The problem of evil in the world is purely a monotheistic problem. All other religions - especially those with dualistic systems have answers to the problem of pain. The reason Christianity struggles with this problem is because we preach a Good God - He is all powerful, ever-present, and all knowing - yet evil still exists. Since a good God cannot remain good if He creates evil - where does it come from? And why does it happen to good people?
Some Christians believe God creates evil - and quote a scripture in Isaiah to back up their claims
Others, claim that good and evil are equal forces
Still others believe that we all deserve much worse than we are getting and should stop whining and start obeying an angry God.
And many believe all three.
The story of evil starts in the Garden - A&E's disobedience and failure to repent ushered in sin, which is the misuse of creation and God's purpose for our lives - the result of sin is evil. Evil is the lack of Good - it is not a force unto itself. We were created to love God and love each other - this was our primary purpose. A&E decided to add determining good and evil to their list of duties - since they were never created to determine good and evil, they were unprepared to take on the responsibility and never needed to since evil never needed to be experienced or even encountered. So, God not only decided to teach us how to love again, He added to our purpose and experience through an added blessing - forgiveness - the highest form of love. He forgave us and is teaching us to receive forgiveness, forgive ourselves, and others.
Therefore, bad things happen to everyone so that we can learn how to forgive and receive forgiveness. The problem of Pain is Forgiveness.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Thoughts on Evil
As tempting as it is to point to our culture of consumerism and secularism as threats to Christianity, a greater evil has infiltrated our very theology and mindsets - dualism. You can see it everywhere within Christian culture - our books, theology, and internet - yet it has no place within the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, dualism his been threatening Christian thought from the very beginning; indeed, it has proven difficult to root out.
Dualism is the idea that there are two equal forces fighting against each other in the universe - it was taught in a religion called Zoroastrianism, which was popular in Iran during the time of Christ. Dualistic thought springs from dualism - it was actually promoted by the Pharisees - there is only right and wrong, black and white, God or the devil, no work on the Sabbath - PERIOD. Christ's response was to offer a third option, which terrified everyone around Him, actually.
Is Satan a real force in the universe? Yes. Is he a threat to the risen Christ? Not even close. Is he a threat to a redeemed Christian? Nope. Instead, our sinful nature is our greatest threat to the peace of Christ in our hearts - but the good news is that Christ is with us and He wants to be in relationship with us. So next time you feel like you are being attacked by Satan - think about it - does your view of Satan include omnipresence? Can he attack everyone, personally, at the same time? Does it include omniscience? Does he know everything about us - all of us personally? How about omnipotent? Can he destroy us all? Lead us all to Hell? Seriously compete with God for our hearts and minds? If yes, you are definitely giving Satan far too much credit - as most of you know, all three of those aspects I listed are aspect of God alone; more importantly, you may also be falling into the age old trap of dualism.
Some of you might remember an old book that used to be sold as Christian - it is a work of fiction called "This Present Darkness" - it is the best example of dualism, I can think of at the moment.
Dualism is the idea that there are two equal forces fighting against each other in the universe - it was taught in a religion called Zoroastrianism, which was popular in Iran during the time of Christ. Dualistic thought springs from dualism - it was actually promoted by the Pharisees - there is only right and wrong, black and white, God or the devil, no work on the Sabbath - PERIOD. Christ's response was to offer a third option, which terrified everyone around Him, actually.
Is Satan a real force in the universe? Yes. Is he a threat to the risen Christ? Not even close. Is he a threat to a redeemed Christian? Nope. Instead, our sinful nature is our greatest threat to the peace of Christ in our hearts - but the good news is that Christ is with us and He wants to be in relationship with us. So next time you feel like you are being attacked by Satan - think about it - does your view of Satan include omnipresence? Can he attack everyone, personally, at the same time? Does it include omniscience? Does he know everything about us - all of us personally? How about omnipotent? Can he destroy us all? Lead us all to Hell? Seriously compete with God for our hearts and minds? If yes, you are definitely giving Satan far too much credit - as most of you know, all three of those aspects I listed are aspect of God alone; more importantly, you may also be falling into the age old trap of dualism.
Some of you might remember an old book that used to be sold as Christian - it is a work of fiction called "This Present Darkness" - it is the best example of dualism, I can think of at the moment.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Fall
If you are one of the few people who read my blog, you are aware that I enjoy thinking and writing about the Creation story. In this case, I have been think a great deal about the Fall; I have come to believe that a consequence of the Fall is a dualistic mindset. One of the interesting characteristics of great thinkers like Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi is that they offer us a third option. According to the gospels Jesus taught in parables, which to the dismay of the Pharisees offered a new way to be in the world - rather than embrace the law as a way to show God love through obedience, He taught us that the law was made for us, and we could us it to include each other and love each other, rather than exclude and exalt ourselves for being obedient. The Buddha offer us the middle way - being an ascetic is not going to bring peace, neither is going to the other extreme of being hedonistic, instead he offered a third option. Gandhi taught a paradox - nonviolent protest - rather than fighting with violence as many people would have done and rightly so in their position, Gandhi provided a combination of protest and non-participation - a third option. The third option always demands a merciful response - it always demands the best of our humanity. Jesus rightly taught that He is the way the truth and the life - our salvation lies in the third way, which requires a flexible and humble mindset. Only our true selves can follow in the path of the third way.
Humility
Uriah Heep is one of the more memorable characters from Charles Dicken's novel, David Copperfield; his famous character flaw was to proclaim how humble he was to everyone he met. Although it was meant as a joke by the author, it is a great example of a profound misunderstanding of the concept of humility, which seems to have pervaded the Western mindset; which is, the act of being humble means to downplay all of your strengths, while reminding everyone of your weaknesses. According to this definition, Heep was actually proud of his humility, therefore nullifying any hint of true humility.
This understanding of the word humble or humility is also found in the Caltholic church. Recently, I had a conversation with an ex-monk who, in the tradition of Uriah Heep, told me that he would never claim to be a humble man because it would be an act of pride, instead he would revel in his weaknesses in order to remind himself that he is actually nothing before God and therefore worthy to be called a child of God. History backs up his understanding and mindset; the mystics of the Catholic Church fill much of their writings with proclamations dedicated to how lowly they were; "I am, but a worm", cried Luther from his monastery cell.
Protestants, are not immune from false humility either; apparently, Luther brought the idea with him. Calvin, with his doctrine of total depravity seems to have actually outdone medieval mystics and even the desert fathers - and that is not an easy task! After attending several Protestant Bible studies in the recent past, I have noticed that the idea is alive and well, today. On one memorable occasion, I was listening to a minister who was visiting the Bible study and as soon as he found an example of victory in the Bible, instead of celebrating the freedom found in the Christian life, he turned an opportunity to talk about how God has worked in his life into a time to emphasize his weaknesses. Then a strange thing happened, everyone in the room started talking about their own weaknesses and how they were turning them over to God. Now, I understand that we are incomplete without God, but are we as bad as Monty Python suggests "Oh great and powerful, master of the universe; OH awesome, and spectacular being of utter magnanimity; I am so weak and lowly; yes, obsequious!!
Indeed, I think we have left the path of truth when it comes to the true definition of being humble. It is troubling because it is definitely a prerequisite to a saving relationship with Christ and must be apart of a person's character if they are going to follow Christ's commandment on Earth - to love one another. So, how can it be so important, yet unrecognizable within ourselves at best, or at worse, unattainable? After thinking deeply about this subject, I have concluded that we have replaced true humility with false humility. The fact is, every time we replace a sober acknowledgment of our strengths with a slogging through the mire of our weaknesses we are still being prideful - we are repeating Uriah's character flaw, by way of inserting a clever, yet transparent twist - instead of focusing on our strengths we revel in our weaknesses. We certainly expect the same behavior from the people we worship in Hollywood and in the sports arena. Michael Jordon was the best basketball player of his time; Tiger Woods is the best golfer of his day, yet both would be ostracized if they even hinted at this truth.
I believe one of the reasons our society today demands false humility is because we mistake the action of being humble with being humiliated. In fact, the only time a famous, beloved person in our society can be vulnerable is when they have been humiliated by the press or their own negative behavior made public. If false humility is the downplay of strengths and an empathize on weakness, which involves no real vulnerability; true humility is a sober understanding of our strengths and weaknesses, which involves vulnerability. C.S. Lewis once said that he hesitated to claim the word Christian because it had taken on such a negative connotation, he could barely relate to it as a follower of Christ. I feel the same way about the word humility - I think I will substitute the word vulnerable for humility because it seems to capture more of the truth without the baggage.
This understanding of the word humble or humility is also found in the Caltholic church. Recently, I had a conversation with an ex-monk who, in the tradition of Uriah Heep, told me that he would never claim to be a humble man because it would be an act of pride, instead he would revel in his weaknesses in order to remind himself that he is actually nothing before God and therefore worthy to be called a child of God. History backs up his understanding and mindset; the mystics of the Catholic Church fill much of their writings with proclamations dedicated to how lowly they were; "I am, but a worm", cried Luther from his monastery cell.
