The Rabbit Hole

Faith & Humility

2012-01-30T19:03:00.001-05:00

As a Christian, there are certain things i believe. As a postmodern Christian, i want to be able to believe what i believe, without putting down what others believe. Yet there is also a history within Christianity which seems to hold the position that to truly 'believe' one must denounce the other's beliefs as "lies".

i suppose there is the reality that anyone who chooses to believe one thing, by default chooses to 'dis-believe' the other. Therefore, affirmation is also denial. In the Christian faith this means that if i believe in the story revealed in the Hebrew/Christian Scriptures, then i don't believe other religions are ultimately true. Some Christians go further, asserting that other religions are actually and intentionally deceptions. i tend to think it's just human beings trying to figure things out.

i love my faith and it's teachings. i find life, meaning, and purpose within them. Yet i don't like the way holding to one religion or belief system often leads to the denunciation of another. If i hold to one faith system, do i have to denounce another as false or deception? This of course is what many of the major religions do. Many wars have been (and are being) fought over such things.

We ought not deceive one another by pretending that we hold all things equally true. Anyone who accepts certain writings as divinely inspired will of course reject other writings or beliefs that stand in contradiction. Yet to believe is different than to empirically know. This is where faith and science part ways. There are many people of varied faiths that sincerely believe. Each has the right to desire that others discover and benefit from the faith they so appreciatively hold. Each one, by default, rejects the ultimate truth of the other. Yet to accuse and defame one another as 'deceived' goes beyond the boundaries of faith or knowledge.

At best we can say: "I believe". When it comes to "faith" there is no such thing as "knowing" in any empirical sense. If there were, it would no longer be or require faith. Sometimes we feel pressure to prove our faith by claiming "knowledge". We do this because we want others to believe the 'truth'. Yet in labeling our 'faith' as 'knowledge' we unwittingly lie about what we believe to be true.

i suspect i believe in my faith the way the Muslim, the Jew, the Hindu, and even the Atheist believe in their's. In fact, i imagine there are others, of other faiths, who believe more fervently in their faith than i do mine. That is not to say that i 'doubt'. Can you 'believe' that others are as truly convinced in their 'faith' as you are in yours?

That is not to say that all religions are 'true'. Nobody really believes that.

i'm staking all my chips on the belief that my faith is true. That doesn't mean i have to throw the other guys chips in his face. i would appreciate it if he extend me the same courtesy.

Apocalyptic Weather

2012-01-13T09:21:00.010-05:00

Well, the big snow storm blew in last night. The one we were all afraid would have us trapped in our houses. It was about three inches...

This morning i found myself upset about the false weather predictions i've heard. Then i chided myself for being so ridiculous as to be upset about such a silly thing. Why would i be upset simply because folks once again exaggerated a bad weather forecast?

Soon i realized that it had little to do with the weather at all. Instead i had found a loose connection between the fear of weather conditions and the exaggerated spiritual and political fears that are constantly bombarding our conservative talk shows and infiltrating our casual conversations.

A whole lot of apocalyptic hype of the horrors to come because of this law or that politician...and then three inches.

It's a disappointment really. Our fear filled imaginations are much more vivid and exciting than the mundane reality.

Christian Witness and Tebowing

2011-12-18T17:18:00.006-05:00

i don't watch football, but i've certainly heard of Tim Tebow and what has become known as "Tebowing". This raises a couple of questions...

First, i'm all for people being open about their faith. i'm an Evangelical Christian (minus the politics). i believe witnessing is part of the faith. Of course, there are many different ways to witness.

So, on the one hand, i am fond of Tim Tebow. On another note, i think this whole "Tebowing" phenomena opens the discussion of witnessing vs. effective witnessing. The only person who hasn't been embarrassed by unabashed and obnoxious witnessing is the guy who is doing it.

i'm not sure that Tim Tebow has gone overboard. i truly don't know. i do know some team members have been complaining, but he has also become an encouragement to others.

i do believe that just shouting the name of Jesus isn't the way Jesus intended us to witness to his love and saving grace. i believe there are effective ways to witness as well as ineffective ways.

Then again, what may distance some can draw others. Where's the line? i'm not sure. But this video captures the tension humorously (well to me, while to others it may be off-putting :-)

This parody also unveils an embarrassing aspect of American Christianity, where Jesus has been co-opted into an "added blessing" upon frivolous past-times. Truly, i don't believe Jesus is concerned about who wins the game or the talent show.

The Devil We Know

2011-12-01T22:33:00.003-05:00

"There is a devil. He lies in our collective history at the intersection of violence and hubris. Charles Baudelaire was wrong. The devil's greatest trick is not to convince us that he does not exist. It is, instead, to convince us that he lives in our enemies, that he surrounds us, and that he must be destroyed, no matter the cost, no matter the collateral damage. What better tactic could be employed by a creature that lives off violence, that, in a fundamental way, is violence? The Devil is negation, and the negation of negation, but not in some purely abstract, philosophical sense. The devil is the negation and hatred of the Other, a sinister force working its will in our social order and then disappearing into the shadows."

-W. Scott Poole Satan in America: The Devil We Know

History Repeats Itself

2011-11-27T07:00:00.003-05:00

Supposed Christian politicians tell illegal immigrants to line up and get on the train. They want to deport them back to their poverty ridden countries. Why? Not simply because they are breaking the law.

Those who helped slaves escape on the underground railroad are applauded for their heroic efforts, even though they were breaking the law. Germans who helped Jews escape the round up are also considered heroes.

But German society considered Jews to be a bane to their social and economic culture. Jews became the scapegoat for Germany's problems. People despised the Jews, blaming them for the loss of jobs and societal deterioration.

Today Latinos are the scapegoat for American society. Truth be told, many Anglo-Americans would like to see nearly all Latinos deported, but they only have legal grounds to deport undocumented Latinos.

What conservative Christians are failing to do is ask the important question concerning the conditions we are sending these human beings back to. We don't care. It's not our problem.

Round em' up, stick yellow stars on em', and force them to board the train. We don't care where that train is going, so long as we don't see em' again.

Perhaps, like former Germany, one day we'll wake up to discover that it wasn't the Jewish Stars that were the problem...instead the problem was embedded deep within our own souls.

God has left the Building; or "Jesus ain't your Mascot"

2011-11-24T21:43:00.016-05:00

On this Thanksgiving Day there is uproar. The president left mention of God out of one of his radio addresses. In Afghanistan the troops are upset because a cross was taken off the military chapel, since it was against regulation.

People are upset that God isn't being allowed to continue as the American mascot. i'm beginning to wonder if we haven't misread the signs. Perhaps it's not America that is taking God out of it's political and military jargon...

Perhaps God has left the building (Ezek 10). Perhaps God is tired of being used as the American mascot. He's tired of people invoking His name to justify their personal and secular missions. He's tired of being used by politicians to get elected, and by governments to justify their violence.

Maybe God is behind it all. Maybe He's tired of being our mascot as we continue in our own broken reasoning, using our own broken means, while the whole time justifying it with His name and His symbols.

When Jeremiah told Judah that God would send the Babylonians to destroy the Temple, they jailed him as a traitor and false prophet. They could not imagine that God would ever allow Jerusalem or the Temple to be conquered. God was their mascot. They invoked His Name even as He sent Babylonian troops into the holy city and left not one stone of the temple upon the other. (2 Kings 25; Psalm 79:1)

Maybe God took the cross off the chapel wall at the mlitary base in Afghanistan. Maybe God desired that His name be left out of the presidents radio address for Thanksgiving Day. Maybe He's tired of being our mascot.

Civil War

2011-11-13T19:25:00.003-05:00

Nothing inspires a man as much as something worth fighting for. What is it about our nature that lives for a fight? Is the fight against fighting only a continuation and variation of the same epidemic? If it is, i believe it is the only sane fight. Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they will be called "sons of God".

Peace is the Way

2011-11-09T12:54:00.002-05:00

We don’t need to find a way that leads to peace; peace is the way.

Heresy

2011-11-02T22:29:00.003-04:00

Popular religion is always heresy

Despair

2011-11-02T22:15:00.007-04:00

Despair arises out of a love for life.

Ethnocentrism Debunked

2011-10-25T21:21:00.005-04:00

As upside down and backwards as it may seem, many conservative Evangelicals hold to a form of ethnocentrism. Perhaps i should say, we hold to two forms of ethnocentrism. Practically we hold to a Eurocentric cultural model... but theologically we hold to a Jewish ethnocentrism. That is, we believe the Jews to be a 'preferred' race.

i consider this to be upside down and backwards because it asserts itself against New Testament teachings to the contrary, which emphasize the equal inclusion of all humanity and disavows Jewish superiority. Paul makes these claims over-and-over again. He emphatically proclaims that not all of Abraham's descendants are Israel, but rather the true Israel is made up of those who demonstrate genuine faith, whether Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.

i recently received a copy of"A Reader's Hebrew & Greek Bible". i'm loving it. It is the Bible in the original languages, but the less common words are defined at the bottom of each page. i can read through a chapter at a time in the original language without having to stop and flip through a giant lexicon each time i encounter an unfamiliar word.

i've really enjoyed reading the Hebrew text. There's just something incredibly ancient and sacred about the letter formation. Tonight, when i flipped to the Greek NT i was a bit disappointed not to experience the same sense of awe and sacredness. The language seems more common and familiar. Then it struck me...

i believe my theory and theology against a Jewish ethnocentrism is captured in the difference between these two texts. The ancient Hebrew text was written specifically to the Jews (hence the "Hebrew"). While the New Testament, which incorporates all people groups, embracing humanity as one, is written in Greek. The Greek was the common language of business and trade in the 1st century. It was much like English is today. People of many different countries had their own indigenous language, but would often be fairly fluent in Greek as a second language, since it was common for business and trade all over the known world.

i selfishly desired for the NT to be written, in what struck me as, a more sacred language (Hebrew). Yet the fact that the New Covenant is written in Greek is a theological statement in itself. It means that the New Covenant is intentionally seeking to embrace all of humanity, rather than preferring any one ethnic group over the other.

The New Covenant marks the end of ethnocentrism, and the fact that it is written in Greek underlines and exclaims this statement.

[Some believe Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but there is little evidence for this. It should also be noted that for about 200 years prior to Christ the Jewish people primarily spoke Greek and the Hebrew Scriptures were most commonly read in the Greek translation of the Septuagint. Certainly much of the known world also spoke Greek as a primary language.]

Gaddafi

2011-10-21T09:55:00.008-04:00

Gaddafi was killed the other day. His convoy was struck by NATO forces. The Libyans attempted to sell the story that he had been fatally wounded during the attack. Video footage seems to tell a different story. He was alive and well when the opposition got hold of him. That's when we saw their form of due justice without trial.

Gaddafi's last words "Do you know right from wrong?" actually is a good question. Despite the irony of it coming out of Gaddafi's mouth, one has to wonder what kind of new form of

government begins with an execution without a trial.

Gaddafi's son, who was being held captive, also died in captivity, having been shot after capture.

Good job NATO, you've exchanged Satan for Lucifer and the whole world is applauding...again.

Christian vs. Muslim Denial of the Cross: A Comparison

2011-10-20T08:00:00.002-04:00

From "Who is My Enemy" by Lee C. Camp

Thus, we come to this ironic observation, that while the Muslim may deny the historical fact of the crucified Jesus, we 'Christians have often denied the ethical relevance of the crucified Jesus. When the Crusader marked with the cross cleaves the skull of the infidel, when the conquistador bears the "Good News" to the New World as he slaughters and kidnaps the natives, and when the American Christian dangles a cross from the end of the machine gun with which he kills Muslims, he denies the crucified Jesus too. ...

So, the Qur'anic refutation of a crucified Jesus may prompt offense on the part of the Christian. But that same Christian may simultaneously deny the "narrative logic" of the crucified Jesus by making war. In such a case, the Muslim at least is more honest, the Christian more duplicitous, with regard to the cross. That is to say, when the crucified Jesus becomes yet one more "doctrine" merely to be believed, stripped of its narrative force, stripped of its ethical otherworldly idea or transaction, as opposed to a historical encounter with the power of rebellion; when the cross becomes an emblem, or the Scriptures that testify to this Jesus become the morale booster to go off and kill the enemy whom Jesus commanded us to love; then the Christian has denied the crucified Jesus every bit as much as the Muslim has, but less honorably so.

-------

So perhaps, with regard to the crucified Messiah, we might best summarize this way:

The Muslim denies with his words,

because of what the Qur'an says;

the Christian denies with his deeds,

despite what the Bible says.

A Parable: The King vs. The Lord of Lords

2011-10-18T15:19:00.008-04:00

A king went out to conquer, amassing great wealth and power. There came to him a people who asserted that some other was king, whom they called "Lord of Lords." The king replied: you may freely worship this one you call "lord," you may freely build your buildings and write your books and seek your converts to this one you call" lord." But I shall rule the marketplace, and the army, and the public square. He shall be your personal "lord," while I am your public king. I shall make the laws, and you shall obey them. I shall tell you what enemies to kill, and you shall kill them. I shall give you a marketplace, and you shall seek to maximize your profits and keep all your profits, even at the expense of the poor, or the widow, or the stranger, and thence you shall pay taxes with which we shall wage war against all who threaten your freedom to worship your personal "lord."

And the people replied: we will gladly do as you say, O king. Indeed, we shall obey your laws. And we shall seek great profit and keep all for ourselves. And we will kill your enemies, for you, O king, have allowed us to pray to our personal lord in our houses of worship, in the privacy of our closets. Even more, O king, because you have allowed us to worship thus, we will denounce all those who do not exalt you, and we will proclaim that you have granted us the right to worship, and we shall profess that any who do not obey your laws or maximize profit or kill your enemies are no servants of the private Lord of Lords. We will hang your standard in our halls of worship, we will honor those who fight your wars, and we will celebrate those who heedlessly maximize profit. Oh, grant us such liberty as this, O king!

The king was pleased, and his new subjects served him well and were happy and satisfied.

Camp, Lee C. "Who is My Enemy?: Questions American Christians Must Face about Islam--and Themselves" BrazosPress, Grand Rapids, 2011.

With God on Our Side: Bob Dylan

2011-10-14T20:28:00.001-04:00

The Anabaptist Vision

2011-10-05T20:37:00.000-04:00

Jesus Spectacles

2011-10-04T22:23:00.004-04:00

I had the opportunity to hear Douglas Moo speak yesterday at GRTS' "Text and Culture" seminar. He is on the committee that produces and updates the NIV. He stressed that neither Zondervan nor Biblica has any control over how the committee interprets the Greek text and presents it in English version. He did lament the publishers control over certain features of presentation though, such as continuing the tradition of printing Jesus' words in Red (thanks to Zondervan for the complimentary NIV 2011).

