Marcus speaks on a panel at Harvard Divinity School answering questions from the audience.
How do you approach the practice of individual worship with people who are already very involved in the church so that it seems worthwhile and not like an additional piece of work?
Marcus finds it is important to begin with reviewing the purpose of worship namely that our life with God is about a deepening relationship with God. The relationship isn’t work, it’s the whole point, additionally, testimony about how worship or prayer transforms those who pray. Worship means taking a moment each day to pay attention to one’s relationship with God, to look around and be struck by the shear marvel of being. One feels more full and centered when one takes a moment to experience the world.
How do you prevent or deal with burnout in the clergy?
Marcus recommends remembering to worship for oneself and recommends that clergy take a sabbath for themselves that is away from work or chores and is genuinely about release. Marcus points out that this is one of the commandments and yet it doesn’t seem strange to find people working on Sunday.
What is the angst that drives you to be this kind of subversive Christian in today’s world with so many enormous and seemingly overwhelming problems?
Marcus talks about a practice of gratitude, thanking God for another day and waking up in his own right mind. Another thought that gives Marcus solace is that we are only responsible for the piece that we work on and we are not responsible for the whole. It is not an excuse to only do a little bit but it is a realistic assessment of what any one individual can hope to accomplish.
Do you think Christianity can withstand the doctrinal change of Jesus living for our sins instead of dying for our sins?
Marcus looks to history to see that this doctrinal change didn’t come about until the year 1100 A.D. The language of penal substitution does not appear in the New Testament. Instead of talking about abandoning an idea seemingly central to Christianity looking at it as rediscovering our historical roots might be a better course of action.
What do you think the effect of the evangelical mind, in that there is no evangelical mind, will have on our cultural institutions of education and government?
Marcus anecdotally mentions the declining church attendance at Cornell University and how people coming of age in after the 1990s have less of a connection with the church and therefore mainline churches have less influence in colleges and universities. In terms of government if we can change the voting habits of 5% of mainline Christians we would change the character of most state’s politics. Our elections are very very close. Raising of consciousness at the local congregational level will be the most useful place to make changes, getting people to see God’s passion for this world will be where nominal changes can be made.
Over the last 10 years more and more ministerial candidates come to their interviews and cannot say if Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, how do you stand on this issue?
Marcus notes that Lord might sound hierarchical and masculine while Savior might be associated with dying for my sins. Marcus would encourage people to reclaim the ancient meaning of those words while recognizing some of the negative connotations they have come to hold today. Lord in the first century was one of the titles of the Roman empire, so was son of god, so was bringer of light, to call Jesus Lord was to commit treason. The terms that we use for Jesus in Christianity had some political edginess, any substitution terms we come up with today should have that same political edginess otherwise we lose something.
What do you think of Unitarian Universalists, do you think they fall under the main stream or do they fall under your ideas of Progressive Christianity?
Unitarian Universalists cover a wide range from theistic people to non-theistic people who almost consider Jesus a dirty word. Given that spectrum if mainline Christians had understood their own language 200 years ago, there would have been no reason for the Unitarians to leave. For instance if we had understood the trinity as three ways in which God relates and is expressed in the world, there would have been no reason for the Unitarians to leave. Those Unitarians that are on the theistic end of the spectrum definitely belong in this dialogue but those that are on the non-theistic end of the spectrum have chosen to exclude themselves from the conversation.