Protestants, are not immune from false humility either; apparently, Luther brought the idea with him. Calvin, with his doctrine of total depravity seems to have actually outdone medieval mystics and even the desert fathers - and that is not an easy task! After attending several Protestant Bible studies in the recent past, I have noticed that the idea is alive and well, today. On one memorable occasion, I was listening to a minister who was visiting the Bible study and as soon as he found an example of victory in the Bible, instead of celebrating the freedom found in the Christian life, he turned an opportunity to talk about how God has worked in his life into a time to emphasize his weaknesses. Then a strange thing happened, everyone in the room started talking about their own weaknesses and how they were turning them over to God. Now, I understand that we are incomplete without God, but are we as bad as Monty Python suggests "Oh great and powerful, master of the universe; OH awesome, and spectacular being of utter magnanimity; I am so weak and lowly; yes, obsequious!!
Indeed, I think we have left the path of truth when it comes to the true definition of being humble. It is troubling because it is definitely a prerequisite to a saving relationship with Christ and must be apart of a person's character if they are going to follow Christ's commandment on Earth - to love one another. So, how can it be so important, yet unrecognizable within ourselves at best, or at worse, unattainable? After thinking deeply about this subject, I have concluded that we have replaced true humility with false humility. The fact is, every time we replace a sober acknowledgment of our strengths with a slogging through the mire of our weaknesses we are still being prideful - we are repeating Uriah's character flaw, by way of inserting a clever, yet transparent twist - instead of focusing on our strengths we revel in our weaknesses. We certainly expect the same behavior from the people we worship in Hollywood and in the sports arena. Michael Jordon was the best basketball player of his time; Tiger Woods is the best golfer of his day, yet both would be ostracized if they even hinted at this truth.
I believe one of the reasons our society today demands false humility is because we mistake the action of being humble with being humiliated. In fact, the only time a famous, beloved person in our society can be vulnerable is when they have been humiliated by the press or their own negative behavior made public. If false humility is the downplay of strengths and an empathize on weakness, which involves no real vulnerability; true humility is a sober understanding of our strengths and weaknesses, which involves vulnerability. C.S. Lewis once said that he hesitated to claim the word Christian because it had taken on such a negative connotation, he could barely relate to it as a follower of Christ. I feel the same way about the word humility - I think I will substitute the word vulnerable for humility because it seems to capture more of the truth without the baggage.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Carnival
Well, I've walked these streets
A virtual stage, it seemed to me
Makeup on their faces
Actors took their places next to me
Well, I've walked these streets
In a carnival, of sights to see
All the cheap thrill seekers vendors and the dealers
They crowded around me
1-Have I been blind have I been lost
Inside myself and my own mind
Hypnotized, mesmerized by what my eyes have seen?
Well, I've walked these streets
In a spectacle of wealth and poverty
In the diamond markets the scarlet welcome carpet
That they just rolled out for me
And I've walked these streets
In the madhouse asylum they can be
Where a wild-eyed misfit prophet
On a traffic island stopped and he raved of saving me
Have I been blind, have I been lost
Have I been blind, have I been mean
Have I been strong
Hypnotized, mesmerized by what my eyes have seen
In that great street carnival, in that carnival?
- Natalie Merchant
A virtual stage, it seemed to me
Makeup on their faces
Actors took their places next to me
Well, I've walked these streets
In a carnival, of sights to see
All the cheap thrill seekers vendors and the dealers
They crowded around me
1-Have I been blind have I been lost
Inside myself and my own mind
Hypnotized, mesmerized by what my eyes have seen?
Well, I've walked these streets
In a spectacle of wealth and poverty
In the diamond markets the scarlet welcome carpet
That they just rolled out for me
And I've walked these streets
In the madhouse asylum they can be
Where a wild-eyed misfit prophet
On a traffic island stopped and he raved of saving me
Have I been blind, have I been lost
Have I been blind, have I been mean
Have I been strong
Hypnotized, mesmerized by what my eyes have seen
In that great street carnival, in that carnival?
- Natalie Merchant
Indigo Girls
"Closer To Fine"
I'm trying to tell you something about my life
Maybe give me insight between black and white
The best thing you've ever done for me
Is to help me take my life less seriously, it's only life after all
Well darkness has a hunger that's insatiable
And lightness has a call that's hard to hear
I wrap my fear around me like a blanket
I sailed my ship of safety till I sank it, I'm crawling on your shore.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.
I went to see the doctor of philosophy
With a poster of Rasputin and a beard down to his knee
He never did marry or see a B-grade movie
He graded my performance, he said he could see through me
I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind, got my paper
And I was free.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.
I stopped by the bar at 3 a.m.
To seek solace in a bottle or possibly a friend
I woke up with a headache like my head against a board
Twice as cloudy as I'd been the night before
I went in seeking clarity.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.
We go to the bible, we go through the workout
We read up on revival and we stand up for the lookout
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in a crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine
The closer I am to fine
The closer I am to fine
I'm trying to tell you something about my life
Maybe give me insight between black and white
The best thing you've ever done for me
Is to help me take my life less seriously, it's only life after all
Well darkness has a hunger that's insatiable
And lightness has a call that's hard to hear
I wrap my fear around me like a blanket
I sailed my ship of safety till I sank it, I'm crawling on your shore.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.
I went to see the doctor of philosophy
With a poster of Rasputin and a beard down to his knee
He never did marry or see a B-grade movie
He graded my performance, he said he could see through me
I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind, got my paper
And I was free.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.
I stopped by the bar at 3 a.m.
To seek solace in a bottle or possibly a friend
I woke up with a headache like my head against a board
Twice as cloudy as I'd been the night before
I went in seeking clarity.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.
We go to the bible, we go through the workout
We read up on revival and we stand up for the lookout
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in a crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine
The closer I am to fine
The closer I am to fine
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Wisdom
"The Church is a whore and she's my mother" - Augustine
"WWJD? He would offer us a third option"
"Wondering if you are successfully acting Christlike? Tune in to the level of opposition from other Christians"
"The purpose of influence is to speak up for people who do not have influence" - Rick Warren
"If we really love each other, we will go out of our way to learn about people's best qualities" - Lord save us from your followers
"Repentance is changing the direction you look for your happiness" - Keating
"WWJD? He would offer us a third option"
"Wondering if you are successfully acting Christlike? Tune in to the level of opposition from other Christians"
"The purpose of influence is to speak up for people who do not have influence" - Rick Warren
"If we really love each other, we will go out of our way to learn about people's best qualities" - Lord save us from your followers
"Repentance is changing the direction you look for your happiness" - Keating
Friday, July 2, 2010
A question for John Calvin
According to Calvinist theology some people are predestined for Heaven and and others, for Hell. Or as a song goes by "They Might Be Giants" - "Sheep go to Heaven, Goats go to Hell". So, ignoring the inherent cruelty in the implications of this teaching, my question for Calvin is why are we supposed to witness Christ to the Goats? Even Solomon in Ecclesiastes teaches us that if life is meaningless we may as well 'eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die' -so, if this life is all some people are going to enjoy, why are you advocating for them to live a moral life, full of church and interactions with a God that created them for eternal torture? - shouldn't they get to live it up? It also seems a bit meaningless to witness Christ to the sheep - if they are destined for Heaven, why are they required to reform any of their beliefs? Finally, if goats can never become sheep, why are you teaching us to harass them?
Ok, one more question. Is it moral to worship a God who creates people for Hell?
Ok, one more question. Is it moral to worship a God who creates people for Hell?
Oxymorons, Redundancies, and Contradictions
1. Assurance of faith
2. Free gift
3. FOX News (sorry I could not resist)
4. "Leave your burdens at the foot of the Cross" - "Pick up your Cross and follow me"
To be continued.....
2. Free gift
3. FOX News (sorry I could not resist)
4. "Leave your burdens at the foot of the Cross" - "Pick up your Cross and follow me"
To be continued.....
Knowing Good and Evil
I believe that humans are incapable of truly understanding good and evil - in fact, we were never designed for this superfluousness task - after all, if we never ate the fruit, evil would not have entered the world and we would never have the need to avoid it. In addition, our inane attempts to teach each other to rely on our own morality to determine right and wrong, while expecting positive and consistent results is sort of like expecting a monkey to write a novel if he is given access to a computer. The fact is, our justice system causes more evil than good - ironically, without even addressing the issue of justice. Indeed, our incapacity to know the future excludes us from determining right from wrong - we need hindsight in order to see how our choices affect the world and others. So when Adam and Eve ate of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it didn't act as a 'magic' tree that gave them a new super power - instead, it was a fool's choice. The very act of eating the fruit that God reserved for some other purpose (rather than feeding Adam and Eve), defined them as disobedient and cursed them by replacing their ability to choose between different good things with the limited ability to pick between lesser good things. Jesus asked the Pharisees (tongue in cheek) why they called him Good (equating him with God) when only God is Good - correctly pointing out that only the Alpha and Omega who defines Good is capable of knowing the Good and providing us with the correct lenses for viewing it.
I think God has been trying to get this point across from the time He kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden. It appears to me that He presented His 10 commandments to us not only to provide a standard for us to live by, but to prove a larger point, we are incapable of choosing to follow it and we are judgmental towards each other when we fail. Instead of providing freedom for us, the law ended up condemning us because, despite Adam and Eve's initial assertions, we are not able to choose the Good.
Christ liberated us through the highest expression of love - forgiveness, despite the failure of Adam and Eve to ask for it. The best part is the Good News of Christ is not instruction on how to effectively determine right and wrong, instead it is the revelation that we were actually created to love, rather than judge and that He is going to use our lives to remind our hearts how to do just that. Birds chirp, dogs bark and we love. Love cuts across good and evil - if we choose to submit to Christ's work in our hearts, we will automatically find our niche in Creation. Finally, finding our rightful purpose allows us to rely on God for our morality and our hearts to graduate from the school of love.