During lunch i had the opportunity of sitting by Stanley Gundry, who is the executive vice pres. of Zondervan. He actually came to visit with John Frye, but sometimes the fly on the wall gets the opportunity to buzz around the head, and so that's the approach i took. i mentioned that i appreciated Zondervan sticking with the Red Letter Addition. He assured me it was not theological, but merely marketing demand. None-the-less, i presented a quick apologetic for my position, which went something like this...

On the road to Emmaus, a couple of disciples run into Jesus, only they don't know that it's him. They are lamenting that Jesus has been put to death. Then, incognito Jesus, explains the Scriptures (OT) to them and their eyes are opened and they recognize not only the Gospel predictions of the OT but also Jesus himself walking with them! The point is that they only understood the Scriptures properly through the teaching and perspective of Jesus.

Secondly, the book of Hebrews opens up by saying, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,..."

The implication being that clarity reaches it's zenith in Jesus' teachings and witness. The prophets were a shadow, but Jesus is the reality which casts the shadow. It is through the teachings and witness of Christ that we receive the clearest representation of God's nature and will.

Historically, the Protestant/Evangelical Church has viewed (interpreted) Scripture, including the Gospel, through the lenses of Paul. Metaphorically, it has been Paul's words printed in Red. i am suggesting that we ought to interpret the Bible through the perspective of Jesus' teachings instead. Some would agree that we ought not interpret the bible with a Pauline bias, but would argue that we ought not have a Christocentric bias either. Instead, they would suggest that we ought to view Scripture as a whole on equal terms. Therefore, Christ's words don't have precedence, but neither are they relegated under a Pauline perspective.

i respectively disagree. Like the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, i believe we can only properly understand the message of Scripture by first hearing Jesus' interpretation of it. All Scripture is God-breathed, but just as the prophets were a shadow of the Christ, so also even Paul is also a type of reflection of Christ. Therefore, i suggest a Christocentric reading of Scripture.

Guest Post: Thomas Merton

2011-10-03T20:57:00.005-04:00

Simone Weil says clearly that the acceptance of war as an unavoidable fatality is the root of the power politician's ruthless and obsessive commitment to violence.

The typology of the Trojan war, "known to every educated man," illustrates this. The only one, Greek or Trojan, who had any interest in Helen was Paris. No one, Greek or Trojan, was fighting for Helen, but for the "real issue" which Helen symbolized. Unfortunately, there was no real issue at all for her to symbolize. both armies, in this war, motivated by symbols without content, which in the case of the Homeric, heroes took the form of gods and myths.

Instead of going to war because the gods have been arguing among themselves, we go because of "secret plots" and sinister combinations, because of political slogans elevated to the dignity of metaphysical absolutes: "our political universe is peopled with myths and monsters--we know nothing there but absolutes." We shed blood for high sounding words spelled out in capital letters. We seek to impart content to them by destroying other men who believe in enemy-words, also in capital letters.

But how can men really be brought to kill each other for what is objectively void? The nothingness of national, class or racial myth must receive an apparent substance, not from intelligible content but from the will to destroy and be destroyed. (We may observer here that the substance of idolatry is the willingness to give reality to metaphysical nothingness by sacrificing to it...).

Thomas Merton "Faith and Violence"

Will Willimon on 9/11

2011-09-11T22:01:00.000-04:00

On 9/11 I thought, For the most powerful, militarized nation in the world also to think of itself as an innocent victim is deadly. It was a rare prophetic moment for me, considering Presidents Bush and Obama have spent billions asking the military to rectify the crime of a small band of lawless individuals, destroying a couple of nations who had little to do with it, in the costliest, longest series of wars in the history of the United States.

The silence of most Christians and the giddy enthusiasm of a few, as well as the ubiquity of flags and patriotic extravaganzas in allegedly evangelical churches, says to me that American Christians may look back upon our response to 9/11 as our greatest Christological defeat. It was shattering to admit that we had lost the theological means to distinguish between the United States and the kingdom of God. The criminals who perpetrated 9/11 and the flag-waving boosters of our almost exclusively martial response were of one mind: that the nonviolent way of Jesus is stupid. All of us preachers share the shame; when our people felt very vulnerable, they reached for the flag, not the Cross.

September 11 has changed me. I’m going to preach as never before about Christ crucified as the answer to the question of what’s wrong with the world. I have also resolved to relentlessly reiterate from the pulpit that the worst day in history was not a Tuesday in New York, but a Friday in Jerusalem when a consortium of clergy and politicians colluded to run the world on our own terms by crucifying God’s own Son.

Immigration & the Kingdom of God

2011-08-08T20:45:00.003-04:00

The Kingdom of God is like this:

A landowner built a great wall around his property, which was impenetrable and unassailable. One day the King came to visit, lavishing incredible gifts upon all the townspeople, except the landowner, who discovered too late that the wall he built served only to keep himself out.

Guest Post: Kahlil Gibran

2011-08-06T20:29:00.003-04:00

On Freedom

At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom, even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.

Aye, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.

And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.

And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.

Assault Weapons: An Assault Against the Community

2011-08-04T18:34:00.000-04:00

The question i have is this: Why does my neighbor get to carry around a concealed weapon without my knowledge? What if i have reason to believe my neighbor is not a safe individual?

There are a lot of civilians that many of us have reason to believe may not be safe carrying a concealed weapon (i happen to know a person who i consider very emotionally unstable who carries a concealed weapon). Why do they get to decide whether i or someone else gets to live or die with the flick of a trigger? What qualifies them to make this decision? Yeah, they could kill me with a knife or baseball bat, but i'd rather take my chances against those kinds of odds. i can outrun most of my neighbors. i can't outrun a bullet.

How will my neighbor react under duress? Will their shaky hand send a bullet flying in the direction of one of my loved ones? Will they fail to release the safety and thereby become disarmed by the perpetrator who they were trying to stop? Will that perpetrator now have the means to hold one of my loved one's hostage, or worse, shoot them on site now that he/she is angered and wants to show they are in control?

There's a lot of things that can go wrong with a civilian carrying a concealed weapon. i don't know that individualism and personal rights should always trump what effects the community. Take smoking for instance. Many states are passing laws against smoking in public places. Why? Because of its potential to harm others. They can still smoke their cigarettes at home or in places where it won't be a potential harm to others. i believe these are good regulations. Why? Because we aren't 'islands unto ourselves'. We live in community. When one person's liberty has the potential to do serious harm to another's, then the community ought to have some voice in the matter. If the community wants stricter gun laws, then the community should have the right to ask for them.

Assault Weapons: The Great Christian Contradiction (Part V)

2011-08-02T16:04:00.002-04:00

Historically, the Church has always condemned individual acts of violence, even in self defense. It was not until after Constantine made Christianity an official religion of the Roman Empire, and St. Augustine later developed "Just War Theory", that the Church condoned violence in any form.

Just War Theory did not allow for individual Christians to use lethal force. Instead, it was a theory that relegated the authorization of lethal force under certain defensive circumstances to the governing authorities. So while the Church certainly went through a time where violent action was condoned, it did so as a governing authority and did not believe this was something left to individual determination.

Even Luther and Calvin refused to condone the individual right to use lethal force. For them, this right was only legitimate when used by governing authorities within very limited circumstances.

Only recently have Christians claimed the right to determine for themselves what justifies the use of violence, without regard to the principles of Just War theory. Now we have fulfilled the saying "And everyone did what was right in their own eyes."

It would be good for Christians to revisit the question of "what is the standard which i live by?" Rather than 'every man for himself' we ought to revisit the Scriptures, especially the teachings found in the New Covenant, and even Christian Tradition. We ought to examine when and where we determined that each person's own personal reasoning became the only standard of determining how we live. Is there a model in the NT for community living and decision making?

Assault Weapons: The Great Christian Contradiction (Part IV)

2011-07-31T08:00:00.001-04:00

The final reason i will give against Evangelical support for civilian owned assault weapons has to do with discovering the weapons of faith.

Paul says "We wrestle not against flesh and blood..." In Ephesians he goes on to tell us what kind of weapons we are equipped with in the Faith. These are spiritual weapons, since we are called to fight a spiritual battle. Flesh and blood are not our enemies, nor are we to cling so dearly to this mortal life that we use the weapons of the world to protect us.

Our life and freedom are found in Christ, and Paul says that he is convinced that nothing on earth or any spiritual force can take this from us. Not because we can 'protect ourselves' with physical weapons, but because our life is secure in Christ. He is the Resurrection and the Life.

If this is the teaching we embrace, then it is difficult to see how we can justify the use of assault weapons. This is indeed a difficult teaching to live out, but Jesus never said it would be easy, without pain or persecution. In fact, we are to expect suffering, and therefore equip ourselves spiritually and mentally to endure it while walking in faithfulness to his teachings and remembering that our battle is not against flesh and blood.

Assault Weapons: The Great Christian Contradiction (Part III)

2011-07-29T08:00:00.000-04:00

The third question i have in regard to Evangelical support for privately owned assault weapons is one of relationship.

There is a big push by Evangelicals for the right to protect ourselves from violent perpetrators. The problem i see with this is that it seems to foster an "us against them" mentality. i also sense that we are fighting an 'invisible enemy'.

The vast majority of us will not undergo a random, violent, life-threatening assault in our lifetime. Therefore, having assault weapons on hand is superfluous. Is the minimal outside threat worth the possibility that the handgun we keep for protection will become a tragic accident waiting to happen?

As Christians, where do we draw the line between faith and fear? In what way ought we to depend on God's providence rather than our own questionable solutions? How is this worldview of "us verses them" hindering our relationship with others? How is this effecting our biblical understanding of how we are to treat those who mistreat us in other ways? Are we making people out to be more evil and threatening than what they are and how does that effect our mission to proclaim the good news?

Are we allowing our over-active imagination to determine our response and keep us in the bondage of fear rather than the freedom of faith? If we do not fear because we've got 'protection', does our confidence in being able to protect ourselves foster an attitude that places us at odds with other human beings? Is our confidence in 'God' or 'ourselves'?

Assault Weapons: The Great Christian Contradiction (Part II)

2011-07-27T08:00:00.000-04:00

A second contradiction i see with Evangelical support for the right to own assault weapons is one of faith.

The early Church underwent times of violent persecution, yet they did not consider using violence as a means of protection as an acceptable option. It ran contrary to their faith. Jesus, along with the writers of the New Testament, prepared the Church to endure persecution. Their response is to bless those who curse them, to pray for those who persecute them, and to not return evil for evil, but repay evil with good.

Since the Christian believes in the resurrection, that is the restoration of the body and eternal life, they are admonished "not to fear the one who can destroy the body." One of the Early Church Fathers said, "The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church."

To separate Jesus and the cross is to deny the suffering of Christ, to which we are also called. Can we embrace the call to follow Jesus while rejecting the call to suffering and persecution?

Jesus said, "He who wishes to save his life will lose it, but the one who loses his life for my sake will find it." This is a very comprehensive expression, and i believe it incorporates the willingness to repay evil with good.

Tony Campolo once said, "I believe that when Jesus said to 'love your enemies, he probably meant we shouldn't kill them."

When did the Church declare that we are entitled to follow Jesus without being obligated to enter into his sufferings?

Anti-Fear

2011-07-25T22:56:00.003-04:00

One of the reasons i'm passionate about renouncing violence is that i believe it is freeing for the Christian. To renounce violence and the right to 'protect ourselves' is to wholly trust in Christ. It is to believe in the promise of resurrection and embrace the truth that love covers a multitude of sins.

The Apostle Paul admonishes us not to return evil for evil. For Jesus and Paul there really is no such thing as choosing the 'lesser evil'. The call is to fully embrace the faith and the promise. To return good for evil. This is the ultimate act of faith and trust, and it enables the believer to overcome both the fear of death and completely cut ourselves off from alternatives to Christ.

No one knows if they are ready for such an incredible step of faith. Yet, a person who either knows or doubts themselves can place themselves in a position that leaves them little alternative, but embracing practices now that will leave little choice to deny Christ later.

One of these practices is to leave yourself no way out. No other alternative. No means by which to defend yourself. Which means the present you abandons the future you to no other way out. It means, embracing peace now in such a way that leaves you no alternative for the future. Therefore, if ever the time comes, your best and only option is the right one.

When Jesus offended the crowds by telling them, if you want to follow me you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, nearly everyone walked away. There were only a few left standing, and he asked, "Are you going to leave too?" They said, "Where else shall we go? You hold the words of eternal life".

Trouble is: We do like our options...

Assault Weapons: The Great Christian Contradiction (Part I)

2011-07-25T08:27:00.007-04:00

Evangelicals, broadly speaking, seem to be in favor of our right to bear arms. Owning handguns might even be considered a badge of honor. One of the main reasons is that we believe we need protection against the government. We fear that if our guns are taken away then we are vulnerable to being controlled by a potentially hostile and overbearing government.

What i don't get, is that if this is such a threat or rational fear, then why is it that Evangelicals are also arguably the most pro-military group in America? We are very supportive of using the national budget to support the largest known government run military in world history. Yet it is this same government that we say we need to protect ourselves against. Still, i don't know of any other group that praises military service more than Evangelicals. When an Evangelical joins the service, they are typically praised as doing even greater service than someone who dedicates their life as a missionary.

How can we be anti-government and pro-military at the same time?

True American Mosaic

2011-06-23T11:05:00.012-04:00

i was surprised to see this article as one of the featured stories of Fox News:

Census Shows Whites are in Minority Among New Births in U.S.

This is like music to my ears. i love the diversity in America. i believe it is looking more and more like the ethnic make-up of the Kingdom of God. (This comparison holds strictly to the ethnic diversity of America and not it's policies or ideology or ethics.)

The news that white's will become a minority group by mid-century is not new. The birth statistics though are real numbers that make this reality more of a reality. It's like we're witnessing the birth of a star, the rising of a new nation through peaceful means, or some spectacular and incredible event.

For some folks however, it is a different experience entirely. Here is how the introduction to this news story reads:

"WASHINGTON -- For the first time, minorities make up a majority of babies in the U.S., part of a sweeping race change and a growing age divide between mostly white, older Americans and predominantly minority youths that could reshape government policies." (Italics mine).

Did you notice that this is all one sentence with a very peculiar ending? The news that minorities are becoming a majority is deeply disturbing for some because it means that 'minority youths could reshape government policies." For those who only read the first paragraph or two of news stories (most of us), they want to make sure you don't miss this major implication!

What is the fear? The fear is that someone other than older, middle-to-upper-class whites, could be directing the future of America! While FOX does not say whether this is good or bad, the implication clearly points to 'danger'! Why? Because it's going to 'change' our nation and its 'founding principles'. This isn't said explicitly, but if you watch or read FOX regularly you know this is very disturbing to their viewers.

