices and theology do not. [If you don't believe me all you need do is go back for a cursory glance over the gospels. Jesus never promoted or attempted to instate a hierarchical structure within his teachings and never even went so far as to recommend that his followers organize themselves into a new religion, yet today it is all but impossible to locate an experience of Jesus outside the framework of the "Christian" church.]

Liturgy, then, is partially redeeming because it is a return to an earlier mutation of Christianity that allows us to avoid the curses the religion has brought upon itself since.

So thank you, Brad [a real one, sarcasm free] for allowing us to return to our roots, however briefly.

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another an, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."
-Romans 14: 1 - 3

I thought it was interesting that this scripture was read in chapel today. I'll bet these words didn't come to mind the last time you used the loser-cough to call someone a fag, or when you called miss-makeout-in-chapel a whore.

One last thing. I think it's about goddamn time preachers stopped telling us how terrible, fallen, without, incomplete, and immoral we are without Jesus. The self-deprecation that is inherent in the Christian religion may be its most repulsive quality, and I honestly think it may be one of the tenets of the faith that keeps people outside the fold. Why should we confess our "sins" if we haven't "sinned?" Why should we operate under the primary assumption that humans are depraved creatures? Because scripture says so? Sorry, but when I look back over the course of history at the achievements of humanity, especially those of secular society, I simply cannot believe that humans are in need of the almighty to become "whole" persons.

"Keep near me and you will be safe."

Daedalus