I think God has been trying to get this point across from the time He kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden. It appears to me that He presented His 10 commandments to us not only to provide a standard for us to live by, but to prove a larger point, we are incapable of choosing to follow it and we are judgmental towards each other when we fail. Instead of providing freedom for us, the law ended up condemning us because, despite Adam and Eve's initial assertions, we are not able to choose the Good.
Christ liberated us through the highest expression of love - forgiveness, despite the failure of Adam and Eve to ask for it. The best part is the Good News of Christ is not instruction on how to effectively determine right and wrong, instead it is the revelation that we were actually created to love, rather than judge and that He is going to use our lives to remind our hearts how to do just that. Birds chirp, dogs bark and we love. Love cuts across good and evil - if we choose to submit to Christ's work in our hearts, we will automatically find our niche in Creation. Finally, finding our rightful purpose allows us to rely on God for our morality and our hearts to graduate from the school of love.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Opinions
Recently, I had a discussion with an acquaintance, about opinions and judgments. It is my theory that we set forth our opinions in order to provide ourselves with the illusion of controlling our environment. The person that I was talking with challenged me on several different points - he asserted that 1) truth, opinions and judgments are all different - truth or instruction is good, opinions are useless, and judgments are bad. 2) God calls us to instruct others without judgment. 3). If we are unwilling to instruct others we are either ignorant or ashamed of the gospel. And finally, he stated that Christians are judged more than most groups because of the media.
Now, I was really intrigued because I think that God calls us to love, without judgment - before we ever consider instructing people how to live. Also, I think all terms mean the same thing, opinion - the truth maybe absolute, but we can only share our opinion about it. I also believe the media tries to exploit all minority groups with strong opinions. Christians are often singled out because we are so uncomfortable talking about such an intimate relationship with God that we end up sounding defensive and judgmental, when in fact, we are simply passionate.
When I mentioned that I gave up sharing my opinion for Lent last year because I thought it was unnecessary and I was sick of hearing myself asserting control over people and situations, I think I lost him completely
Now, I was really intrigued because I think that God calls us to love, without judgment - before we ever consider instructing people how to live. Also, I think all terms mean the same thing, opinion - the truth maybe absolute, but we can only share our opinion about it. I also believe the media tries to exploit all minority groups with strong opinions. Christians are often singled out because we are so uncomfortable talking about such an intimate relationship with God that we end up sounding defensive and judgmental, when in fact, we are simply passionate.
When I mentioned that I gave up sharing my opinion for Lent last year because I thought it was unnecessary and I was sick of hearing myself asserting control over people and situations, I think I lost him completely
Jesus
When I was a new Christian, not raised in the church at all, I remember reading the gospels and secretly thinking that Jesus was kind of mean. It is funny, because most people who read the Bible, understandingly have a hard time reconciling the character of god in the OT with god in the NT; my biggest problem was that I was really afraid Jesus might be a jerk.
My examples included stories from his life, like the Wedding at Cana - 'it is not my time yet, women!', I pictured him screaming to His mother.....it was disturbing to my adolescent mind. Even when He wept at Lazarus tomb, it appear self-righteous to me - as if He did not have the right to cry if He allowed his friend to die for the purpose of glorifying himself.
The hardest part was how blasphemous I knew my thoughts were. I was sure I was going 'down there'. So instead of talking with someone about it, I simply suspended my disbelief.....unfortunately, it didn't work for long. I had to confront my understanding Jesus, almost immediately.
After much turmoil, I have realized that a lot of what I was reading was distorted by my lack of experience in the world and my 20th century mindset. The other part of my problem was reading the gospels for what 'should be' not for what 'is'. When I realized that the gospels are a record of the teachings of Jesus and selected stories from His life rather than a legal document, written to enforce a code of moral conduct, I became aware of His compassion. It was only then that I was able to absorb any of the breadth of His love for us.
I guess, after all that I am trying to say that contemplating and reading the Bible in the most compassionate light possible brings you to the greatest truth of His teachings for us. Am I alone, here? Anyone else come to Christianity later in life and struggle with anything like this? I am grateful that God provided people in my life who could guide me through my misunderstandings, by reflecting the love of God, rather than the legalized, almost angry version I was getting from apologetic-type Christians I met - usually in conversations online.
Personal Responsibility
What is personal responsibility? It seems to me that a lot of Christian talk about demonic attacks and temptations, indicating many believe that the Devil is responsible for our bad behavior. I also think that nonbelievers have this stereotype about us.
I once heard a nonbeliever comment on a popular Christian bumper-sticker "I am not perfect, but God is not finished with me yet" as "I am not responsible, but I am right". Now when I first heard his commentary I simply dismissed it because I knew he was jaded, but now I am beginning to wonder....
Is refusing to take personal responsibility the crux of our problem? It seems to be the biggest fault of Adam and Eve - they blamed the Devil for their sin - in fact, they never repented. I am wondering if God's punishment was so severe because of this shifting of blame.
I once heard a nonbeliever comment on a popular Christian bumper-sticker "I am not perfect, but God is not finished with me yet" as "I am not responsible, but I am right". Now when I first heard his commentary I simply dismissed it because I knew he was jaded, but now I am beginning to wonder....
Is refusing to take personal responsibility the crux of our problem? It seems to be the biggest fault of Adam and Eve - they blamed the Devil for their sin - in fact, they never repented. I am wondering if God's punishment was so severe because of this shifting of blame.
Going Backwards
One of the fallacies found within human nature is the idea that returning to the begining or the Garden is going to bring us to the most pure form of truth possible. I think America was built on this ideal. The first settlers were looking for religious purity, by trying to reclaim the practices of the early church in the footsteps of the Reformation. The founding Fathers also looked into antiquity for a model of government - Greece, for purity. The Fundamentalist movement of the late 19th century was trying to do what the Puritans failed to do. Even the Catholic Church teaches that the source of Apostolic truth diminishes over time.
Frankly, I think this is a real problem because it restricts growth; Christianity is supposed to be a living and growing religion. When people try to recapture the past, they end up re-enacting an inaccurate version - an idealized version of the past, which appears wooden and legalistic. Even if it were possible to recapture the past in an accurate manner, it would no longer be relevant. Unfortunately, instead of embracing change, we as Christians end up loving the ideals of the past and chasing rainbows, rather than focusing on loving people today.
Frankly, I think this is a real problem because it restricts growth; Christianity is supposed to be a living and growing religion. When people try to recapture the past, they end up re-enacting an inaccurate version - an idealized version of the past, which appears wooden and legalistic. Even if it were possible to recapture the past in an accurate manner, it would no longer be relevant. Unfortunately, instead of embracing change, we as Christians end up loving the ideals of the past and chasing rainbows, rather than focusing on loving people today.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Hypocrisy
No one likes a hypocrite, but it sure beats the alternative; a person without a moral standard.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Breath of God
Genesis tells us that God breathed life into Adam - life itself is the breath of God. It is said that the Jewish people received the name of God YHWH, which has no vowels and is not allowed to be pronounced, as breath - Yah - Weh. I like this idea because it cuts across cultures and religion. It reminds me that God created us all and Jesus died for us all.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Contemplation
Christ tells us in the gospels that we are supposed to have a childlike faith and I have been applying this idea to contemplative prayer. Recently, after engaging in centering prayer for twenty minutes and watching a related video, my prayer group was asked to reflect on our experience. A member struggling with intrusive thoughts during prayer, sparked an analogy that I believe describes my experience; I compare contemplative prayer to being put to bed as a young child. The sacred word, used to focus attention during prayer sets the tone of the experience, sort of like the bedtime story sets the tone for sleep. I listen to my thoughts from a distance, not engaging in conversation, but simply allowing them to exist; they remind me of the adult conversation I heard from the living room as I lay in bed. As prayer progresses, emotions and ideas that cannot be describe by words flow past me, just like they did when I was falling asleep, as a child. Finally, there is a dark, nothingness and a closeness; without thought or emotion; both are left behind in another room. As a child, it was sleep, as a contemplative adult, it is an alert state; a meeting place for God.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Emotional Intelligence
I believe at the core, all religions are concerned with relationships with God and others so I decided to address 4 characteristics of emotional maturity, which is the foundation of our ability to form healthy relationships.
Delayed gratification: Can you tolerate the negative emotions associated with waiting for a reward? Researchers have hypothesized that the ability to delay gratification is connected with greater success in school and life. In one study in Berkeley, CA, children were asked to sit at a table with a cookie placed in front of them on a plate (researchers first tried using a marshmallow instead of a cookie, but soon realized many of the educated children had never tasted a marshmallow) and told that they could eat the cookie now, or if they were able to wait until the researcher come back in the room, they could have two cookies. The children were on camera during the time the researcher was out of the room - many of the children tried to wait, but could not, others were able to wait and were rewarded. The children were tracked after the experiment and the results supported the hypothesis. One of the reasons this skill is so important is because it is the foundation for the skill of following directions, which is key to performing well in school and future employment. Following directions is also key to a successful interview - many job candidates are not able to answer the questions posed to them by the interviewer; they add in personal information or expand upon the question without actually addressing the question.
Indeed, we live in a world that demands adults to delay gratification, but caters to those of us who cannot or do not want to. In fact, commercialism is dependent on instant gratification.