Older white guys have run this world ever since the rule of the Greeks & Romans. What will happen if the world's super power is run by a non-Anglo race?

i am truly astonished to be witnessing the current level of blatant racism i see in this second-millennium. It seems to me that we've returned to the 1950's & 60's with a default white supremacy mentality which is simply unquestioned and unnoticed by the ethnic (racial) majority. It is not considered 'racism' but 'common sense' and 'patriotism'. I fear the national flag itself is becoming a symbol of white elitism as it is paraded by those who want to retain the power and influence of the historically majority race and culture.

Yet, as the birth statistics reveal, nothing can stop this change. What the future of American government policies looks like is uncertain, but i pray we don't assume that the country is going to hell simply because whites aren't the majority. The undercurrent in white conservative thinking is that it is 'our ideals' that keep the world from falling off the edge into utter ethical obscurity. History, i believe, tells a different story.

Scripture tell us, that apart from God, the world is in a downward spiral. Yet we ought to be very careful when it comes to the implications of our own thinking. To believe that our culture is more godly or that which 'keeps' the world from utter evil, is an utter evil in itself. It is this type of thinking that has wreaked the most havoc upon the world.

Ramble On

2011-06-22T20:00:00.003-04:00

i've been enjoying this song a lot lately. i don't know why. i've heard it a thousand times before, somehow it seems new again. Enjoy!

Don't Get Political Pastor!

2011-06-15T22:34:00.006-04:00

The only time an evangelical finds politics distasteful is when the pastor is confronting politically motivated, unchristian thinking and behavior. That is, if the pastor questions a Christian's way of thinking concerning issues such as immigration, gun control, health care, taxes, Obama, or conservative talk show hosts, suddenly the evangelical parishioner finds a distaste for mixing religion and politics.

So long as evangelicals continue to listen to endless conservative talk show hosts who promote fear and hate, and politically charged media that sells itself as Christian, Pastor's will have to confront the forces which seek to distract Christians from the Great Commandments and the Great Commission.

Many evangelicals are primarily concerned with political issues as though these issues were a core part of their Christian faith. When Christians begin acting and thinking in unchristian ways, Christian leaders have a responsibility to point it out. When taxes, guns, military, immigration, and health care become the most talked about subjects in Christian homes and among Christian friends, then the issues need to be judged by a biblical perspective in light of the call of the Gospel upon the believer.

Does the Gospel want us to concern ourselves with being pro-gun, pro-military, anti-tax, anti-immigration, anti-health care (when funded by tax payers)?

These are the issues evangelicals are talking about today, and Christian leaders need to remind their parishioners of what the real focus and call of the Gospel is. If Christians get angry at a pastor for reminding them that Jesus probably isn't concerned about 'illegal aliens' or the size of our military, or our right to bare arms, or how much the government taxes us, or the injustice of the government using tax money to pay for someone else's health care, then we're probably confronting the right sins.

Speak the Language

2011-06-15T21:31:00.007-04:00

The prophets often chastised Israel for their poor treatment of the alien and the sojourner. It is because Israel was an alien and sojourner both in Egypt and in their journey eastward, that they ought to treat the alien and sojourner among them in a helpful manner. Yet, since the alien and sojourner don't share the language or the heritage of the dominant ethnic group in the land, they are considered second class citizens.

In a recent sermon, i mentioned how we white evangelicals are still guilty of this second class treatment of the immigrant. We say things like "speak the language" to anyone who is speaking a foreign language. We don't know the people we criticize. They could be bilingual or a fairly new immigrant who is just learning the language. Most immigrants do eventually learn the language, according to the same process as German, Dutch, Irish, Polish, and Swedish immigrants did when they first came to America.

These two points should be considered. First, the English language is not native to America. Secondly, most citizens of other countries know multiple languages, so why should white Americans consider it below them to either speak or hear others speaking a second language?

Beyond this though is the challenge to white evangelical Christians. What does the preferred language of the immigrant in America have to do with the Gospel of Christ? Why would a Christian care what language someone chooses to speak in this country? Our job is to proclaim and present Christ, while the language a person chooses to speak is utterly irrelevant to Christ.

What is relevant to Christ is the elitist attitude of the white evangelical toward people who don't share their ethnicity. When confronted, white evangelicals try to downplay this accusation by appealing to the 'benefit' of speaking the dominant language, as though they were actually concerned for the sake of the immigrant. In truth they are intimidated by cultural change and identify more closely with secular nationalism than they do with the Kingdom of God. This is revealed in their statements concerning people whom they have no background information on. Is the person simply speaking to another person in a language they are more fluent in? Is the person relatively new to the country and only beginning to learn the language? The white evangelical doesn't care. They will spew out the elitist remark "Speak the language" and feel no need to ask such questions.

The only question that will be relevant to Christ is whether we tended to the material, relational, and spiritual needs of the alien and sojourner. The language the sojourner chooses to speak is not a Christian issue.

[as i write this i recognize the militant tone of the rebuke. i feel that i am forced to speak forcefully and unapologetically on these issues, otherwise i will be steam-rolled by a forceful and self-righteous counterargument. i wish i could speak passively or even congenially, but i sense the force of this way of thinking is only heard with the equal force of rebuke.]

Against Nationalism

2011-05-17T15:22:00.005-04:00

Can a Christian be a national citizen in the general understanding of the term? No.

To begin with, we are called "citizens of heaven". That is, we have a citizenship that is not of this world, or to this worlds powers. Therefore, though we are born as 'citizens' of a certain nation, this is only according to secular labels that are forced upon us, and not part of our true identity in Christ.

Christ's kingdom is made up of people from 'every tribe, tongue and nation'. Jesus says that those who are truly his 'mother, and brothers and sisters' are those who 'do the will of my Father in heaven'. Therefore, our familiar identity is found in Christ and those who belong to him.

Our family is diverse and spreads over the whole world. It knows no boundaries or borders and it's identity is not found in national allegiance, but in our common commitment to Christ.

The Scripture clearly warns us both against the making of oaths and dual allegiances. In Matthew 5:34-37 we are told that what we commit to and what we reject is based on our commitment to Christ rather than an allegiance to man made ideologies (based on various superficial, circumstantial, or temporal commonalities). James 5:12 reaffirms this.

Matthew 6:24 teaches us to stand clear of dual allegiances when it says “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." This verse finishes by stressing that one cannot serve both God and Mammon (name of a Greek god associated with wealth). While the context is warning against holding too closely to temporal comforts and pleasures, it certainly extends across the board. Therefore, one cannot pledge their allegiance to Christ and national interest simultaneously. One will always deviate from the other at some point, since their interests are not held in common. Since one seeks what is eternal and the other what is passing away. One seeks the common good and the other the good of a minority.

Therefore, those who serve Christ find their commonality and identity in Christ. The boundaries and borders are then found in Christ and not longitudinal and latitudinal lines. Therefore, our commonality cannot be both national and faith oriented. Faith is not bound by national identity.

Secondly, Christians cannot hold to a dual allegiance. To pledge allegiance to a temporal institution is to be at odds with the eternal institution of God. The two will often be founds at odds and operating according to contradictory principles. This is why a person cannot serve two masters. Not to mention that one cannot truly be sure that national interests are genuine and altruistic.

In conclusion, national allegiance often finds itself in opposition to allegiance to Christ, since it seeks its own good as the ultimate goal. Since the goals and ways of national interest are often at odds with the goals and ways of Christ, one cannot pledge allegiance to both without finding oneself divided and internally in contradiction to oneself.

The citizen of heaven ought to be considered an outstanding citizen wherever they find themselves. Yet this is not because of a spirit of national pride, but a spirit of love toward all people, motivated and directed by Christ. They become enemies of the state in-as-much as they refuse to stand with the state in their opposition to humanity. The state is constantly placing itself in the position of opposition against humanity by being 'against' others based on their temporal 'boundaries'.

And so, the citizen of heaven is a good citizen, but never a true citizen of national interest, since national interest regularly stands in contradiction to the interests of the Kingdom of God.

The Duck Rabbit

2011-05-10T08:28:00.005-04:00

While in Hilton Head i picked up a milk stout called "Duck-Rabbit". i think i was drawn to it because of the cool rabbit on the box, and i chose to buy it because i had never tried a milk stout before.

Even though i realized that the brew was called "Duck Rabbit" i didn't notice the "duck" for some time. Only after finally realizing that the rabbit also looked like a duck, did i understand the name. And after i realized it wasn't only a rabbit, i didn't like the design as much.

The design is not unique to the beer, but comes from Wittgenstein's Duck Rabbit theory. The idea is that you will see whichever picture you are most familiar with. This was certainly the case with me. Given the name of this blog, you can see i have a partiality to rabbits.

Of course this type of picture is not new to us. We've seen many of these, not least of which is the young lady and the hag. Also, the theory that Wittgenstein sets forth is also fairly common sense, though we choose to overlook it as we look at the world, and especially as we interact with those who see things differently than us. Certainly all of our theories, philosophies, theologies, and world-views are shaped by various factors that influence our views, including all the conditions we've encountered on our unique life journeys.

Kierkegaard builds on Wittgenstein in that he helps us to apply this to our values. What we would like to think our values are aren't necessarily our real values. How do you 'see' what your values really are? One way to 'see' your values is that you will always act out of your true values and beliefs.

In Christianity we often 'profess' many lofty beliefs. Yet in as much as we fail to 'act' on those beliefs, namely loving others, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, patience, pursuing peace, encouraging others, loving our enemies, putting others first... we are able to see what is merely a 'profession of faith' and what parts of our 'faith' we actually believe and value .

[by the way...i don't recommend the "Duck-Rabbit" milk stout. As my sister-in-law describes it, "It tastes kinda like bacon". i didn't care for the after taste. i do however recommend another milk stout: Moo-Hoo Chocolate Milk Stout: excellent]

Pause

2011-05-09T21:25:00.006-04:00

i must say that i am pretty impressed with the backlash at the initial response to bin Laden's death. Yes, there were the immediate victory chants posted on Facebook, but this was quickly counteracted by thoughtful people questioning whether 'celebration' was the right attitude of the Christian in the face of anyone's death, including their enemy.

It wasn't just one or two people who questioned the ethic of gloating and cheering death. This topic has been printed in various newspapers, online articles, and news programing within a day or two of the inappropriate behavior.

I am amazed because for the most part people seem to sense that their is validity to this criticism. Many Christians are in agreement, that while they are glad that bin Laden cannot personally threaten lives any longer, there is really no reason for celebration either. Not only because the problem will continue, but because the best possible outcome is to see our enemy transformed, not annihilated. Not to mention that since we are all worthy of death and hell, we ought to be careful about gloating over the idea that someone else has been sent there, which apparently over 60% of people surveyed feel certain Osama is there right now.

Are we finally waking up? i can't imagine anyone would have taken this constructive criticism seriously even ten years ago. Are we coming to a point where we finally realize that 'evil' is not something completely foreign to our own nature? Are we really starting to believe that it is better to seek the salvation of our enemy over his destruction?

i hope so.

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:2

N.T. Wright: Hell

2011-03-21T20:54:00.001-04:00

Tectonic Evangelical Plates are Shifting and Causing a Quake

2011-03-14T12:24:00.009-04:00

Ever sense the 'emergent' movement, there has been a shifting of plates causing a quake in the Evangelical Church. Current theological challenges are a result of this shift. Two areas being brought back under inspection are 'violence' and 'hell'.

A challenge has gone out to Christiandom at large, revisiting the widely embraced idea that Jesus and violence are compatible. The vast majority of Jesus' teachings show that injuring or killing your enemy is incompatible with loving your enemy. The defense that the critics give saying we ought to submit to our government and that Jesus came to 'bring not peace but a sword' are extremely liberal interpretations with little foundation. We are to submit to government, but not when it is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Also, when Jesus says he came not to bring peace, but a sword, he's not talking about a literal sword. He gives the example that many will be disowned by their loved one's for following him. The sword means that following Jesus' teachings is going to cause some to reject you.

The idea of hell is being revisited because people are questioning why so many have determined that an all loving God, who went to great lengths for humans to be forgiven, would damn so many to hell without an opportunity to do something as simple as confess and repent. The problem is two-fold: 1. It seems to overlook the great lengths God went to keep this from happening 2. The Bible doesn't actually teach this. It is fairly silent on the issue of what happens to those who die without really knowing the truth of what Christ did. So why promote a view that makes God look like the devil when the Bible is silent?

Those Protestants who are holding to "Tradition" and calling it "Scripture" are being questioned, and since they don't have firm ground, they have no authoritative basis to stop the discussion.

Heaven and Hell: Part 8

2011-03-07T16:29:00.006-05:00

And now, against the Establishment...

Protestants defer to Tradition much more than they will admit. They cry"Sola Scriptura" but what they mean is "My interpretation of Scripture alone."

Take for instance the insistence that the Scriptures say a person is damned to hell if they don't embrace Christ in this lifetime. Now, they will make allowances for infants and mentally disabled persons, but not for those who never understood or even heard the Gospel. Not for those who were turned off by atrocity promoted in the name of Christianity.

Where is this teaching found in the Scriptures?

i agree, that the Scriptures say we must confess and repent. I also firmly agree that it is through what Christ has done and God's grace that any inherit eternal life. But where does it say that if a person, for ANY reason, is not able to make a reasonable decision for Christ in this life, then they are damned?

This is 'extra-biblical'. Indeed, there is the story of the rich man who did not get 'another' chance. He was as unjust as they come. He made his choice. This parable is not meant to depict every human being without exception. It is meant to depict what happens to those who knowingly reject justice and human decency, and thereby knowingly reject God's good intention for humanity, becoming so hardened they are beyond the possibility of redemption.

Also, the verse about how we are appointed "once to live and then face judgment" is also not a statement that a person who fails to understand or hear the Gospel is condemned to hell. When we go before a judge, i pray they will not convict us until they weigh all the evidence. Isn't it very possible that God will stand judge over a human being and determine that they were not able to make a decision because they had no information to base it on? Perhaps it's because they never heard the Gospel, or that they were radically misdirected.

When it says that God will judge us, it is not saying that the judgment, without a doubt, leads to hell. It means that he will make a determination.

No Evangelical has been able to show me a definitive teaching that says we will have full opportunity in this life to make a decision for or against Christ. It's just not in the Bible. So while it says we are called to make a decision, it does not guarantee that this life will give us the opportunity to do so. Nor can they show me where it definitively says that those who, for any reason aren't able to make a reasonable decision are shit-out-of-luck. "Sorry, you were born to Buddist parents and died of a fever at age 13! You were past the age of accountably so that just sucks!"

If God desires all to be saved, then it only makes sense that some who truly didn't have an opportunity to embrace the Gospel in this life, will be given a real opportunity somehow, someway, somewhere...before being condemned.