Emotional regulation: Can you soothe yourself when you are upset? Do other people, circumstances, or your internal processes get your goat? Being qualified for a job and having the ability to manage your emotions while performing the job involve different skills. Emotional regulation is more than simply putting on a happy face when someone insults you or 'never letting them see you sweat' when you receive criticism; it is the actual ability to calm yourself down during these types of stressful times. Many employers are looking for people who can handle their emotions (ability to be a team player), along with, or before job performance qualifications. The ability to regulate emotions is also critical in forming and maintaining relationships with others. If anyone is wondering if it is possible to have healthy, equal, adult relationships that last without being able to control your emotions - it is not possible. Folks with borderline tendencies often test relationships by being emotionally reckless, which leads to a potentially equal relationship being reduced to a care-taking relationship or the termination of the relationship. Therefore, learning to regulate your emotions and teaching children how to regulate their emotions is key to future employment and quality relationships.
Suspend judgment: Are you the type of person who figures out the ending of the movie before all the main characters are even introduced? Do you only read the headlines before determining the intention of the writer, circumstances of the story, and assigning blame? Our society demands that we think quickly and we are often rewarded for sharing our opinions, whether they are informed or not. Yet, I believe our quality of life and relationships suffer when we make snap judgments; even movies are more enjoyable when we allow them to unfold, instead of writing the ending. A year ago, I gave up sharing my opinion for Lent, initially because I got sick of hearing my own commentary on everything I sensed, but as Lent progressed, I continued the exercise because I realized how much I was learning from others. I became convinced that leaving the door open and allowing events to unfold without trying to control the outcome reduced my disappointment and condemnation of others.
Cognitive Flexibility: Are you a person who can find several solutions to a problem? More than one method of performing a task? Can you take on the perspective of another person? One way to determine if you are emotional flexible is to think about a stressful driving situation; you are late and someone cuts you off in traffic, seems to slow down before running a yellow light, leaving you behind at the red light. Maddening, yes! So what is the motive of the driver in front of you? Can you place yourself in their shoes, while removing intentionality? How many neutral reasons can you list for their behavior? I just heard a Buddhist story about a man rowing a boat on a narrow river. He notices a boat coming right at him and he begins swearing and yelling at the boat; then, after getting no response he thinks to himself about how rude the other person must be and how foolish it is for him to continue steering his boat on a direct course with his own. Finally, after the man goes to great lengths to steer his own boat out of the way, he passes the other boat and sees that it actually has no one steering it at all.
Cognitive inflexibility leads to a narrow view of the world and is a hallmark of a disordered personality. In addition, it is one of the downsides of aging.
It is true that learning these skills at an early age is important and will save a person a great deal of hardship, but it is possible to practice them and incorporate them into your life at any age.
Delayed gratification: Can you tolerate the negative emotions associated with waiting for a reward? Researchers have hypothesized that the ability to delay gratification is connected with greater success in school and life. In one study in Berkeley, CA, children were asked to sit at a table with a cookie placed in front of them on a plate (researchers first tried using a marshmallow instead of a cookie, but soon realized many of the educated children had never tasted a marshmallow) and told that they could eat the cookie now, or if they were able to wait until the researcher come back in the room, they could have two cookies. The children were on camera during the time the researcher was out of the room - many of the children tried to wait, but could not, others were able to wait and were rewarded. The children were tracked after the experiment and the results supported the hypothesis. One of the reasons this skill is so important is because it is the foundation for the skill of following directions, which is key to performing well in school and future employment. Following directions is also key to a successful interview - many job candidates are not able to answer the questions posed to them by the interviewer; they add in personal information or expand upon the question without actually addressing the question.
Indeed, we live in a world that demands adults to delay gratification, but caters to those of us who cannot or do not want to. In fact, commercialism is dependent on instant gratification.
Emotional regulation: Can you soothe yourself when you are upset? Do other people, circumstances, or your internal processes get your goat? Being qualified for a job and having the ability to manage your emotions while performing the job involve different skills. Emotional regulation is more than simply putting on a happy face when someone insults you or 'never letting them see you sweat' when you receive criticism; it is the actual ability to calm yourself down during these types of stressful times. Many employers are looking for people who can handle their emotions (ability to be a team player), along with, or before job performance qualifications. The ability to regulate emotions is also critical in forming and maintaining relationships with others. If anyone is wondering if it is possible to have healthy, equal, adult relationships that last without being able to control your emotions - it is not possible. Folks with borderline tendencies often test relationships by being emotionally reckless, which leads to a potentially equal relationship being reduced to a care-taking relationship or the termination of the relationship. Therefore, learning to regulate your emotions and teaching children how to regulate their emotions is key to future employment and quality relationships.
Suspend judgment: Are you the type of person who figures out the ending of the movie before all the main characters are even introduced? Do you only read the headlines before determining the intention of the writer, circumstances of the story, and assigning blame? Our society demands that we think quickly and we are often rewarded for sharing our opinions, whether they are informed or not. Yet, I believe our quality of life and relationships suffer when we make snap judgments; even movies are more enjoyable when we allow them to unfold, instead of writing the ending. A year ago, I gave up sharing my opinion for Lent, initially because I got sick of hearing my own commentary on everything I sensed, but as Lent progressed, I continued the exercise because I realized how much I was learning from others. I became convinced that leaving the door open and allowing events to unfold without trying to control the outcome reduced my disappointment and condemnation of others.
Cognitive Flexibility: Are you a person who can find several solutions to a problem? More than one method of performing a task? Can you take on the perspective of another person? One way to determine if you are emotional flexible is to think about a stressful driving situation; you are late and someone cuts you off in traffic, seems to slow down before running a yellow light, leaving you behind at the red light. Maddening, yes! So what is the motive of the driver in front of you? Can you place yourself in their shoes, while removing intentionality? How many neutral reasons can you list for their behavior? I just heard a Buddhist story about a man rowing a boat on a narrow river. He notices a boat coming right at him and he begins swearing and yelling at the boat; then, after getting no response he thinks to himself about how rude the other person must be and how foolish it is for him to continue steering his boat on a direct course with his own. Finally, after the man goes to great lengths to steer his own boat out of the way, he passes the other boat and sees that it actually has no one steering it at all.
Cognitive inflexibility leads to a narrow view of the world and is a hallmark of a disordered personality. In addition, it is one of the downsides of aging.
It is true that learning these skills at an early age is important and will save a person a great deal of hardship, but it is possible to practice them and incorporate them into your life at any age.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
How should Christians respond to Jennifer Knapp's admission?
A new album by Jennifer Knapp, a Christian artist who has not released an album in 7 years, is scheduled to go on sale in a couple of weeks. According to past record sales she has many fans, including my wife. As many know, according to a recent interview in Christianity Today, Knapp talked about her professional absence from music and her current, intimate relationship with a women. Consequently, based on the reactions from her fans and the larger Christian community, she was invited to appear on Larry King - the episode aired last Friday night.
The interview included Knapp, Ted Haggard, the fallen pastor of a mega church in Colorado, and a conservative, evangelical minister from California who have been an outspoken critic of Knapp, regarding her sexual orientation; indeed, all the essential ingredients for a 'Springer Circus' were in place. However, in my opinion, the interview actually turned out ok. Knapp was able to speak and question the criticisms of the evangelical pastor and most surprisingly, Haggard appeared to be a voice of compassion and reason!(I guess 'Jesus Camp' has not started up yet this season). Consequently, the interview sparked a meaningful discussion between my wife and I, and inspired me to think about the issue of homosexuality and leadership within the Christian church.
First, I would like to write about 3 common responses I have heard from folks who consider themselves to be Evangelical Christians. The reason I have chosen to focus on this group is because the only voice of opposition I have heard has come from members of this community. It is important for me to state that not all evangelicals agree with the premises I have included - I am only writing about my own conversations with evangelicals. Finally, although I do not agree with most of the assumptions / conclusions / responses, I do not question the positive intentions of the conservative Christians I have spoken with - in fact, all the evangelicals I have talked with about this topic are genuine in their concern for Knapp, homosexuals, and their concern for preserving the integrity of the Bible.
Premise #1: Homosexuality is a sin
Action: Knapp and all homosexuals who consider themselves to be Christian must be confronted by the Christian community and informed of their sinful behavioral; warned of the impact their chooses may have on their salvation; and encouraged to make better choices, which are more in line with the Bible.
Assumptions:
1. Knapp / homosexuals must not know their behavior is sinful according to an Evangelical interpretation of the Bible - if they did, they would make better choices.
2. Knapp / homosexuals must not know that Jesus died for our sins and therefore, missing out on a true relationship with Him.
3. It is our job as Christians to confront each other when we see personal, sinful behaviors in our Christian neighbors. Also, 'lifestyle sin' is qualitatively different than isolated sin.
Ideas not considered:
1. Opinions from Biblical scholars, which question the classic / conservative interpretation of the few scriptures pertaining to sexual relationships between same-sex individuals in the Bible.
2. Knapp's ability to know herself and her relationship with God.
3. 'Lifestyle sin' and isolated sin are the same thing.
Premise #2: Christians are called to facilitate behavior change in their members.
Action: Christians are called to provide verses, prayer, and encouragement for Knapp / homosexuals in order for them to change their behavior by make heterosexual choices.
Assumptions:
1. Awareness changes behavior: knowing the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible, receiving God's blessings through the prayers of other Christians, and being the recipient of peer support will change Knapp's sexual orientation or curb her behavior.
2. Intentionality: people who choose homosexual behavior are 'stubbornly' choosing to reject the church and God.
3. The power of encouragement: if Christians do not provide the encouragement necessary to help Knapp change, her lifestyle sin may encourage others to choose to be gay.
Ideas not considered:
1. We are all sinners who need unconditional support and encouragement, despite our behavior.
2. Homosexuality is not a choice.
3. God changes people in the manner in which He wants to change them; we do not. Encouragement is nurturing, but does not change deep-seated drives.
Premise #3: Adopting a 'repentance or rejection' outlook leads to positive behavior change
Action: Inform Knapp / homosexuals that they must accept the need for behavior change or they will be turned over to Satan, with the hope that they will repent eventually and so their sin will not influence the rest of the community to follow their example.
Assumptions:
1. Homosexuality is 'catching'
2. Rejecting a person is not going to lead to bitterness and despair, but compel them to bring their behavior in line with the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible.
3. Sanctification of the heart - God's relationship work, stops (Catholicism / Protestantism) or was never started (Calvinism) if a person fails to repent and conform to the correct interpretation of scripture or the church.
Issues not considered:
1. We are making moral judgments based on a technicality, rather than recognizing that God's sanctification of the person's heart is the only thing that matters.
2. Rejection often leads to anger, resentment, and bitterness, which negatively impacts a person and their relationship with the church.
3. The scriptures, like the Sabbath were made for people, not people for the scriptures.
Rationalizations for confronting homosexuals who consider themselves to be Christian:
"As Christians, we are called to...."
"stand up for Jesus"
"defend the Truth"
"protect the sanctity of marriage"
"protect the family"
"guard against sex perversion in our community"
"be watchful for liberalism in the church"
"protect the integrity of the scriptures"
So, what is the Christian response to Jennifer Knapp's public admission?
As fans, no response is necessary or appropriate - if you like her music buy it - if you haven't heard it - go listen! If you are a Christian and walk in the same circles as Jennifer - imitate Christ by practicing respect and unconditional love.
The interview included Knapp, Ted Haggard, the fallen pastor of a mega church in Colorado, and a conservative, evangelical minister from California who have been an outspoken critic of Knapp, regarding her sexual orientation; indeed, all the essential ingredients for a 'Springer Circus' were in place. However, in my opinion, the interview actually turned out ok. Knapp was able to speak and question the criticisms of the evangelical pastor and most surprisingly, Haggard appeared to be a voice of compassion and reason!(I guess 'Jesus Camp' has not started up yet this season). Consequently, the interview sparked a meaningful discussion between my wife and I, and inspired me to think about the issue of homosexuality and leadership within the Christian church.
First, I would like to write about 3 common responses I have heard from folks who consider themselves to be Evangelical Christians. The reason I have chosen to focus on this group is because the only voice of opposition I have heard has come from members of this community. It is important for me to state that not all evangelicals agree with the premises I have included - I am only writing about my own conversations with evangelicals. Finally, although I do not agree with most of the assumptions / conclusions / responses, I do not question the positive intentions of the conservative Christians I have spoken with - in fact, all the evangelicals I have talked with about this topic are genuine in their concern for Knapp, homosexuals, and their concern for preserving the integrity of the Bible.
Premise #1: Homosexuality is a sin
Action: Knapp and all homosexuals who consider themselves to be Christian must be confronted by the Christian community and informed of their sinful behavioral; warned of the impact their chooses may have on their salvation; and encouraged to make better choices, which are more in line with the Bible.
Assumptions:
1. Knapp / homosexuals must not know their behavior is sinful according to an Evangelical interpretation of the Bible - if they did, they would make better choices.
2. Knapp / homosexuals must not know that Jesus died for our sins and therefore, missing out on a true relationship with Him.
3. It is our job as Christians to confront each other when we see personal, sinful behaviors in our Christian neighbors. Also, 'lifestyle sin' is qualitatively different than isolated sin.
Ideas not considered:
1. Opinions from Biblical scholars, which question the classic / conservative interpretation of the few scriptures pertaining to sexual relationships between same-sex individuals in the Bible.
2. Knapp's ability to know herself and her relationship with God.
3. 'Lifestyle sin' and isolated sin are the same thing.
Premise #2: Christians are called to facilitate behavior change in their members.
Action: Christians are called to provide verses, prayer, and encouragement for Knapp / homosexuals in order for them to change their behavior by make heterosexual choices.
Assumptions:
1. Awareness changes behavior: knowing the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible, receiving God's blessings through the prayers of other Christians, and being the recipient of peer support will change Knapp's sexual orientation or curb her behavior.
2. Intentionality: people who choose homosexual behavior are 'stubbornly' choosing to reject the church and God.
3. The power of encouragement: if Christians do not provide the encouragement necessary to help Knapp change, her lifestyle sin may encourage others to choose to be gay.
Ideas not considered:
1. We are all sinners who need unconditional support and encouragement, despite our behavior.
2. Homosexuality is not a choice.
3. God changes people in the manner in which He wants to change them; we do not. Encouragement is nurturing, but does not change deep-seated drives.
Premise #3: Adopting a 'repentance or rejection' outlook leads to positive behavior change
Action: Inform Knapp / homosexuals that they must accept the need for behavior change or they will be turned over to Satan, with the hope that they will repent eventually and so their sin will not influence the rest of the community to follow their example.
Assumptions:
1. Homosexuality is 'catching'
2. Rejecting a person is not going to lead to bitterness and despair, but compel them to bring their behavior in line with the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible.
3. Sanctification of the heart - God's relationship work, stops (Catholicism / Protestantism) or was never started (Calvinism) if a person fails to repent and conform to the correct interpretation of scripture or the church.
Issues not considered:
1. We are making moral judgments based on a technicality, rather than recognizing that God's sanctification of the person's heart is the only thing that matters.
2. Rejection often leads to anger, resentment, and bitterness, which negatively impacts a person and their relationship with the church.
3. The scriptures, like the Sabbath were made for people, not people for the scriptures.
Rationalizations for confronting homosexuals who consider themselves to be Christian:
"As Christians, we are called to...."
"stand up for Jesus"
"defend the Truth"
"protect the sanctity of marriage"
"protect the family"
"guard against sex perversion in our community"
"be watchful for liberalism in the church"
"protect the integrity of the scriptures"
So......What if??
...we are missing the forest for the trees? What if making an issue out of homosexuality is actually diverting us from our primary purpose - to love others unconditionally?
...homosexuality isn't catching?
...the world is watching how we are treating each other and concluding that there is more love and acceptance outside of Christianity than within?
...when condemn homosexuality primarily because it is emotionally rewarding? After all we (heterosexuals) are not tempted by the behavior.....
...our ability to recognize personal sin in others is only possible in order to allow us to see our own sins to assist God's sanctification of our hearts?
...the issue of homosexuality is merely a test to see if Christians will continue to love people who are different from us, despite our feelings associated with cognitive dissidence?
...the scriptures are inspired (which is not synonymous with inerrancy, btw) but, like the sabbath, made for us, rather than us for the scriptures?
...same sex attraction is not a moral issue, but a result of our polluted environment? - we have lots of hormones swirling around in our water and according to scientists, boys born today have, on average, softer features compared to boys born 50 - 100 years ago - the fact is, we just do not know.
...Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in the NT, which is defined as sexual relationships between boys and their male teachers in exchange for education, was merely one example of 'worldliness'. If Paul were talking to us about our worldliness he might mention - consumerism, slave labor (children, illegal aliens), addictions (drugs, alcohol, pornography).
...homosexuals already know that Evangelicals believe they are breaking the rules of the Bible?
...the sin of Sodom really was the sin of not being hospitable to strangers? How many of us would be sodomites?
...standing up for Jesus; by picketing funerals, abortion clinics, and sacrificing people's God-given faith for the purpose of promoting our own understanding of the scriptures is not an effective means of witnessing God's love, but is just mean?
...we are saved by Grace, not a 'correct' understanding of doctrine?
...Jesus came to free us from legalism and blindness through radical love for Him and one another?
...our attempts to 'defend the Bible' and 'stand up for Jesus' is simply a self-serving way to manage our own anxiety?
...we considered consumerism a sin and confronted each other for engaging in the behavior as frequently as we confront homosexual behavior? Could you give up buying more than you need to actually live, if your community believed God required it? Or would you do it simply to make your peers feel better, even if you knew they could not possible understand your perspective and were basing their judgment of your behavior on their own interpretation of scripture? How much harder would it be to give up your sexuality?
...homosexuals within the church are simply people who are tired of sacrificing a core drive within themselves for the sole purpose of helping the rest of us feel less anxious about our narrow understanding of the Bible?
...we if we actually emphasized the "loving the sinner" part of "we are called to love the sinner not the sin", rather than using the phrase to justify being mean to one another?
...we have been doing this Christian thing all wrong?
So, what is the Christian response to Jennifer Knapp's public admission?
As fans, no response is necessary or appropriate - if you like her music buy it - if you haven't heard it - go listen! If you are a Christian and walk in the same circles as Jennifer - imitate Christ by practicing respect and unconditional love.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
More than
One of the basic ideas in Cognitive Behavior Therapy is that human beings are more than their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. In fact, we are the source of everything we think and feel and how we choose to behave. If you apply this idea to God, it makes sense that He is beyond our understanding - indeed, He is the source behind his own thoughts, emotions and behavior.