Is it definite? No. But is it just as possible, and probably more probable, than the unfounded conclusion that those who never have a chance to see or understand the Gospel in this life are automatically damned to hell? Yes! It is just as possible that a merciful God, who desires the salvation of all human beings made in his image (children?), would guarantee a genuine opportunity to embrace the Gospel. That is what he wants for humanity!

Is the teaching that 'those who never hear or truly see the Gospel, unfortunately go to hell' any more biblically founded? No! Absolutely not. But because Evangelicals have been teaching this for the last three hundred years, Tradition has been equated with Scripture. Shame on them!

Why not lean just as vigorously toward the genuine love of God for humanity and his true intent toward redemption?

Israel failed to be the redeemer, the light to the nations, as they were called to be. Their failure didn't mean the nations would be forever damned. Instead, God himself became human and lived among us. He did what Israel failed to do. He became the light and hope of redemption. God didn't leave humanity's destiny in the hands of a people who failed to be who they were called to be and do what they were called to do.

If Israel failed and God intervened, then isn't it just as biblically sound to say that where the Church fails, God will also intervene? He prefers to work through us, but he will not leave a single human soul to the whims of a lethargic and apathetic Church. Instead, he will judge the Church!

Evangelicals need to once again differentiate between Scripture and Tradition. Where the Scripture is silent, we are better to lean toward love and grace, because it is in these alone that we find hope.

For those who truly embrace unjust practices and have become unjust people, beyond hope of redemption, they will certainly experience the wrath of God. God detests those who have no heart or conscience and live at the expense of others. But for those who have the potential for redemption, he will split heaven and earth and give his own life.

That's Scriptural!

Heaven and Hell: Part 7

2011-03-06T15:00:00.004-05:00

How do we end up in hell? Does God send us there? C.S. Lewis believes that people choose hell. In his book, "The Great Divorce" he depicts hell as that which is further and further separated from society. In essence, people move toward hell by moving away from taking part in society, and it is their preference.

If God desires that none should perish, but that all have everlasting life (2 Pet 3:9). If he truly does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but prefer they turn toward what is right (Ezek 33:11). If he really loves the whole world enough to send his only Son to them (Jn 3:16)...then it seems like he would prefer that no one be sent to hell.

Of course the Scriptures make clear, time-after-time, that God doesn't always get what he wants. He wants humanity to follow his will and way, but time-and-again, they don't.

If we think of the Kingdom of God as a society, which by definition a 'kingdom' is a society, then it makes sense that rather than being 'sent' to hell, people are opting out of God's society. To be outside of God's society is hell, because hell is that 'place' where God and his society are not present.

People choose to separate themselves from God's society by refusing to embrace God's Way, which ultimately is the way of Love. Jesus sums up all the commandments with "Act in Love". We often fail to act in love, and hence the need for grace and forgiveness. Grace and forgiveness allow us to continue to move forward toward becoming what God has called us to be.

To reject moving forward toward becoming what God called us to be is essentially the 'opt-out' option. If it is a "Kingdom" He is bringing, then it is a "Kingdom" people he is preparing us to be. If we reject being a "Kingdom" people, then we ultimately reject the "Kingdom".

Does God 'send' us to hell? Well, if God is everywhere, but hell is that 'place' where God is not, then i suppose technically hell is not a place we can be 'sent' to. And if there is a sense in which the "Kingdom of God" is 'within us', then perhaps there is also a sense in which 'hell' is simply being absent from the 'Kingdom'. Therefore, hell is not a 'place' at all, but the 'absence' of place, and we choose to be there.

Heaven and Hell: Part 6

2011-03-05T16:50:00.006-05:00

Why do some devious Christians hope some will have an opportunity to embrace Christ even after death, having not embraced him in this life?

Is it because we know there are many who have never heard the Gospel (i.e., infant deaths or Muslim upbringing) and feel they too need a fair chance? Well...in part. Here's another reason:

As recent headlines and world history books show; Christianity has not always been accurately portrayed by those who profess it. In addition to this, some have suffered such horrors that psychologically they are simply unable to reconcile a good God with an evil world.

Yeah, that boy who was repeatedly raped by the priest should grow up and be able to differentiate genuine Christianity from a malicious and perverted holy man...but what if his experience has overwhelmingly affected his ability to do so? What if the symbol of the cross has become his own personal nightmare?

Or what about that teenager who signed up for service in Vietnam, and after trying to match the head and body parts of his best friends with the rest of their dead bodies, was so overwhelmed by the atrocities he saw, that he simply can't believe in any form of ultimate goodness? Grace itself seems like something you read about in Mother Gooses' fairy tales.

What about that people group who embraced the people who came offering the 'good news', but later found themselves enslaved by them? Their land taken, their families torn apart, their lives devastated, and where their village once stood now stands a white chapel with a bell. Could any of this genuinely get in the way of them embracing the Gospel?

Let's not get all 'pie-in-the-sky' now and appeal to the power of the Holy Spirit which is able to help them look past all of this. Indeed, He is able, but He also works in-and-through us. He empowers believers to be 'witnesses' and when they testify to something other than the Gospel, while supposedly representing the Gospel, it undermines the work of the Holy Spirit. Is it possible for us to undermine the desires of God? I don't know...what does the Bible say about this? Why don't we start with Genesis chapter 3? God seems genuinely upset by his people's sin, and it seems to carry real consequences for the world at large.

Some Christians hope for the possibility that after death, those who truly did not have a real opportunity to embrace or reject the Gospel, will be afforded that opportunity. Not because we love to cause a commotion, but because we love the most broken of humanity and believe deeply in the justice and grace of God who understands us better than we understand ourselves and loves us more than we love ourselves.

Heaven and Hell: Part 5

2011-03-05T16:17:00.008-05:00

Does hoping that some will have the opportunity to embrace Christ even after death lead to the logic that it's better not to evangelize those who haven't heard the Gospel? Well, it could...but here's why it shouldn't:

First, salvation in Christ is much more than simply 'going to heaven when i die'. Salvation is meant for the here-and-now. This life! Jesus says that he's come to give us life, and to give it to us more abundantly. In-other-words, eternal life starts now for those who believe (John 17:3). If we truly believe that following Christ in this life will lead to a meaningful, purposeful, and fulfilling life in the present, then we will Evangelize people with the aim of bringing salvation to them for the here-and-now.

Secondly, accepting Christ is more than saying a prayer which acknowledges we are sinners. It is this acknowledgment, coupled by our embrace of Christ's grace and our desire to live according to his teachings. There are many who will accept Christ with their lips but deny him by their lives. Also, there will be many that reject Christ on another level entirely. Paul talks about this in Romans, where he says some will be condemned because they reject the light they do have.

In-other-words, it is possible to reject Christ's grace & teachings on a subconscious level and in an inadvertent way. This means that those who never hear or understand the Gospel by way of its proclamation, may still reject it on some other basis. Only God can determine whether a person has done this. But it certainly does mean that not hearing the Gospel proclaimed in definite terms doesn't lead to a 'get-out-of-jail free card'. There's something within the heart & soul of a person which only God is able to judge. For all people, the only definite hope for salvation comes through knowingly, and intentionally, embracing Christ here-and-now.

The New Testament directs believers to share their faith and tells them the only sure way of salvation is for people to embrace the good news of the Gospel in this life. Ultimately, i believe that the proclamation of the Gospel will never prove detrimental to those who hear. In fact, hearing it empowers us to believe and receive it. Yet, not hearing it is no guarantee that one hasn't rejected it in some other way.

So if we believe that the Gospel offers us salvation for this life, and that there is no assurance of salvation outside of embracing the Gospel in this life, then we ought to be compelled to bring the good news of the Gospel to all people now, wherever they may be.

Heaven and Hell: Part 4

2011-03-05T15:18:00.008-05:00

Bell's unpublished book "Love Wins" has caused a stir and controversy among Evangelicals. It is thought that he believes everyone will ultimately be saved. Nobody knows if he actually says this, since the book isn't available yet, but even the possibility causes the sea to grow restless and the waves to become violent.

Why are Evangelicals so vehemently opposed to the idea that there is a possibility of grace after death for those who did not embrace Christ in this life? Here's my perspective:

i think historically, the idea of hell as punishment has been a very effective tool for evangelizing the lost. John Edwards is a good example of this, with his sermon "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God". It encourages people to the point of decision, and often leads to their embracing Christianity.

If we start suggesting that all will eventually be saved, or even that there is the possibility that some will have a chance to embrace Christ even after they die, then there is the danger that people will ignore the Gospel in this life. Therefore, as concerned Evangelicals, we don't want people landing in hell because we led them to believe that there will always be another chance.

Indeed, this is a real danger and one we should take seriously. Deciding to put Christ off for another day may ultimately be the same as deciding against him, and therefore no option after death! Therefore, don't even give a hint to the 'possibility' that some will be presented with the truth of the Gospel after they die, having not truly been presented it in this life. Why? Because of the dangers involved for those who may unduly apply it to themselves!

On the other hand, what about those of us who are wrestling with the revealed Grace of God and are truly concerned with those who genuinely didn't have enough exposure to the genuine teachings and example of Christ to be able to embrace grace? Don't we have to be able to talk about our theology concerning this population of humanity? Aren't we simply looking for an outcome that seems consistent with God's revelation of himself through Christ?

i understand both the hesitancy and the necessity of dealing with this topic. My solution is that we preach Christ as the only way, and now as the only time we can be sure of receiving salvation. At the same time i think we can be open to discussing the possibilities that only seem to make sense for those who will never have the opportunity to see the truth in this life. Even if we ultimately come to the ultimate conclusion that we simply don't know, but believe God will act out of his love and mercy, desiring the best outcome for every human being.

Heaven and Hell: Part 3

2011-03-03T17:08:00.006-05:00

My first faith crisis occurred when i discovered what denominationalism was all about. i was a new Christian and was taking in a midweek service at a friends church. i had a church i regularly attended, but they didn't have midweek services.

One of the members of the congregation asked me why i didn't attend on Sundays. i told him it was because i attended 'such-and-such' a church. He told me that the church i attended was a cult and that i should leave it or end up in hell.

Yeah...

Needless to say, i was rather upset by this. The pastor of the church tried to console me, but in all actuality it appeared this is what this denomination believed. My friend told me he believed that my baptism in the "Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" was invalid. i needed to be baptized in Jesus' name. i was offended and said, "Do you mean that Jesus will send me to hell on the basis of a technicality?" He ultimately said 'yes'. Later i came to learn that this denomination was an anomaly and itself considered heretical by Trinitarians.

Is our salvation based on 'correct' understanding or intellectual prowess ? Do we have to get certain theological points right in order to be saved? If this is so, doesn't it amount to a type of 'works' salvation. Are those who are less intellectually apt doomed for eternity? Are those who think they understand, but don't quite have it just right, damned? What about those who just aren't mentally capable of comprehending complex theories?

Many Trinitarians have said that those who believe the way my friend's church does are going to hell. They don't get the concept of the Trinity! They believe that God exists in different modes at different times in history. So while they affirm the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, they believe that ultimately it is one God existing in different modes in different epochs. For them, believing in three personalities is polytheism and therefore idolatry. Since they don't get the Trinity, they are going to hell.

So they stand pointing at one another saying: "You're going to hell", "No, you are,.,," "No, you are...", "No, you are..." --to infinity.

So what is the basis of our salvation? Is it what Jesus did or is it our comprehension of what Jesus did? i'm leaning toward the former.

Heaven and Hell: Part 2

2011-03-01T21:22:00.010-05:00

i've already established the argument that hell is separation. It is where those who refuse to live according to the nature of love and goodness are separated to, for the sake of protecting a good and just society. (this interpretation leaves room for the possibility that hell is annihilation, the cessation of life)

The next question is: Do only those who believe in Christ go to heaven?

In short: yes. But there's more to consider...

It is God's desire that all see the pure love and goodness of Christ and comprehend his teachings which are the salvation of humanity. Unfortunately, due to the radical inadequacy and even twisted mentality of the Church, many will never see Christ for who he truly is, or adequately understand his message. Each person must be able to make a decision based on accurate representation. i believe that each person can and will receive an opportunity to see Christ clearly and to decide from there. Some will do this consciously and others subconsciously. Some will do it in this life, and others at some other point and in some other way. (Christ descended to the dead and proclaimed the gospel to them according to the NT)

The Scriptures never say that our choice must be made in this life. It only warns us that if we knowingly reject the truth, then we've made a decision. Only God gets to determine who has knowingly rejected the truth.

The Church is meant to be a witness, but for many it has been a hindrance. Today, American Christianity (especially Evangelicalism) seems to be more aligned with a political party than it does with the revelation of the New Testament. God will hold this against Christians, but not against those who are turned off by it.

Often times people reject a false image of Christianity, not knowing the difference between misrepresentation and the actual story. They will certainly not be damned to hell because they rejected Tea Party politics, or some other gross distortion of the Gospel. Somehow, in some way, in this life or whenever God chooses, each person will see and understand the truth and make a decision for or against the revelation.

If this is true, then we have good reason to believe that there will be many more who enter into everlasting life than most Christians have traditionally believed. If accepting God's good invitation to join his good society is based on a genuine understanding and acceptance of that society, and not the gross misrepresentation of Christ by his 'devoted' followers, then there is reason to believe that many will choose what is good and right.

Heaven and Hell: Part 1

2011-03-01T21:12:00.009-05:00

Today someone asked me the question: "Can someone lose their salvation?" Of course there are different theories on this, and in the end i land on the side of "yes". But don't judge me too harshly, i also believe in a God who is incredibly more gracious than we are. Who knows us better than we know ourselves, which means he understands the underlying reason for our deficiencies better than we do, and therefore has more compassion for us than we do for ourselves.

Here are my thoughts on heaven and hell. First, i believe, as Scripture says, that God does not desire that any perish, but that all have everlasting life.

What is heaven? Heaven is simply a term we use for a mode of existence in which humanity lives in harmony with God and one another. It is a society where people live justly toward one another, treating others as worth while. Treating others as better than themselves. There is no need for criminal justice in this society, because people choose to act justly toward one another.

What is hell? Hell is separation from God and all that he has created. This could take on different forms, but i doubt that it is a literal fire. Jesus describes it this way for two reasons. 1. Gehenna (hell) was a literal place. It was a trash heap outside of Jerusalem where people burned their garbage. Some criminals, who people felt didn't deserve a decent funeral, were executed and later tossed into the fires of the trash pit to get rid of their bodies. 2. This imagery came to be a metaphor for those who would be destroyed by God for their refusal to live according to the laws of goodness.

Hell, therefore, is not a place where God takes pleasure in severely torturing people for eternity. Instead, it is where people who refuse to live justly toward others are separated so that they can do no further harm to God's rescued society. A society based on selfless love and goodness. Hell is separation for the sake of protecting a good and just society.

Desperado

2011-02-04T21:15:00.010-05:00

"Freedom...that's just some people talking..."