After, spending several years practicing contemplative prayer, I have noticed that God is found, not in the details, but in the paradoxes of life. The great thing about paradoxes is that because they defy definition, they resist our tendency to compartmentalize life and create idols of our own understanding. Jesus' ability to work within paradoxes (set aside work on the Sabbath; feed the hungry, heal the sick all the time) defied the religious leadership of the day and their attempts at control and compartmentalization of God.
After, spending several years practicing contemplative prayer, I have noticed that God is found, not in the details, but in the paradoxes of life. The great thing about paradoxes is that because they defy definition, they resist our tendency to compartmentalize life and create idols of our own understanding. Jesus' ability to work within paradoxes (set aside work on the Sabbath; feed the hungry, heal the sick all the time) defied the religious leadership of the day and their attempts at control and compartmentalization of God.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Reductionism
The quickest way to lose life's mystery and beauty is to reduce reality to the measurable.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Symbolism
One of the core characteristics of humans is our need to assign meaning to our environment; we do this primarily through the use of symbolism. Language is a shared set of random symbols, which we use to understand our environment, our relationships with others and our need for a relationship with something greater than ourselves.
It is interesting for me to think about this need; I choose to believe in God based on tradition and experience in prayer, but many choose to place their faith in science or humanism or both. I think scientists, philosophers, and people of faith have a core need in common and in order to reach it, we all have to travel past the limits of reason into faith. Being born on this side of the Enlightenment has provided us with the advantage of witnessing the stretching of reason - the more we can explain about our world the more I believe it enhances faith.
It is interesting for me to think about this need; I choose to believe in God based on tradition and experience in prayer, but many choose to place their faith in science or humanism or both. I think scientists, philosophers, and people of faith have a core need in common and in order to reach it, we all have to travel past the limits of reason into faith. Being born on this side of the Enlightenment has provided us with the advantage of witnessing the stretching of reason - the more we can explain about our world the more I believe it enhances faith.
Avarice
After reviewing and contributing to a friend's discussion regarding taxes, I remembered that it is tax day (if my wife had not filed months ago, I may have forgotten), which brings up the issue of greed. I would love to have a discussion about the topic, and although this blog is not a political forum, political ideas that tie into greed are welcome.
Political greed, corporate greed, ownership in general are up for discussion. I just read an article on the Tea Party rally in Washington - the statistics tell us that Tea Party supporters tend to be critical of the Obama administration because in their opinion his policies favor the poor, and they claim to be worried about the economy. In addition, they are worried about being taxed into poverty, yet there income tends to be higher than the average American.
What do you think about greed in America? how do you define it? and is there anything to be done to curb it or is it just an inevitable part of life?
Political greed, corporate greed, ownership in general are up for discussion. I just read an article on the Tea Party rally in Washington - the statistics tell us that Tea Party supporters tend to be critical of the Obama administration because in their opinion his policies favor the poor, and they claim to be worried about the economy. In addition, they are worried about being taxed into poverty, yet there income tends to be higher than the average American.
What do you think about greed in America? how do you define it? and is there anything to be done to curb it or is it just an inevitable part of life?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Eulogy
“Come play with me!” hastened a longing whisper from my window, one autumn evening.
Enraptured! No resistance! Soaring together through the Night on gossamer
I followed you, down the nights and down the days....
“A land without fears! A place to never grow up!” seduced the ancient child, weaving promises in the half-light
“Blackstone! Turning Leaf! Laughing Raven! surely you are the Pan!” I surrendered. “I will chase you!....only for a time" A mindless musing - forgotten reason, wrapped in warmth and numbness
I followed you, down the arches of the years.....
“So many games to play! hide and seek; success and scandal. desperate scramble!” blazed the decadence; serpentine and velvet
“I fear you; I want you!” Overtly splitting; reality, rose-colored; brooding despair; confused denial
I followed you, down the labyrinthine ways of my mind; through the mist of tears.....
“Dueling shadows; waking nightmares; Lost Boy!” Condemnation, haunting the silent chaos
“Wait! How?” Blindness! stomach churning and head spinning; shame consuming
I followed you, through the maddening laughter....
“Pursue Me! Consume Me! I AM!” Bellowed the Liquid Nothing
“Nowhere!” bitterness and madness; binding darkness
I followed you down the titanic gloom of chasm fears....
"All will betray you, if you betray Me"
“O Selfish Giver! Slavish devotion... must I die for you?"
Entrenched! Resistance....sinking only deeper within my static Night
Behold, in the midst of darkness, Dawn; a Piper playing, reaching out at the Crossroads
“Weakness is strength; the Ego, deadly” offered a still, small voice.
Tomb; New Life
“Goodnight my Pan; Numbness, Seducer, Child Thief. Today, I declare my Hope”
Enraptured! No resistance! Soaring together through the Night on gossamer
I followed you, down the nights and down the days....
“A land without fears! A place to never grow up!” seduced the ancient child, weaving promises in the half-light
“Blackstone! Turning Leaf! Laughing Raven! surely you are the Pan!” I surrendered. “I will chase you!....only for a time" A mindless musing - forgotten reason, wrapped in warmth and numbness
I followed you, down the arches of the years.....
“So many games to play! hide and seek; success and scandal. desperate scramble!” blazed the decadence; serpentine and velvet
“I fear you; I want you!” Overtly splitting; reality, rose-colored; brooding despair; confused denial
I followed you, down the labyrinthine ways of my mind; through the mist of tears.....
“Dueling shadows; waking nightmares; Lost Boy!” Condemnation, haunting the silent chaos
“Wait! How?” Blindness! stomach churning and head spinning; shame consuming
I followed you, through the maddening laughter....
“Pursue Me! Consume Me! I AM!” Bellowed the Liquid Nothing
“Nowhere!” bitterness and madness; binding darkness
I followed you down the titanic gloom of chasm fears....
"All will betray you, if you betray Me"
“O Selfish Giver! Slavish devotion... must I die for you?"
Entrenched! Resistance....sinking only deeper within my static Night
Behold, in the midst of darkness, Dawn; a Piper playing, reaching out at the Crossroads
“Weakness is strength; the Ego, deadly” offered a still, small voice.
Tomb; New Life
“Goodnight my Pan; Numbness, Seducer, Child Thief. Today, I declare my Hope”
Ownership
Every time we claim ownership over someone or something, we assert our control over them or the object/idea. Ownership is viewed by many as contrary to the gospel and that is why monks renounce it.
One of the biggest problems with idolatry in the OT is that the ancient civilizations wanted to worship a god they could own. A god made of wood or gold could be owned and worshiped in the manner they chose to worship him. Yahweh was different - He rejected idolatry because, first, gods made of wood and gold are not real, and secondly, He was not going to let his creation control Him.
Based on this understanding, I think it is profitable to examine our need to own things in our life. Jesus didn't own a thing. I think ownership also communicates a lack of faith because it is the assertion of our will instead of trust in God.
In addition, abuse is rooted in asserting ownership over another person - sexual abuse and spousal abuse used to be accepted when we believed women and child were our possessions - now thankfully, things have changed for the better.
Also, memorizing scripture, rather than the message of scripture can be a form of ownership - if we control the Word and use it to assert our will over others - sure we call it God's Will, but a lot of times, that is a justification for belittling and attacking others with our superior understanding of scripture.
Ownership and objectification of people go hand in hand.
One of the biggest problems with idolatry in the OT is that the ancient civilizations wanted to worship a god they could own. A god made of wood or gold could be owned and worshiped in the manner they chose to worship him. Yahweh was different - He rejected idolatry because, first, gods made of wood and gold are not real, and secondly, He was not going to let his creation control Him.
Based on this understanding, I think it is profitable to examine our need to own things in our life. Jesus didn't own a thing. I think ownership also communicates a lack of faith because it is the assertion of our will instead of trust in God.
In addition, abuse is rooted in asserting ownership over another person - sexual abuse and spousal abuse used to be accepted when we believed women and child were our possessions - now thankfully, things have changed for the better.
Also, memorizing scripture, rather than the message of scripture can be a form of ownership - if we control the Word and use it to assert our will over others - sure we call it God's Will, but a lot of times, that is a justification for belittling and attacking others with our superior understanding of scripture.
Ownership and objectification of people go hand in hand.
Spirit of the law
I think it is easy to get confused about what the Bible is telling us because we want to approach it like the disciples approach Jesus' teachings - tell me what I must do?
Instead of following a list of behaviors to act out, Jesus wants us to change the manner in which we do everything. What may be the most loving option in one context may not be destructive in another. Without considering what is the most loving thing to do, every behavior is sinful.
Jesus advocated making a loving choice, even if it conflicted with an established law.
Situation ethics is often dangerous, but with the Spirit guiding us, we have the potential to choose the most loving choice every time
Instead of following a list of behaviors to act out, Jesus wants us to change the manner in which we do everything. What may be the most loving option in one context may not be destructive in another. Without considering what is the most loving thing to do, every behavior is sinful.
Jesus advocated making a loving choice, even if it conflicted with an established law.
Situation ethics is often dangerous, but with the Spirit guiding us, we have the potential to choose the most loving choice every time
The Morality of the OT
The ramifications of interpreting the OT as God's direct commandment to His people, literally, and without mercy for people who do not share our beliefs is troubling:
1. The ends justify the means - any behavior is justified by a good result. That means we can lie, cheat, steal, murder, pillage, and covet our way to success.