The people in Cairo are presently fighting for their "freedom". i disagree with the way some of them are going about it. Why do we so quickly resort to violence? We've had so many examples of successful, non-violent resistance in the last 60+ years. Gandhi, King, Tutu...

Of course there is always the philosophical question of whether freedom is but an illusion. Are our actions and choices predetermined by genetics and conditioning? From personal experience i can say, for the deluded person there is no difference between illusion and reality. Which begs the question, who determines what reality is?

i'm not trying to be deep. It seems obvious. We all see things in many different ways. Our own views make complete sense to ourselves and we often disdain the perspectives of those who see things differently. How can we be so sure of ourselves? Perhaps because we each live in different realities. Sure, there's overlap, but there's definitely deviation.

i remember reading something in a Shakespeare play that stood out. i don't know if i remember it properly but this is the essence of it:

"I could consider myself the king of infinite space, though bound in a nutshell, if it weren't for these dreams. Dreams themselves are ambition. And I consider ambition so light and airy a quality that it is but a shadow of a dream."

Indeed, freedom is a state of mind.

Which brings us back to our infamous Eagles quote: "Freedom, oh, freedom, well that's just some people talking."

It certainly seems elusive, but perhaps elusive is just an illusion.

Knowing vs Doing

2011-01-30T20:40:00.004-05:00

"Let us imagine a pilot, and assume that he had passed every examination with distinction, but that he had not as yet been at sea. Imagine him in a storm; he knows everything he ought to do, but he has not known before how terror grips the seafarer when the stars are lost in the blackness of night; he has not know the sense of impotence that comes when the pilot sees the wheel in his hand become a plaything for the waves; he has not known how the blood rushes to the head when one tries to make calculations at such a moment; in short, he has had no conception of the change that takes place in the knower when he has to apply his knowledge."

Soren Kierkegaard, Thoughts on Crucial Situations in Human Life, pp. 35-36

Isn't this the story of the Christian life! We read; we hear, we sing, we say...but then the test comes. The moment when we are not looking at the situation from the outside, but from within. Then we say, "I know i ought...but..."

It is easy to examine someone else's life and actions and to see how they do not line up with their professed beliefs. It is easy to imagine that we have or would. But when we are tested, the situation is always different. We often respond in doubt and act antithetical to our beliefs.

The Dog Kennel by the Palace

2011-01-28T19:35:00.011-05:00

"A thinker erects an immense building, a system, a system which embraces the whole of existence and world-history etc. --and if we contemplate his personal life, we discover to our astonishment this terrible and ludicrous fact, that he himself personally does not live in this immense high-vaulted palace, but in a barn alongside of it, or in a dog kennel, or at the most in the porter's lodge. If one were to take the liberty of calling his attention to this by a single word, he would be offended. For he has no fear of being under a delusion, if only he can get the system completed.....by means of the delusion.

Anti-Climacus in the Sickness unto Death, pp. 176-77 (Soren Kierkegaard)

i can relate to this all to well. Our actuality rarely matches our philosophy. This is bearable if one never realizes the inconsistency, or at the least, believes the inconsistency can be resolved. Instead we lament over everyone else's apathy toward the ideal. The real torture though is to have discovered the perfect world and to realize that you have great difficulty in adapting to it.

On the other side of the spectrum, N. T. Wright would likely attribute this as an "Echo of a Voice" that lives deep within each one of us. That we long for something which seems just outside of our grasp. We strive for it, though it evades us. This is not because it is unattainable, but rather because it is what we were meant for. In fact, it is what Christ is bringing about.

Contentment

2011-01-21T20:28:00.000-05:00

A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?

-Albert Einstein

Justice

2011-01-20T21:40:00.004-05:00

When we think of justice, typically we think of people being sentenced for crimes. This is a form of justice, but a lesser form. It is called "retributive justice". Criminal Justice falls under this sub-heading of "Justice".

When we say that we are establishing a society where there is "Justice for All", we are not primarily saying that we are seeking a society where people will be rightly punished for their crimes. Instead, we are seeking a society where there is justice for all because people are acting justly, each toward one another.

God is seeking a society that is built on justice. That is to say, a society where people act justly toward one another. In such a society, there is no need for retributive justice (a criminal justice system). In fact, any society that has need of a criminal justice system, is a society which is not completely just. It is a society in which there truly isn't "Justice for All' in it's purist sense.

That is to say, is justice really being served when the person who kills my loved one is put in jail for life or even sentenced to death? No. Why? Because it still falls short of making the situation right. The punishment of crime does not erase the crime or its effect. My loved one is still dead, and how can that be made right? Therefore, true justice is not the punishment of injustice, but the practice of actingy justly toward one another so that injustice never occurs.

When we speak of God's desire for justice, we are speaking of his desire for a society in which people act justly toward one another. Only in a secondary and lesser sense is the punishment of sin 'God's Justice'. In fact, God does not desire that kind of justice. His preferred forms of just include first and foremost, that people should act justly (rightly) toward one another. The second form of justice is that the unjust be made just, not punished or destroyed. In fact, the bible teaches that God disciplines those he loves. The discipline is not for the purpose of mere retribution, since that wouldn't make things right. Instead, the discipline is meant to transform and bring about a character change within the person, namely so that the person might be 'put to rights'.

Therefore, Grace is not antithetical to justice. Grace does not excuse or overlook sin. In fact, Grace is a form of God's justice. It seeks to transform (or make right) the person who has acted unjustly.

The Grace of Christ then is not mere forgiveness of sin, but transformation of the sinner. Grace without transformation is not the kind of Grace that God practices. God's Grace complements his Justice . God's Grace 'makes right'. That is, God's grace does not merely make us positionally or hypothetically right, but truly begins to make us right by transforming us. Without transformation there can be no justice. Without transformation we can only settle for that lesser form of justice, for which i don't think we have a name, which is retribution and/or punishment. This does not make things right or fully satisfy. It is merely the sense that we've done something and therefore not overlooked the wrong. But it certainly doesn't make things right, and therefore falls short of true Justice. God's Grace does not subvert Justice, but complements it by transforming us into people who live & act justly.

Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!

The Kingdom of God will be a place where Justice reigns supreme. That is, where people always act justly toward one another. There will be no need for retributive justice there. If there was a need for criminal justice in the Kingdom of God, then it wouldn't be a perfectly just society in which there is genuinely "Justice for All". All this will be brought about by the transforming power of God's Grace.

Apologetics Vs. Action

2010-12-22T17:00:00.014-05:00

When i first started studying theology i became enamored by apologetics! Yes, rational argument for the existence of God and the logical (and thereby) rationale for embracing Christianity. i wanted to study and teach apologetics because i felt the surest way to convince others that Christianity was true was through reasoning.

Unfortunately i came to realize that apologetics is filled with a lot of opinionetics, and like the best politicians, the speeches are most persuasive not so much because of the truth of what is said, but because of what is left out. The Proverbs warn us of this, saying "One person's story seems right, until another comes along and questions him."

Apologetics was the attempt at using modernist rationale to destroy modernist rationale. It was an incredibly entertaining fight, but basically equivalent to shadow boxing.

Scott Bader-Saye describes apologetics as "the attempt to prove Christianity to modern skeptics, over witness, the attempt to live in such a way that God's true story becomes visible and attractive to the world."

i am of the opinion that while apologetics has its place, strong dependence upon it leads to arrogance. We begin to entertain ourselves by the thought that we are smart and others stupid. Our acrobatic arguments begin to look like 'common sense' to us though we ourselves can't truly bend our minds to it.

i believe character witness is the only truly effective tool we have. Yet this demands that we truly become more like Christ, which is no easy matter. Perhaps this is why the appeal of rational argument seems so appealing.

Advent Week 1 2010

2010-12-01T15:42:00.004-05:00

Isaiah 2:1-5

This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:

²In the last days

the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established

as chief among the mountains;

it will be raised above the hills,

and all nations will stream to it.

³Many peoples will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,

to the house of the God of Jacob.

He will teach us his ways,

so that we may walk in his paths.”

The law will go out from Zion,

the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

⁴He will judge between the nations

and will settle disputes for many peoples.

They will beat their swords into plowshares

and their spears into pruning hooks.

Nation will not take up sword against nation,

nor will they train for war anymore.

⁵Come, O house of Jacob,

let us walk in the light of the LORD.

Finding Faith Losing Faith

2010-11-15T17:56:00.003-05:00

i picked up Scot McKnight's "Finding Faith Losing Faith". This book was a study on 'conversion'. It explored a limited number of conversion experiences: Conversion from Christianity to secularism, from Judaism to Messianic Judaism, Catholicism to Evangelicalism, and Evangelicalism to Catholicism.

It was only the first one that intrigued me. There were a few reasons why people convert from Christianity to secularism, and most have to do with a need to experience intellectual freedom. Christianity does not genuinely allow a person to question the faith or its doctrines. Those who have genuine concerns and questions often find themselves having to hide their doubts and uncertainties. i can certainly attest to this.

Those leaving the faith often feel an incredible sense of relief. There is a sense of freedom and authenticity. One's intellectual curiosity is allowed to seek answers to the questions it wonders about.

Here is an insight i found interesting:

"Conversions to the Christan faith are nearly always shaped by what one is gaining-forgiveness, heaven, moral transformation, meaning, peace, a new community, or joy. Conversions from the Christan faith are nearly always shaped by what one is leaving instead of what one is gaining."

i definitely resonate with all of the reasons why people leave the faith. Yet i also realize that it is not the "faith" that suppresses question, but the insecurities of others 'in the faith'. i believe wrestling with the questions will bring us into a much deeper understanding of genuine faith and reshape unhealthy ideas and false conclusions. Feeling as though one is not allowed to enter into honest questioning will certainly drive an honest person away from belief.

The irony in all of this, is that those self-proclaimed protectors of the faith, are often unwittingly undermining the faith of sincere believers.

i too am human

2010-11-14T16:46:00.003-05:00

"I am human, and nothing human is alien to me."

-Terence (2nd cent. Roman playwright)

Lord of the Flies

2010-09-25T22:13:00.006-04:00

In Lord of the Flies a group of boys slaughter a pig in the jungle, they torture it
and place its head on a sharpened steak as an offering to the beast
that hovers god-like over the island.

The black blood drips down the pigs teeth and the boys run away.

Later when one of the boys is alone he weeps, but not for the pig.
The boy weeps for the end of innocence and the darkness of men’s hearts.

-Anonymous

Liberation Theology

2010-09-03T12:35:00.005-04:00

Glenn Beck recently disparaged President Obama for holding a "Liberation Theology" (see Fox News "Liberation Theology "). Liberation theology is perhaps best known in places where oppression reigns, such as the days of South African apartheid. It is the understanding that Jesus desires nations and people to practice justice and to liberate the oppressed.

i hold to liberation theology in the way Bishop Desmond Tutu, or MLK might. A non-violent form of liberation theology.

Conservative Christians are speaking out against liberation theology. The irony is that most conservatives hold firmly to a liberation theology, exactly as Beck described it. A theology of armed resistance and revolution, which is actually an extreme form of liberation theology.

Most conservatives i know support sending American troops into battle zones for the express purpose of maintaining "freedom" and "liberty" and "justice"!

If you believe that God desires these things and that he sanctions the use of violence in order to maintain and secure them, then you believe in an extreme form of "Liberation Theology".

Which means the majority of Evangelical Christians fall into this camp!

Are conservatives guilty of holding to what they profess to be a "liberal theology"? i believe so!

John M. Perkins

2010-08-16T19:48:00.003-04:00

i am trying to get back in touch with contemporary music. Somewhere along-the-line i became satisfied with listening to the music i grew up with and lost touch with nearly anything modern.

So i decided to check out the top 100 lists. i found this song by Switchfoot called "'The Sound' (John M. Perkins' Blues)", which caught my attention because John M. Perkins is someone i just met a few months ago. He is an inspirational man who was active in the civil rights movement and continues to be active in restorative ministries today. i was able to visit him recently with a group from my denomination.

If you've never heard of John Perkins or haven't read his writings, i encourage you to do so. He recently co-authored a book with Shane Claiborne called "Follow me to Freedom".

Unfortunately i've found that i'm not terribly keen on most of the music on the top of the charts. There were a few songs i liked, but this was not one of them. i'm sure the message is great though!

Beyond Belief Part 2 or 3 or 4...

2010-08-14T16:29:00.004-04:00

i've hit upon this theme of 'beyond belief' numerous times over the past five years. It is the idea that Christianity must be more than a set of correct beliefs. There is something shallow about the idea that what separates so many human beings is merely whether or not we believe the right things about certain historical events with present/future implications.

Though i certainly do realize that belief is a part of Christianity. i suppose i see belief as a means to end, rather than the end itself.

As i study the Gospel of Matthew with my congregation, which we've been doing for the last two + years, all sorts of new questions come to mind. Questions i've been seeking, but didn't know to ask.

In fact, i said i was 'seeking the question' (rather than the answer) because it seems that before you can find the answer you need to know what the question is.

Anyhow...i remember being handed down a Christianity that was mostly about believing the right things. Salvation was by grace through faith for those who believed rightly. That is, you were saved so long as you believed you were a sinner, a Virgin named Mary gave birth to a son who was divine and without sin, he died for us/in place of us for our sin, was buried and resurrected and will come again. If you believe this, then you're in. Oh, and if you don't drink, smoke, dance, clap your hands, go to movies, play cards, or kiss before you're married.

While i believe much i've what i've written above, i no longer believe this is the goal of Christianity; the outcome; the conclusion; the main point; etc.

i mean, after all, Adam & Eve couldn't have believed any of those things before the Fall because none of that stuff was true at that point in time. Yet, before the fall everything was just as God had intended it. Humanity was in perfect relationship with God, each other, and creation. No body needed to believe any of those 'not yet historical facts' to enjoy God, others, and creation.

So if Christ has come to "restore", "reclaim", "redeem"...then it seems like his purpose must go beyond such things as giving intellectual assent to historical events with present/future implications.

In fact, with all his talk about establishing a "Kingdom" [a society?] it seems like he emphasizes proper relationships (with God, others, creation) more than right belief about historical events with present/future implications. Though one could say that he insists on proper beliefs about relationships (with God, others, creation), and that those beliefs are to be realized in proper action (toward God, others, creation).

Is this why most of his teachings have little to do with believing the right things about what he has done(or will do), and almost entirely to do with living in right relationship with God, others, and creation?

Parables that emphasize hospitality, proper treatment of others, and use of resources?

Maybe the kingdom is less about 'believing' and more about 'living', unless of course it is about the kind of believing that leads to great living (with God, others, and creation).

These godless Days!

2010-07-13T19:44:00.004-04:00

i'm not convinced that the world is getting worse, or that people are committing more or greater atrocities. Nothing has really changed. Ecclesiastes says as much: "There is nothing new under the sun".

One thing about the world has changed. It's gotten smaller. What was once completely unknown, and in many cases unreachable, is now just a days trip and a moments news headline away. The news is nearly always about corruption, and this makes us feel that things must be worse than ever.

i'm sure that all of today's atrocities have been happening since the world began. Rape, murder, human trafficking, robbery, slavery, oppression, exploitation...etc.

In fact, i tend to think the world is getting better.

As many rant about getting this country back to it's values and 'good ol' day' roots, i wonder what that looks like. i asked a black friend if his parents would like relive the good ol' 40's & 50's again. He seemed to get the point.

When should we go back too? The days of slavery, unfair wages for women, 16hr work days coupled with child labor? How about the days when good honest church goers dressed in their Sunday suites and ties in the morning and traded it for white hoods and robs Sunday night?

Yeah, i think things are either better or the same. They definitely aren't worse. There may be some areas that are worse, but there are other areas that are better.

We have the capability of destroying the world with nuclear weapons, but that doesn't make us worse. That simply makes the same kind of people more dangerous.

Thought for the Day

2010-06-20T11:01:00.000-04:00

Every thought a person dwells upon, whether he expresses it or not, either damages or improves his life.
-Lucy Malor

We regret losing a purse full of money, but a good thought which has come to us, which we've heard or read, a thought which we should have remembered and applied to our life, which could have improved the world--we lose this thought and promptly forget about it, and we do not regret it, though it is more precious than millions.
-Leo Tolstoy

A Wise Old Man

2010-06-17T23:18:00.000-04:00

"Be strict in judging yourself and gentle in judging others, and you will have no enemies."
-Chinese Wisdom

There's an older man at our church who changes our church marquee. He always picks out witty quotes. Last week it was "Praise Loudly, Blame softly".

He's really the greatest example of someone who lives lovingly toward others. He's always got a good word to say, and is quick to overlook an offense. Though everyone loves him, because that is the result of loving others, he is easy to overlook.

Yet, here is someone who seems to have found the key to life. His is a quiet wisdom and a deep joy. Even after losing his wife, a daughter, and son all within the last three years. He is ready to depart from this world, though the world is not ready for him to leave.

The secret? He is quick to judge himself and gentle in judging others. You couldn't not like this guy, though many fools have thought themselves wiser.

The Good Life

2010-06-14T23:06:00.001-04:00

"The prerequisite of a good life is peace between people, and the major obstacle to peace is pride. A person should be humble, prepared to be falsely accused, ready for everything; only then can he bring peace into his relationships and into the lives of others."

It does seem true that we are angered the most when it is a matter that concerns our pride. We all deserve to be treated decently, and when we aren't, we understand that the other person is considering his/herself to be better than we are; looking down on us.

Looking down on others is the cheaters way of bringing ourselves 'up'. Rather than doing, or better yet, being someone of worth, we devalue the other which immediately makes us taller. We have not grown, but we are taller.

Most unfortunate is that we are even more offended when someone offends us not realizing they have said or done something demeaning. If they demean without trying to demean, then they truly do see themselves as better than us, and this we cannot stand, or stand for.

Truth is, we all think we're better than most others, and the fact that we are offended by others thinking about us the same way we think about them is ironic, and perhaps hopeless.

We think ourselves better because we think it makes life better, yet it does just the opposite. It causes us to compete, which always ends in someone trying to outdo the other one, and just as with five year olds 'pretend' fighting, it always turns out bad.

Hence, the biggest obstacle to peace is our pride.

Trauma Unit

2010-06-11T07:00:00.000-04:00

"A person who broods on revenge only worsens his wounds. His injuries would heal if he would refrain."
-Francis Bacon

i'm still trying to figure out both why a person harbors bitterness and resentment, and how to be released from both.

People do terrible things to other people. Sometimes they hurt us by destroying our trust, other times through physical or emotional trauma, and still other times simply as an insult to our pride. It is usually the attack of one's pride which leads to retaliation in all its forms. The other kinds of hurts disable us in other ways.

i don't know whether i've just not been hurt to such an extent, or whether i've simply found the secret of not harboring resentment. If i have found the secret, it is simply this, to be deeply aware that others are just as or more fallen than oneself. We're screwed up. When we can accept that, perhaps we can move beyond emotional captivity.

Or, maybe i just haven't been traumatized. Knock on wood...

Salvation

2010-06-08T19:11:00.008-04:00

"I will never seek or accept merely my own personal salvation. I do not want to receive satisfaction by myself; always and everywhere I live and work, I will hope and strive for the universal salvation of all people and all creatures in the world. Until all have been saved and freed, I will not abandon this world of sin, sadness, and strife."
-Ancient Chinese Wisdom

i wonder if individualism is itself a sin. The very idea of "every man for himself" seems divisive.

Is 'tribalism' just another form of individualism? When we embrace an 'us' against 'them' mentality, aren't we just making the 'i' bigger? [I]

No one can be saved 'alone'. To be separated from others is itself the definition of hell.

Fox News Release

2010-06-07T23:27:00.002-04:00

Concerning 'our' Losses

2010-05-31T09:02:00.005-04:00

CNN did a great job of putting together this interactive list of casualties in Iraq & Afghanistan. It is rather impressive and is a great way to 'remember'. Yet when i clicked on the link i was expecting to see civilian casualties as well, and was looking forward (in a relational way) to seeing the faces, hearing the stories, and remembering these too.

Unfortunately it was one sided. This bothered me because it reminded me of our 'me' mentality. We know that the greatest number of casualties, by far, have been those caught in the crossfire. Those are the people we say we're trying to protect. Why don't we desire to hear their stories and to consider their loss?

We've got to get beyond this "us vs them" mentality. The loss of the 'other' needs to become our loss as well. Until then, this circle of self-advancement and untold atrocity will continue.

If we can't care about them, then to hell with us.

Four Addictions that Destroy Your Dreams

2010-05-27T22:21:00.003-04:00

The Four Addictions by Tom Ferry

I've discovered four addictions we all have that destroy more dreams, more hopes and more lives than alcohol, drugs, food, gambling or sex combined. When I refer to addictions, I am not focused on any of these. To me, those are habitual symptoms or effects brought on by four much larger causes that are the root cause of those symptoms.

They are:

1) The Addiction to opinions of other people. As a society, we're addicted to what others think about us and how others' views of the world affect us.

2) The Addiction to drama. Some people are drawn to and consumed by any event or situation that occupies their thoughts and fills their mind with negativity, which often brings attention to them in unproductive ways.

3) The Addiction to the past. These people have an unhealthy attachment to events or situations that have occurred in the past. They're stuck in how things used to be.

4) The Addiction to worry. This addiction is comprised of all the negative and self-defeating thoughts that make us anxious, disturbed, upset and stressed, that hold us back in life.

Tom Ferry's Sure Signs of Four Addictions -- these are merely ideas to help you identify how each addiction could be showing up in your life. Do not reject the addiction if you don't relate to the six examples in each category. Think about situations in your life that might be more relevant to you.

The Addiction to the Opinions of Others

1. You Are Concerned About What Others Are Saying or Think About You.

2. You Have Good Ideas and Intentions But Find Yourself Afraid to Act on Them.

3. You Over Leveraged Yourself Financially in the Last Decade With Cars, Clothes, Homes, Jewelry and More.

4. You Are Constantly Seeking Other People's Approval or Avoiding Their Disapproval.

5. You're Afraid to Speak in Public.

6. You're Afraid to Speak Your Mind.

The Addiction to Drama

1. You Love To Gossip.

2. You Are Always In The Middle of a Crisis.

3. You're Glued to the News, Magazines and Stories About X Y & Z.

4. You Have a Tendency Toward Over Reacting Versus Rational Behavior.

5. Everything Is a Bigger Deal Than It Actually Is.

6. You're a Pot Stirrer.

The Addiction to the Past

1. You Constantly Talk About the Past and the Way Things Used to Be.

2. You Resist Change.

3. You Continually Fail to Plan for a Better Future.

4. You Argue for the Past That Things Used to be Better.

5. You've Allowed Relationships to Become Stale, Uninteresting and Without Passion.

6. You have Physically or Mentally Peaked.

The Addiction to Worry

1. You're Depressed, Concerned and Fearful about Everything.

2. You Spend Time with Other Worriers.

3. You Turn to TV and Movies as a Way to Escape the Thoughts in Your Head.

4. You Continuously Wake Up at Night from Your Mind Chatter.

5. You Continuously Go to the Worst-Case Scenario First.

6. You Use Food, Alcohol or Drugs to Control Your Moods and Feelings.

If you were to take away only one message from me, I want you to free yourself from the four addictions. Your life will become instantly and infinitely better.

Live Life by design, not by default.

Happiness

2010-05-25T17:39:00.002-04:00

It is a great happiness to have what you desire; but it is an even greater happiness not to want more than you already have.

--Menedemus

No "Favored Nation" Status with God

2010-05-12T12:25:00.009-04:00

Below are some links to journal articles and essays that deal with the issue of Christian Zionism, or the recent theology which has emerged as a political movement which supports the complete return of Palestine to Israel.

This theology is very recently developed, spreading mainly through a study bible called the "Scofield Reference Bible" in the early 20th century. This is not commonly known and many who ho ld to the theology believe it to be a historically held position among Christians. It is actually a deviation from the historical stance.

While we are called to love all people, there is some serious theological confusion, blurring the Old Covenant with the New Covenant in Christ, found in this new theology and political stance toward Israel. In fact, it goes against the very clear teachings of Christ who established his Church made of "every tribe, tongue, and language", and the strong declaration that "There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female". In Christ, we become one, not based on the blood which runs through our veins, but the blood which flowed down the cross.

“Why I’m Not a Christian Zionist, Academically Speaking” by Gary M. Burge, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Wheaton College & Graduate School

Jerusalem in the New Testament by N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham & professor of New Testament St. Andrews University, Scotland.

For those absolutely sold on the idea that God must fulfill the land promise of the Old Covenant in a literal fashion, despite the New Covenant, here is a study on who would actually be legally entitled to the inheritance (Palestinian Arabs included):

"Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem" by Robert Leon Mendelson

Trading the Truth for a Lie

2010-04-23T22:27:00.005-04:00

Liberty University, the largest Christian university known, has invited Glenn Beck to deliver the commencement address.

Liberty was founded by the late Jerry Falwell. What is surprising about this is that allegiance to country has trumped allegiance to the Gospel. Beck is a Mormon, which has always been considered a heretical sect by orthodox Christians. They deny the divinity of Christ, and the sole Lordship of God the Father, making him only one among many gods who rule their own universe, while teaching that you too can become the god of your own universe.

i believe we can see clearly where Liberty University's allegiance lies. They are recieving their spiritual exhortation from a man who's religious beliefs are radically contrary to the teachings of the apostles and a clear deviation from the faith.

And so the spirit of Jerry Falwell lives on...

They've exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

Earth Day

2010-04-22T21:39:00.001-04:00

One Thing

2010-04-19T08:00:00.002-04:00

When the rich young man asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus tells him to give all his riches to the poor and then come follow him. Jesus goes on to explain to his disciples that it is extremely difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Why is it so difficult? Because the kingdom calls us to make itself the center of our lives. It is to be all consuming, not just an added benefit in life, tacked on to all our other enjoyable comforts. Therefore, we ought not think the poor to be more virtuous on this account. The only thing that makes it easier for the poor to embrace the kingdom is that they have less to lose.

I believe this insight is relevant for American Christianity in particular. I have become convinced that Jesus truly means we are to love our enemies and bless those who curse us. As Tony Campolo so cleverly noted, “I think that means we shouldn’t bomb them”. I believe it is difficult for American Christians to embrace this clear teaching of Christ because they know they have so much to lose. So we print “In God we Trust” on our currency, while using 56% of the national budget to support military expenditures.

At least the rich young man had the common decency to walk away. Many might have tried to reconcile their contrary lifestyle with the Gospel, rather than submit to it.

It's Only Ok When I Do It

2010-04-16T08:00:00.000-04:00

The following quote is from the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer (who is the AFA's Director of Issues Analysis)

“Muslims continue to have as their objective the Islamization of the entire world, including the U.S., and are taught by their god to use force where necessary to accomplish the goal. The current objective of Muslim activists is to create a brand new Islamic state - meaning a state like New Jersey or Montana - out of existing jurisdictions and establish a virtual Islamic homeland in our midst.”

Many Muslims are on our shores on student visas and such and have not yet become citizens. We must politely decline their request for naturalization (becoming an American citizen is a privilege, not a right) and use the money we would otherwise spend on their welfare, their education, their medical care and their incarceration to graciously assist them in returning to their countries of origin.

Those who are willing to convert to Christianity and renounce Islam, Allah, Mohammed and the Koran may be welcomed, for they can become not just good Christians but true Americans."

----------------

It would seem that many Americans also have an objective of “Christianizing” the entire world. This is revealed in Bryan’s suggestion that American Muslims convert to Christianity in order to become “true Americans”.

In addition to this, our history, both past and current, would suggest that American Christians are very willing to “use force where necessary to accomplish their goal” of “Christianizing” the world. The code words they use are “democratizing” and “capitalizing”, which serve dual purposes. One is to make money, while the other is to open the door of Christian evangelization in Muslim countries. How do they open that door? By blowing a hole through the door “with their tanks, and their guns, and their bombs…”

“Conservative” Christians are extremely supportive of military intervention to bring about “democracy” and “free trade” with the justifiable end result of ultimately opening the door to Christianity in otherwise hostile environments. And we all see how good Christianity has been for America, the truly Christian nation that distributes more porn and guns that any other country in the world.

What is it we’re spreading?

An Unsortly Sorta Fruit

2010-04-13T19:04:00.004-04:00

God’s reaction may have seemed a bit strong when he responded to Adam & Eve’s waywardness. Yet it wasn’t just about taking some fruit from a forbidden tree. God was reacting to all of the yet unwritten history that would occur from that act. It wasn’t about a piece of fruit, it was about a woman being raped, a child being kidnapped, a drunken brawl that ended with someone dead, a bomb being dropped, a people group being enslaved or annihilated, a region undergoing famine while excess food rots away in dumpsters elsewhere in the world.

The fruit Adam and Eve picked was a strange fruit indeed. When they tossed the core of that fruit to the ground, an unsortly sort of seed was sown. A fruit that turns out to be more like a weed, and spreads through the garden, chocking out that which is good, useful, productive, and sucking all the nutrients out of the soil to feed its worthless self.

Guest Post: Brian McLaren

2010-03-31T22:46:00.001-04:00

Is God Violent? How about Jesus? How about ...?

One of the most important subjects addressed in my recent book A New Kind of Christianity is the question of whether we believe God is violent. There is no question that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others have been violent in God's name (although, happily, there are a few denominations and movements in each religion that oppose violence as a tenet of faith). The question is whether we believe violence is inherent to the character of God. A nonviolent God cannot be enlisted to sanction aggression, but a violent one is handy for that purpose.