2. War is just as long as it is waged to protect our beliefs. Fanaticism is the norm according to the Bible, if it is directed towards the preservation of our beliefs.
3. God created evil to discipline us - God, who cannot sin, farms out His dirty work to the Devil in order to assert His wrath and judgment on His disobedient creation.
4. God is characterized as threatening, petty, jealous, and wrathful. His mercy and love for us is dwarfed by His terrifying emotional volatility, which is justified by our sins and unfaithfulness.
5. God has no problem treating His creation like a Sim game - if people get out of line just damn them to toil upon the Earth, suffer in childbirth until they raise a murderer, drop dead and go to Hell. Or call in a flood and start over. Then after sacrificing a son to get everyone back on track, delay the ending for centuries in order to rack up as many atrocities as possible, and blame creation for it so that vengeance can be wrought once more, this time ending in total destruction.
6. God place fossils and signs of an old universe to confound the scientific community, yet convinces the Church that the Creation story is the literal (even scientific) account.
7. Blesses sinful nations like Egypt and then send plagues and bugs and blood to punish them.
8. Creates a law which must be followed so that it can end up condemning the people who faithfully follow it.
9. Murders a faithful man's family to prove a point to an evil entity - as if his opinion matters.
I do not believe God intended us to interpreted the OT in this manner, yet it is exactly what many Christians believe and defend!
None of it is characteristic of the God of the Universe - no way! It is instead the interpretation of humans who are looking out for their own interests. God is speaking and people are using selective listening and responding in a way that furthers their agenda.
1. The ends never justify the means and no Good God would ever consider it. Instead God asserted His will despite his people's thieving, murdering, unfaithfulness, in hospitality, sexual perversion, and nationalistic expansion.
2. God asserted His Being. His people responded by murdering nations who did not recognize Him, claiming their lands, and giving the credit to God.
3. God did not create evil. In fact, evil is not a force - it is the misuse of creation. God punishes us by allowing us to experience the natural consequences of our less than good choices.
4. God is just, Good, merciful, loving, and compassionate. He wants to be in communion with us. The human portrayal of God in the OT is the mirror image of an abusive spouse. Instead of reflecting God's nature, it gives us a picture of humanity's character - petty, jealous, wrathful, immoral (implementing the ends justifies the means ethics), murderous, unable to take personal responsibility, with no regard for the sanctity of life, and self righteous.
5. Here is another glimpse into the human heart, not God's heart. In actuality, the flood story and other miraculous, catastrophic events are included in the Bible to display God's omnipotence
6. Science is accurate. Evolution has some validity. The Creation story is actually a vision or inspired story of creation. It is important because it speaks truth about human nature, and God's power, not because it lays out the actual creation of the Earth.
7. Egypt was just as morally guilty as any of their contemporaries including the people they were enslaving. Although their is no historical record of Egypt enslaving the Israelites during the reign of the Pharaoh named in the story, it is likely that the records were expunged because they caused embarrassment to the civilization. However, I also believe that the story of emancipation was a lot less dramatic. It seems likely that the leadership of Egypt was weak and the Israelites simply left. They may have been pursued and there may have been hardship in Egypt that was attributed to the God of the Israelites. In any case, the point of the story was to unite the tribes and provide them with a legendary history. Also, it reinforced the message of the OT - God's omnipotence. One of the parts that did not happen is the parting of the Red Sea, which is a mistranslation of the Reed Sea - a small river.
8. God did give Moses the law, but it was not enforced by striking people dead or to bring down God's wrath on the people. It was a practical law, which was necessary for any large group of people to live by. I am sure tragedies where attributed to the breaking of the law, and it was enforced through intimidation in God's name. It also served to reinforce the culture, which has endured into the present.
9. The story of Job is a story. It is in the Bible to showcase God's omnipotence. No merciful, loving God would murder a man's family, steal his possessions and inflict health problems in response to a challenge from an evil servant.
The fact is, the ancient Israelites were a tough group of desert nomads - they were shepherds who became warriors and they had a primitive and tough view of God. Indeed, God had His hands full declaring His being to primitive man, but He succeeded. The result is a magnificent, inspired record of a primitive peoples attempt to respond to the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient God and I think the best way to interpret the OT is to place ourselves in the shoes of all the characters - we can learn from their mistakes, because their mistakes are our mistakes.
1. The ends justify the means - any behavior is justified by a good result. That means we can lie, cheat, steal, murder, pillage, and covet our way to success.
2. War is just as long as it is waged to protect our beliefs. Fanaticism is the norm according to the Bible, if it is directed towards the preservation of our beliefs.
3. God created evil to discipline us - God, who cannot sin, farms out His dirty work to the Devil in order to assert His wrath and judgment on His disobedient creation.
4. God is characterized as threatening, petty, jealous, and wrathful. His mercy and love for us is dwarfed by His terrifying emotional volatility, which is justified by our sins and unfaithfulness.
5. God has no problem treating His creation like a Sim game - if people get out of line just damn them to toil upon the Earth, suffer in childbirth until they raise a murderer, drop dead and go to Hell. Or call in a flood and start over. Then after sacrificing a son to get everyone back on track, delay the ending for centuries in order to rack up as many atrocities as possible, and blame creation for it so that vengeance can be wrought once more, this time ending in total destruction.
6. God place fossils and signs of an old universe to confound the scientific community, yet convinces the Church that the Creation story is the literal (even scientific) account.
7. Blesses sinful nations like Egypt and then send plagues and bugs and blood to punish them.
8. Creates a law which must be followed so that it can end up condemning the people who faithfully follow it.
9. Murders a faithful man's family to prove a point to an evil entity - as if his opinion matters.
I do not believe God intended us to interpreted the OT in this manner, yet it is exactly what many Christians believe and defend!
None of it is characteristic of the God of the Universe - no way! It is instead the interpretation of humans who are looking out for their own interests. God is speaking and people are using selective listening and responding in a way that furthers their agenda.
1. The ends never justify the means and no Good God would ever consider it. Instead God asserted His will despite his people's thieving, murdering, unfaithfulness, in hospitality, sexual perversion, and nationalistic expansion.
2. God asserted His Being. His people responded by murdering nations who did not recognize Him, claiming their lands, and giving the credit to God.
3. God did not create evil. In fact, evil is not a force - it is the misuse of creation. God punishes us by allowing us to experience the natural consequences of our less than good choices.
4. God is just, Good, merciful, loving, and compassionate. He wants to be in communion with us. The human portrayal of God in the OT is the mirror image of an abusive spouse. Instead of reflecting God's nature, it gives us a picture of humanity's character - petty, jealous, wrathful, immoral (implementing the ends justifies the means ethics), murderous, unable to take personal responsibility, with no regard for the sanctity of life, and self righteous.
5. Here is another glimpse into the human heart, not God's heart. In actuality, the flood story and other miraculous, catastrophic events are included in the Bible to display God's omnipotence
6. Science is accurate. Evolution has some validity. The Creation story is actually a vision or inspired story of creation. It is important because it speaks truth about human nature, and God's power, not because it lays out the actual creation of the Earth.
7. Egypt was just as morally guilty as any of their contemporaries including the people they were enslaving. Although their is no historical record of Egypt enslaving the Israelites during the reign of the Pharaoh named in the story, it is likely that the records were expunged because they caused embarrassment to the civilization. However, I also believe that the story of emancipation was a lot less dramatic. It seems likely that the leadership of Egypt was weak and the Israelites simply left. They may have been pursued and there may have been hardship in Egypt that was attributed to the God of the Israelites. In any case, the point of the story was to unite the tribes and provide them with a legendary history. Also, it reinforced the message of the OT - God's omnipotence. One of the parts that did not happen is the parting of the Red Sea, which is a mistranslation of the Reed Sea - a small river.
8. God did give Moses the law, but it was not enforced by striking people dead or to bring down God's wrath on the people. It was a practical law, which was necessary for any large group of people to live by. I am sure tragedies where attributed to the breaking of the law, and it was enforced through intimidation in God's name. It also served to reinforce the culture, which has endured into the present.
9. The story of Job is a story. It is in the Bible to showcase God's omnipotence. No merciful, loving God would murder a man's family, steal his possessions and inflict health problems in response to a challenge from an evil servant.
The fact is, the ancient Israelites were a tough group of desert nomads - they were shepherds who became warriors and they had a primitive and tough view of God. Indeed, God had His hands full declaring His being to primitive man, but He succeeded. The result is a magnificent, inspired record of a primitive peoples attempt to respond to the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient God and I think the best way to interpret the OT is to place ourselves in the shoes of all the characters - we can learn from their mistakes, because their mistakes are our mistakes.
What "is" and what "should be"
Lately, I am reading the Bible through the lens of 'what is' rather than 'what should be' and it has been very enlightening.
The OT is record of humanity's interactions with God. Most of the interactions tell us what happens when people stop trusting God and take matters into their own hands. The story about the Israelites worshiping the golden calf is a good example of this; David and Bathsheba is another; and Sodom and Gomorrah is another - the larger lesson is God is powerful so you better not disobey Him, or try to apply a human solution to problems because you will end up creating greater atrocities (worshiping Baal / offering up your daughters).
Paul's writings are filled with stories of what is, which we interpret as what should be. Boasting, covering your head, women speaking out in Church - are we supposed to be imitating these practices - no. Paul is talking to specific churches about specific problems - what is.