The potential consequences of a violent image of God are illustrated by today's news story about so-called Christian militia.

It's strange and sad that this subject would come up during Holy Week.

This is the week we recall that Jesus was willing to be killed, but not to kill ... to be tortured, but not to torture. This is the week he told Peter to put away his sword, saying, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). This is the week he contrasted his kingdom in this world with the kingdoms of this world by their opposite responses to the violence question (John 18:36 ff). (The prepositions in and not of are important.) Many of us believe that Jesus embodies the image of a nonviolent God, an image intended to transcend and correct violent images.

But others portray Jesus as a violent avenger with "a commitment to make someone bleed," reinforcing rather than overturning a violent image of God. To do so, groups like the militia group in today's news point to an anticipated second-coming Jesus, especially as portrayed in Revelation 19:11 ff. There, they suggest, Jesus is described with a sword, so even though he wasn't violent in his first coming, he will be violent when he returns. They fail to note one small detail in the text: that the sword is in Jesus' mouth (!), not his hand. Might this not be unveiling* for us a deeper truth ... that the Jesus who rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday upon a humble donkey with tears falling from his eyes and with a word of peace on his lips was in fact more powerful than Caesar, Herod, Pilate, and their violent colleagues - who would ride proudly into town on chariots and white stallions, with one fist raised triumphantly in the air, and with the other holding a sword of violence? Might Revelation 19 be restating and reaffirming rather than contradicting and supplanting the Jesus of the gospels?

Here's how I say it in A New Kind of Christianity ... (after the jump):

From pages 124-126, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith:

To repeat, Revelation is not portraying Jesus returning to earth in the future, having repented of his naive gospel ways and having converted to Caesar's "realistic" Greco-Roman methods instead. He hasn't gotten discouraged about Caesar seeming to get the upper hand after his resurrection and on that basis concluded that it's best to live by the sword after all (Matt. 26:52). Jesus hasn't abandoned the way of peace (Luke 19:42) and concluded that the way of Pilate is better, mandating that the disciples should fight after all (John 18:36). He hasn't had second thoughts about all that talk about forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-22) and concluded that on the 78th offense you should pull out your sword and hack off your offender's head rather than turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39).
He hasn't given up on that "love your enemies" stuff (Matthew 5:44) and judged it naive and foolish after all (1 Cor. 1:25), concluding instead that God's strength is made manifest not in weakness but in crushing domination (2 Cor. 12:9). He hasn't had a change of heart, concluding that the weapons he needs are physical after all (2 Cor. 10:3-4), which would mean that the way to glory isn't actually by dying on a cross (Phil. 2:8-9) but rather by nailing others on it.

He hasn't sold the humble donkey (Luke 19:30-35) on eBay and purchased chariots, warhorses, tanks, land mines, and B-1s instead (Zech. 9:9-10).... He hasn't decided that the message of the cross is a little too foolish after all (1 Cor. 1:18) or that Christ killing his foes is way more exciting than that lame, absurd, "hippie" gospel of "Christ crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2).

He hasn't decided that ... nobody can be expected to worship a king they can beat up (Matt. 27:27).... Jesus matters precisely because he provides us a living alternative to the confining [violent] narrative in which our world and our religions live, move, and have their being too much of the time.

Revelation celebrates not the love of power, but the power of love. It denies, with all due audacity, that God's anointed liberator is the Divine Termintaor, threatening revenge for all who refuse to honor him, growling, "I'll be back!" It asserts, instead, that God's anointed liberator is the one we beat up, who promises mercy to those who strike him, whispering, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34).

*The title of the "Book of Revelation" or "The Apocalypse" means unveiling. Increasing numbers of scholars suggest it is not intended as a prognostication about the end of the world, but rather as an unveiling of the real meaning behind events in the time of its original readers.

Hosanna: A Palm Sunday Message

2010-03-28T14:17:00.006-04:00

Jesus comes riding into town on his donkey and people rush out to get their "I love Jesus" tattoos, which proves to be a big mistake. He's not the guy they thought he was and the relationship quickly goes from "He's everything I ever hoped for" to "I wish he were dead".

"Hosanna!" A Palm Sunday Message
(Matthew 21:1-17)

Recieving/Rejecting Jesus

2010-03-26T00:05:00.002-04:00

Palm Sunday is coming. This is the Sunday where we celebrate the story of Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem and all the folks give him a king’s entrance. The celebration is short lived though. The next scene in Matthew (ch 21) is of Jesus overturning tables in the temple. I think this is where the narrative takes a turn.

What a drastic turn it was; from receiving Jesus as Messiah to treating him more poorly than a dog who bit your child. Why the change?

It seems that when Jesus is coming into Jerusalem, what the people are actually celebrating is all their ideas about the Messiah, and not the Messiah himself. When Jesus begins to speak for himself (overturning tables in the temple), the illusion quickly fades.

Well, Jesus isn’t physically here with us today, which leaves all sorts of room to speculate and postulate without the real Jesus being able to speak for himself. How then can we know when our ideas about Jesus, and Jesus’ ideas about himself, are at odds?

Would we want to know?

How would we respond if Jesus started overturning our tables?

Spiritual Evolution

2010-03-19T22:33:00.005-04:00

Just a bit of a blurb here as i continue to think about the implications of the New Covenant upon the Old. i have come to understand that we no longer live under any of the stipulations of the Old Covenant (Testament) accept that which is reiterated under the New.

The Old Testament therefore becomes a guide in the process of the spiritual evolution of humanity. It has it's place, but has effectively served its purpose. When the new comes, the old is set aside.

In 2 Cor 3 Paul makes clear that the old covenant was a covenant of death.

Oh, and i'm liking this new idea of "spiritual evolution". That the fall was a "devolving" and God's relationship with humanity since that time is an "evolving", not biologically, but spiritually. Therefore, it is the story of the "spiritual evolution" of humanity.

Strangely enough, i owe the inspiration of the idea of "spiritual evolution" to Richard Dawkins. i've been thinking a lot about evolution on account of his book "The God Delusion".

Fireside Chat:: Burdensome

2010-02-19T17:06:00.003-05:00

You're A Born Winner!

2010-02-05T08:52:00.002-05:00

Don't ever call yourself a loser.

Consider the fact that you were once a sperm! You were once with a group of more than five million other sperm. Then all five million of you lined up at the starting line. And at the end of a long, long tunnel there was one egg.

There was a race!

And you won!

Don't ever call yourself a loser.
The odds were five million to one against you, and you came through.

You're a winner!

You make the Olympics seem insignificant by comparison. You are here by divine appointment. You are here because God chose you to be a winner in the struggle for existence.

--Tony Campolo
Let Me Tell You A Story

How to Kill a Bear

2010-02-02T08:00:00.001-05:00

When people wanted to kill a bear in the ancient times, they hung a heavy log over a bowl of honey. The bear would push the log away in order to eat the honey. The log would swing back and hit the bear. The bear would become irritated and push the log even harder, and it would return and hit him harder in return. This would continue until the log killed the bear. People behave in the same way when they return evil for the evil they receive from other people. Can't people be wiser than bears?

You should respond with kindness toward evil done to you, and you will destroy in an evil person that pleasure which he derives from evil.

-Leo Tolstoy

Disovering

2010-01-31T13:08:00.003-05:00

If you want to study Yourself--look into the hearts of other people. If you want to study other people--look into your own heart.

-Friedrick von Schiller

You will do Greater Works than These

2010-01-20T22:10:00.000-05:00

We are baffled by the idea that we could perform greater things than Jesus did. Some, promoting the idea that we should be operating with miraculous power today, point to the above statement from Jesus’ own lips to verify it. When we think of the “greater works” we get caught up with the “miracles” Jesus performed. The focus is often on his power and not the outcome of his “work”.

Jesus fed the 5,000. That was an incredible miracle. We have it within our ability to feed the whole world.

Jesus healed the sick, the lame, the blind. We too can do much to cure a myriad of diseases and disabilities anywhere around the globe…if we so choose.

I believe Jesus wasn’t talking about the miraculous nature of how his “works” (miracles) were employed, but on their overall effect. They supplied the need of the other. He made people whole again.

He was one person, with (self-) limited mobility, locked within a specific region of the world. If we look not at the magnificence of the miracle itself, being wowed by the power, but at the outcome of the “work” Christ performed, I believe we’ll understand why we haven’t encountered someone with the ability to do the supernatural to the extent Christ has, and yet we still have the capability to do “greater works than these”.

The Way of the Cross

2010-01-19T20:07:00.003-05:00

Here is a link to this weeks message which explores Christianity's call to Love One's Enemy with a special emphasis on the example of Martin Luther King Jr. The emphasis is on a call to take another's suffering upon oneself in the hope of redeeming the other, especially when the other is an enemy. Responding in love catches an oppressor off guard and opens up the potential for awaking their conscience and bringing transformation.

i think this message may be timely in light of the recent exposure of New Testament Bible passage references found on military weaponry.

The Means to an End (2)

2010-01-17T10:45:00.000-05:00

Be sure that the means you employ are as pure as the end you seek.
Martin Luther King Jr. "Strength to Love"

A New End

2010-01-12T21:33:00.001-05:00

There's always been lot of talk and interpretation about the end times and how to interpret biblical books like Daniel and Revelation. The Left Behind series, from what i've heard, offers an interpretation that has been fairly standard since the time of Darby and the Scofield reference Bible. i certainly don't claim to know much about the end times and i'm fairly convinced that the prophecies of Revelation were complete by AD 70.

Many Christians believe that the end will be accompanied by a one world order which will be religiously motivated and volatile toward genuine Christianity; that there will be a one system currency, and that people will have to have the number 666 printed on their forhead or hand, which may be a computer chip. This has unfortunately led some to oppose peace treaties between nations and to inadvertently accept war as more comforting than peace. Anything that looks like we might actually be trying to work together is considered suspect.

i tend to think that if there really are still prophecies to be fulfilled, we'll likely miss them altogether because we'll be looking for the wrong things. It's easy to look at things within a very limited preconceived scope, which is why the Jewish people missed the Messiah. What if the one world currency isn't a coin or paper money, but a Visa card? What if the one world religion isn't Catholicism, or Islam, or anything we generally think of as religion, but something more like "Capitalism". Isn't this an ideology we've attempted to advance in all places at all costs?

Again, this really isn't a prediction of any sort. i lean toward the idea that prophecies in the book of Revelation described events that occurred in the 1st century. Babylon was a common code for "Rome". i simply think some of the modern interpretations are too narrow and may actually be causing more harm than good. We are so worried about what we think is to come that we may actually be missing the fact that we have been and are now living in it and perhaps even a part of it.

Patriotism = Militarism

2010-01-09T20:59:00.004-05:00

Serving your country by enlisting in the military is no doubt a commendable act of citizenship. Doesn't patriotism take many other forms as well?

It seems the most consistently used test to determine if someone is patriotic is to measure their support of those serving in the military. If we are accused of being unpatriotic, it is usually not due to our political differences, whether we are Democrat or Republican, or even our support or lack of support of the current president. It falls squarely on our support of military action, and more precisely those who serve in the military. In the late 60’s & 70’s, being against the war in Vietnam qualified a person as being “unpatriotic”. Today, the winds are shifting…slightly. You can oppose the war and still be considered patriotic, so long as you support the troops. It is a great lesson we learned from Vietnam, that while we might demonize the war, we must never demonize the troops who serve in those wars. I agree.

Back to the main point. Patriotism is defined by one’s support of the military, and especially military personnel. Military is one area where Democrats and Republicans can often find common ground. If they differ, they usually differ on the most effective methods or means of using the military and not so much concerning final outcomes.

This constricted definition of patriotism leaves the majority of our society's most positively influential people out of the picture. It seems to me that patriotism ought to be defined along the lines of those who are seeking to make the society we live in a better society for all who live in it (not just a safer society). Under this definition, Martin Luther King would have been considered one of the greatest patriots this country has ever known, along with those who call for nuclear disarmament, women’s rights, and equal rights. Yet those who denounce the evils of a society, and seek to bring about positive change within that society, are often demonized by being characterized as “unpatriotic”? (though many years later, after they’ve been murdered, their good intention might be recognized)

How is it that we are patriotic for seeking to bring change outside of our borders, but too often considered “unpatriotic” when we seek to bring positive change within our borders? Shouldn’t patriotism be first and foremost a measure of how we are positively transforming the communities we live in?

Peace Targeted

2010-01-06T21:21:00.000-05:00

i had a little bit of hope...

Until escalations in Afghanistan proved we would use the same old method to deal with the same old problem

St. Francis of Assisi & Self Portraits

2010-01-03T23:51:00.001-05:00

St. Francis’ thoughts on how one ought to view themselves and their enemies seems right. We ought to consider our enemies better than ourselves, and no matter what position we may currently serve in, we ought not admire it any more than we would the job of washing others feet. We are ever only who God sees us as being.

This final thought put me in conflict. I’ve been taught that God sees me as righteous in Christ. I wonder how he could be so blind. I see myself as a sinner saved by grace. I don’t really want him to see me as any more than that. I need to know that he can deal with the truth. I am happy to think that he sees all he can bring about in me. I also need to know that he can see me for who I am today, because the present me is the true me, at least for the moment.

We spend too much time already, trying to evade the truth.

Non-Violent Attitudes

2010-01-01T16:23:00.002-05:00

i came across this letter in a book i am reading. The letter was written by David Nyvall and is directed toward the writers of a Christian Newspaper. The Newspaper was confronting the publishers of another, which it saw as a competitor. This is not a recent letter, it was written in 1893.

i quote this here only as a reminder to myself of the spirit of love which needs to flow out of every challenge. Our desire must always be the good of the other. We must always seek to build up and not tear down. While we can desire to tear down dangerous views and contrary teachings (contrary to the Way of Christ), we must always do so in a manner which seeks to build up those whose teachings we oppose. We are never to oppose the person themselves, only what is contrary to Christ. The Scriptures tell us "We wrestle not against flesh and blood".

i think this is good advice to anyone who seeks to win another over for any reason they deem to be good. Confronting in anger only serves to motivate the other to erect walls of hostility and adversity, which of course will not serve your point.

"I hope that you will have good fortune in the future. May you be given, not only a sharp pen, but above everything else more and more of a burning and loving heart. Write with red ink oftener than with black. Encourage more than criticize. It is through the good that we do that we recommend ourselves, not through the evil that others do. The faults of others never become our merits. Others' sins never become our virtues. It is sin to criticize when it does not happen in a spirit of pure and guileless love--a love which aims to help."

-This is a great challenge for me as i seek to find new ways to encourage the church to embrace Jesus' call to non-violent, self-suffering, transformational action. It is easy to be sarcastic, especially when you see the others position as obviously flawed. But if our desire is to win Christians over to the way of Christ, then it must be done in love and with every good intention to serve the spiritual benefit of those we challenge. The desire must be to transform, not to "win".

i also recognize that part of the challenge in this is that by simply asserting that what you believe is the more accurate interpretation, will itself be interpreted as pretentious and insulting. i believe this is why it is all the more necessary to challenge people in an obvious spirit of love.

May God help me to make this a New Year's resolution and give me the grace to actually practice it consistently!

And yes, i do believe that non-violence, coupled with the desire to win our enemies over to the way of love and charity, is a definite New Testament teaching. i do not feel i can hold it as merely a personal perspective, though it is that as well. i do feel an obligation to challenge the Church toward these ends.

i also believe that we can worship alongside those whose view is different, without making this a volatile or divisive issue. If we are to win others over, it must be done first and foremost through our compelling example, not merely words or arguments, which often rattle around in the head without reaching the heart.

A Good Citizen

2009-12-29T11:17:00.001-05:00

While i do not believe in allowing my national citizenship to require undue allegiance [I love you and i'll say you're right even when you're wrong], i do believe that every Christian is called to be the very best citizen of whatever community they find themselves in.

Good citizenship must of course be defined along New Testament terms.

Martin Luther King was often called "unpatriotic". The truth is, and which can now be seen in retrospect, he was one of the best citizens this country has ever seen. He contributed more than most to making this country a better country. He did this by placing Christ first, seeking God's ideals of justice and equality, and challenging the country using biblical principles [non-violent resistance while loving your enemy and desiring their ultimate good].

i don't believe that "patriotism" [love of country] is a healthy way to love, because it is too narrowly defined. Patriotism is narrow by nature, preferring one over the other, based simply upon one's location and too often not for some higher purpose. If all that binds us together is our location, then we are loosely bound indeed. This would be as dangerous as binding ourselves together based on ethnicity has proven to be.

i believe our love must go beyond patriotism. Let us love the community we find ourselves in. Not for the sake of finding ourselves there, but for the sake of making it all God desires it to be. Instead of being a lover of one's country, we ought to be a lover of our community, or as Jesus describes it: neighbor. Who is my neighbor? Whoever we happen to find ourselves in community with. Today, we find ourselves in community with the whole world. Any place in the world can be reached in about a day or less.

A Christian is called to be a good citizen, based on Christ's Way, wherever he or she finds him or herself. We are to seek to make our communities better, whatever community we are in, though never at the expense of another's community, because all communities are ultimately God's community, just as all human beings are made in the image of God.

Therefore, we seek to love our community, and our community seeks to make other communities better. So if i find myself living in Iraq, i seek to make that community better. If i find myself in Iran, i seek to make that community better. Whatever community i am in, i seek to make it better through love and community service, and there is no allegiance greater than this.

"Thy Kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven"

Some of the most important rules for the citizen of the Kingdom of God:
1. Love your enemies
2. Bless those who curse you
3. Do good to those who hate you
4. Pray for those who persecute you
5. Love your neighbor as yourself
6. If you have two coats, give one to your neighbor who has none
7. Love God with all Your Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength

"They call me a dreamer...but i'm not the only one"

The Gospel According to Lost

2009-12-27T20:11:00.003-05:00

Well, a long time ago, a friend recommended that i watch the show "LOST". i didn't take her up on it until earlier this year, when i could actually watch the first five seasons on Netflix without having to wait week to week. i just finished watching when i noticed this new book out called "The Gospel According to Lost." i thought i would check it out because i didn't much think about any Christian correlations within the show itself (perhaps because there was so much violence in it?). i thought it would be interesting to see what Chris Seay had to say.

Don't get the book if you haven't finished watching the first five seasons, since it has spoilers and it really only makes sense if you can follow along with its illustrations based on the episodes. The first thing i liked about the book was that it helped remind me of the story line from season one throughout. Secondly, it pointed out all sorts of things that i overlooked, namely the imagery used to depict the mixed nature of good and evil within all of us. Third, it helped reveal some major themes that i had overlooked. Finally, it intentionally used the lessons and illustrations of the show to challenge me with the underlining message of the Gospel.

It seems that nearly any show would have object lessons that could be used to illustrate Christian implications, as well as any other, and it seems fair to me that Chris would use popular culture to reconnect us with the Gospel. i actually prefer to listen to secular music because of what i can learn from basic human experience, especially when i can in turn interpret through a Christ-centered worldview. Since Christian music attempts to do this in such a straightforward way, i often feel it lacks in displaying the basic human condition...if that makes sense. In the same way i think Abrams "LOST" does an excellent job of showing the basic human condition, and Seay had done a good job of interpreting it through a Christian worldview.

Ultimately the book was a quick read, yet thought provoking and enjoyable for anyone who enjoyed following the series.

Citizens of the World

2009-12-26T11:00:00.003-05:00

Everyone should have something to believe. Something outside themselves which they value more than themselves. Something worth dying [living] for. i hope that something will be someone: Christ.

For those who do not have Christ, i hope they do have something. For some, it is our country. Once a man said to me, "I'd have a hard time not killing someone who desecrated my [American] flag." This man found something outside himself, bigger than himself, worth living for.

As Christians i believe we are called more to be citizens of the world (to coin Rev. Martin Luther Kings term) than citizens of any particular nation. This term "citizens of the world" will be very disturbing for some Christians. Please, do not let the words get in the way of the meaning. i am not saying to embrace "worldliness". i am saying to embrace the idea that the Gospel has no boundaries, or borders. Jesus says that we are bound closer to those who share our faith in him than we are to our own parents ("Who is my mother, brothers, sisters?") Therefore, your Iranian sister is closer to you than your local Senator.

In this way Christ was a citizen of the world.

Christ had a national heritage and ethnicity. He was Jewish and a would be citizen of Israel, if there was such a thing at the time. His fellow Israelites were often upset with him because of his service to non-Israelites [Gentiles]. Jesus' citizenship was not with any particular nation. Rather he was a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, and this kingdom knows no national boundaries. It is made up of every tribe, tongue, and nation.

In this way, if you are a Christ follower, you are called to be "a citizen of the world".

1. How will this effect our national allegiance?
2. How will this effect our support for wars against other countries?
3. Is it "anti-Christian" to think this way? If not, then why does it make American Christians angry?

Unpatriotic?

2009-12-23T10:46:00.005-05:00

If you aren't praising your nation, or saluting the flag, people call you "unpatriotic". To be unpatriotic doesn't simply mean that you don't hold "your country" before others, but it actually insinuates that you are against your country.

i often write posts which question our allegiance to our country. Yet i have no hatred toward this country or any country. The reason i do this is to help separate Christianity from Patriotism. In the mind of many Evangelicals, the two have become nearly synonymous. For some, being a good Christian means being a good Republican, though they would never state it in these terms. But Jesus said, where your treasure is, your heart is also. The heart of many Christians can be found in their national and political identities.

i believe nationalism is one of the greatest enemies of our faith in America today. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves shouting "Caesar is Lord" rather than "Jesus is Lord". i hope to do all i can to reveal the unhealthy merger we've found ourselves in, and to help us to view ourselves as "citizens of heaven".

Being citizens of heaven means we are closer to being "citizens of the world" than citizens of any one particular country. More about that in the next post.

Tradition

2009-12-22T22:19:00.000-05:00

Every tradition was once an innovative idea.

On Liberty

2009-12-20T10:36:00.001-05:00

It is interesting how we’ve hijacked biblical terms and ideas, retaining the terms while altering the ideas. In this way we can shout for the triumph of Liberty, Freedom, and Justice, and claim God as our divinity who supports all these things, while actually meaning something entirely different.

The Liberty and Freedom that are ours in Christ is a liberty and freedom from sin (self-seeking and in some instances self-directing). It is not liberty and freedom from all things, to free us to do whatever we want. It is not the “free” markets or “liberal” ideals, such as “liberty” over one’s own body, even if it means to terminate a life. When freedom and liberty have no bounds, we will find ourselves bound by other laws, such as the law of selfishness and greed. God’s liberty and freedom do not lead to self-serving. Jesus said, “He who wants to be greatest among you must become a servant to all.”

When a law is passed that says it is illegal to kill another, it does not infringe upon my liberty. That is, it does not infringe upon the liberty that Christ has secured for me. It in no way hinders me from seeking Christ’s way. If I am taxed so that others may have health insurance, my freedom and liberty have not been denied to me. That is, not the freedom and liberty which Christ has obtained for me. Isn’t it him who said, “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.”

And when we fight in the name of “Justice”, are we fighting to secure God’s Justice? I believe God loves Justice, but we all have different interpretations of what that means. God’s Justice has secured Grace for every living person, especially the sinner. Yet this is not the kind of Justice we seek. When we speak of Justice, we do not seek Grace for the sinner.

Freedom, Liberty, and Justice are great ideals. Only we should not confuse ourselves by thinking we are holding to God’s ideals just because we’ve managed to hijack his terminology.

Faith & Political Power

2009-12-17T22:27:00.001-05:00

The struggle for the freedom of the Church, the struggle to avoid identifying Jesus' Kingdom with any political structure, is one that has to be fought century after century. For the fusion of faith and political power always comes at a price: faith becomes the servant of power and must bend to its criteria.

-Pope Benedict XVI "Jesus of Nazareth"

Now here is someone that should know a little something about the nature of faith and politics. It seems the great demise of the Church has always been to pollute it with political allegiances and goals. It began with Rome, and keeps repeating itself throughout history. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Reformers, and in America today...Evangelicals.

We believe we can make the world a better place by wielding political power, but in the end it always corrupts and controls us.

It's like the One Ring in Tolkien's novel. We witness how it masters others, but for some reason we believe if we wield it, we would overcome its power and use it for good. That's exactly what it wants us to think.

Women & Men

2009-12-14T12:31:00.001-05:00

Gandhi lived in a caste culture. That caste was divided along many lines, one of which of course, like most cultures, was men and women. Women of course are the "lesser" of the two. In Evangelical circles this tends to be a rather common thought, though it would never be said in those terms. There are many other ways to express a thought, other than exact statements. This makes it all the more incredible, that Gandhi, writing in the 1930's, from within a caste culture, should express this sentiment:

"To call woman the weaker sex is a libel; it is man's injustice to woman. If by strength is meant brute strength, then indeed is woman less brute than man. If by strength, is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior. Has she not greater intuition, is she not more self-sacrificing, has she not greater powers of endurance, has she not greater courage? Without her man could not be. If non-violence is the law of our being, the future is with woman."

Julia Ward Howe wrote the ever famous song "Battle Hymn of the Republic". It is one of the "patriotic" songs in the hymnal (which is all sorts of wrong, but that's another issue). She wrote it with the mindset that God is on "our" nations side, and it is a prayer that God enable us to conquer our foes.

After seeing the young men returning from war empty, hateful, maimed, or dead, she had a spiritual revelation about the evils of war and how contrary it was to the ways of Christ. In an effort to turn our country away from war as a solution, she advocated a special day of the year to call women to turn the hearts of their husbands, sons, and ultimately the nation, toward more advantageous means of peaceful resolution. We call this annual holiday "Mother's Day".

One of the more patriotic fellows in our congregation, who doesn't much admire my stance on non-violence or patriotism, insisted that we sing this song on one of our patriotic holidays in remembrance of those who have served in the military. i couldn't help but smile at the irony as we sang.

i also couldn't help but admire this woman who was spiritual enough to not only admit her faulty thinking, but to actively turn others toward a more Christ-like direction. i have no doubt that she regrets ever penning this song, or that many continue to sing it, not realizing how her story ended. Yet her repentance and sensitivity upon seeing the truth speaks to the more pliable nature of women's spirituality, which allows them to truly be more easily led and redirected by God's Spirit. Truly, a sensitivity that comes more naturally to women than it does men.

This is of course a sweeping generality, and i know there are always exceptions.

Prince of Peace God of War

2009-12-13T08:00:00.000-05:00

Here is a documentary my wife found that explains the Christian non-violence theory vs the Just War theory. It is very well done. Tony Campolo closes the documentary with an example of non-violent resistance and it's transformative effects. This was the only thing that seemed to be lacking and i look forward to writing about non-violent resistance and redemptive suffering as the most effective transformative power available. Jesus' teaching about loving your enemy are more than an act of obedience, it is the way to bring transformation to the world. This video lays out an excellent foundation for the New Covenant teaching and sets us up for further discussion on the effective power of non-violent resistance and redemptive suffering.

The video is one hour long and can be downloaded here. i've created a dvd which i would be glad to make available to anyone free of charge.

Seeking Immortality

2009-12-11T09:20:00.001-05:00

Humanity is ever seeking a sense of immortality. Enkidu and Gilgamesh seek to slay the great Humbaba, the god. They know the task is likely impossible. Gigamesh thinks the task still worth the effort:

"Who can climb to heaven and become immortal?
Only the members of the divine assembly live forever.
The days of humans are numbered;
Human deeds are like a breath of wind.
Here you stand afraid of death. What about your mighty arm? I will stand in front of you.
Encourage me, saying: 'Fear nothing!'
If i die, I will at least have made a name for myself."

Humans are mortal, and the only way we really know how to become immortal is for our name to be remembered. We do that in some sense by passing on our name from one generation to the next. Or by somehow making our mark in history in such a way that our name will be remembered. Achilles was conned into fighting a war that would certainly end in his death. The temptation was that it would immortalize him by making a name for himself which would endure throughout history. He found this preferable to life itself. He found it to be in some sense a greater life. An immortal life.

We still seek our immortality through various means, though most often not so heroic or amazing. The most common way is through our posterity.

Recently, a woman in her later years of life, has come to me requesting that we put name plates on various items in the church that were donated some years ago by people she knows. Another man, i do not know, showed up at the church a few months back and said he and his mother use to come to the church some years ago. His mother had donated the communion table and he wondered why her name wasn't on it. Then he said, "Well, it does say 'Do this in remembrance of me', I guess i know who that stands for then" (he was referring to his mother). It was too outrageously funny to be irritated by it. i have some empathy, because i know the motive is the desire for immortality, and one of the main ways we humans attempt immortality is by ensuring we are remembered.

i was recently shocked to learn that in Germany there are no permanent graves. People rent spots for a number of years, like 15, and can renew them once or twice. Eventually the bones are removed and disposed of and that grave site is rented to someone else. Why was i so shocked? Because i realized that the grave marker is another one of our attempts at securing a sense of immortality. Some years ago, in New Hampshire, i stumbled upon an old graveyard. As i read the names on the gravestones, each person seemed to come alive again from a brief moment. Their lives were remembered hundreds of years later. i knew nothing of their lives, but it was enough to remember they lived. i carried their spirit (memory) forward to the present. They achieved their continued immortality.