As soon as we figure out which verses are communicating what is instead of what should be in the Bible, we will stop having dumb arguments over wearing long hair, or works vs, faith, or whether or not Jesus ascended under His own power to Heaven, or who should be kicked out of the church. None of these events or arguments should be getting in the way of loving each other. We are constantly missing the forest for the trees because we try to imitate what is instead of just interpreting as simply what happened.
The OT is record of humanity's interactions with God. Most of the interactions tell us what happens when people stop trusting God and take matters into their own hands. The story about the Israelites worshiping the golden calf is a good example of this; David and Bathsheba is another; and Sodom and Gomorrah is another - the larger lesson is God is powerful so you better not disobey Him, or try to apply a human solution to problems because you will end up creating greater atrocities (worshiping Baal / offering up your daughters).
Paul's writings are filled with stories of what is, which we interpret as what should be. Boasting, covering your head, women speaking out in Church - are we supposed to be imitating these practices - no. Paul is talking to specific churches about specific problems - what is.
As soon as we figure out which verses are communicating what is instead of what should be in the Bible, we will stop having dumb arguments over wearing long hair, or works vs, faith, or whether or not Jesus ascended under His own power to Heaven, or who should be kicked out of the church. None of these events or arguments should be getting in the way of loving each other. We are constantly missing the forest for the trees because we try to imitate what is instead of just interpreting as simply what happened.
Superstition and Deism
I read an interesting book a couple of years ago - it was called "The Catholic Imagination".
The premise was that when Catholics fall into heretic beliefs and practices they tend to fall in the direction of superstition. When Protestants fall into heresy they tend to fall towards Deism.
The reason Catholics fall into superstition is because their religious practice tends to involve all the senses (incense, stain glass, holy water, homilies, etc) and the mind and is often tactile - crossing yourself, blessing with holy water. Also, for Catholics, God's influence is everywhere we look - holy water, the Eucharist - St. Francis viewed animals and plants as saints because they were acting exactly how God created them to act. Even Catholics that fall away from the church completely still cross themselves - you cannot easily take the catholic out of a person
Protestants tend to limit religious practice to their minds - right doctrine is paramount, reading the word is emphasized. God is often viewed as far away by pew-sitters - The Watchmaker god, the man upstairs, or simply a concept.
The book really made a lot of sense to me - and it taught me why we tend to judge each other so harshly. Protestants are afraid of magic and superstition - it rubs the Western Enlightened mind the wrong way. Catholics are afraid of God being seen as distant - we want to be involved in our faith - that is why the liturgy is so important to us - it connects us to God in a rich and meaningful way.
Catholics tolerate superstition from their pew-sitters - which frightens Protestants when they see it. Protestants tolerate Deism from their pew-sitters - as long as they have right doctrine and claim to follow the same Christ they are tolerated. Catholics are not as worried about about right doctrine as they are about an unwillingness to join the community in participating in Mass.
Although these are all generalizations, I thought the book had a point. It reminded me that I am apart of a church that holds different standards for religious practice then my old Protestant tradition. And even though I can see the value of both traditions it helps me to be more likely to judge each tradition by it's own standards, rather than each others.
The premise was that when Catholics fall into heretic beliefs and practices they tend to fall in the direction of superstition. When Protestants fall into heresy they tend to fall towards Deism.
The reason Catholics fall into superstition is because their religious practice tends to involve all the senses (incense, stain glass, holy water, homilies, etc) and the mind and is often tactile - crossing yourself, blessing with holy water. Also, for Catholics, God's influence is everywhere we look - holy water, the Eucharist - St. Francis viewed animals and plants as saints because they were acting exactly how God created them to act. Even Catholics that fall away from the church completely still cross themselves - you cannot easily take the catholic out of a person
Protestants tend to limit religious practice to their minds - right doctrine is paramount, reading the word is emphasized. God is often viewed as far away by pew-sitters - The Watchmaker god, the man upstairs, or simply a concept.
The book really made a lot of sense to me - and it taught me why we tend to judge each other so harshly. Protestants are afraid of magic and superstition - it rubs the Western Enlightened mind the wrong way. Catholics are afraid of God being seen as distant - we want to be involved in our faith - that is why the liturgy is so important to us - it connects us to God in a rich and meaningful way.
Catholics tolerate superstition from their pew-sitters - which frightens Protestants when they see it. Protestants tolerate Deism from their pew-sitters - as long as they have right doctrine and claim to follow the same Christ they are tolerated. Catholics are not as worried about about right doctrine as they are about an unwillingness to join the community in participating in Mass.
Although these are all generalizations, I thought the book had a point. It reminded me that I am apart of a church that holds different standards for religious practice then my old Protestant tradition. And even though I can see the value of both traditions it helps me to be more likely to judge each tradition by it's own standards, rather than each others.
Radically moderate
Its my answer to fundamentalism. I am tired of the drama and hype of the FOX News version of life, swinging from one extreme to another. I have decided to become radically (boldly meek and passively upfront) moderate (middle-ground, reasonable, french vanilla; strong, yet plain).
No drama, please! I will take the middle road - thank you!
No drama, please! I will take the middle road - thank you!
Is arrogance compatible with Christianity?
Is it ok to be an arrogant Christian?
Is having an arrogant spirit ok if it is promoting the Gospel?
Is Paul telling us it is ok or even desirable to be arrogant, if we are arrogant (boasting) in the Lord?
Do ministries that seem to run off of arrogance, get a free pass because they are saving people from Hell?
Is arrogance actually love if it is used to spread the gospel in order to lead people to Christ? James White would say that his ministry (which oozes arrogance) is all about love because the ultimate act of love is saving people from Hell.
Have you quietly accepted arrogant preachers because they were sharing the gospel?
I believe humility is the only way to preach the gospel - I think that an arrogant heart is far worse than a heretical brain.
Is having an arrogant spirit ok if it is promoting the Gospel?
Is Paul telling us it is ok or even desirable to be arrogant, if we are arrogant (boasting) in the Lord?
Do ministries that seem to run off of arrogance, get a free pass because they are saving people from Hell?
Is arrogance actually love if it is used to spread the gospel in order to lead people to Christ? James White would say that his ministry (which oozes arrogance) is all about love because the ultimate act of love is saving people from Hell.
Have you quietly accepted arrogant preachers because they were sharing the gospel?
I believe humility is the only way to preach the gospel - I think that an arrogant heart is far worse than a heretical brain.
Reality is stretched
Ok - has anyone ever thought about time and space in relationship to God? If you turn linear time on its side - sort of like standing up a toothpick - it forms a dot - there is no length - the same is true with time. What if God confronted Adam and Eve in the Garden and forgave them instantly - but stretched out the incident to form time and space? What if He did it to show us how His heart (Son) was broken when we sinned in the Garden and denied it? What if He wanted to teach us how to forgive so we could understand His forgiveness for us?
It suggests a possible explanation for the problem of pain in the world without contradicting Einstein's theory of gravity - space is stretched.
It suggests a possible explanation for the problem of pain in the world without contradicting Einstein's theory of gravity - space is stretched.
Children
We are all God's children.
We fight like children and judge each other like children and enforce justice like children and try to control our environments like children and exclude others like children and most of all, we are self-serving just like children.
The trick is to learn to love like children, trust like children, obey like children, forgive like children, and wonder, just like children.
I think most of our disagreements are akin to childish arguments regarding the possession of a favorite toy. I used to hate it when my dad refused to take sides in the arguments I used to have with my sister - now I cannot wait for God to act the same way.
We fight like children and judge each other like children and enforce justice like children and try to control our environments like children and exclude others like children and most of all, we are self-serving just like children.
The trick is to learn to love like children, trust like children, obey like children, forgive like children, and wonder, just like children.
I think most of our disagreements are akin to childish arguments regarding the possession of a favorite toy. I used to hate it when my dad refused to take sides in the arguments I used to have with my sister - now I cannot wait for God to act the same way.
Misnomers
1. People who believe that works play apart in their salvation are proud of themselves and take the credit away from Jesus.
2. Only Fundamentalists really believe the Bible is true.
3. Religious people are Pharisees
4. People are saved according to doctrine.
5. God makes the rules so He can break them as He pleases; He will never break his own rules to save a person who does not believe Jesus died for our sins.
6. Acknowledging people's freedom to sin is the same as condoning it.
7. Witnessing effectively does not require a relationship.
8. Sanctification of the heart by Jesus requires a full understanding of His nature and intention in our lives.
9. Recognizing personal sin in others is for the sole purpose of rooting the sin from our community
10. The ends justify the means.
11. Jesus died to make God like us.
12. The effects of Original sin stem from eating the Fruit.
13. Freewill did not exist before the Fall.
14. God wanted Humanity to sin, and then punished us for doing so.
15. God created people for Hell.
2. Only Fundamentalists really believe the Bible is true.
3. Religious people are Pharisees
4. People are saved according to doctrine.
5. God makes the rules so He can break them as He pleases; He will never break his own rules to save a person who does not believe Jesus died for our sins.
6. Acknowledging people's freedom to sin is the same as condoning it.
7. Witnessing effectively does not require a relationship.
8. Sanctification of the heart by Jesus requires a full understanding of His nature and intention in our lives.
9. Recognizing personal sin in others is for the sole purpose of rooting the sin from our community
10. The ends justify the means.
11. Jesus died to make God like us.
12. The effects of Original sin stem from eating the Fruit.
13. Freewill did not exist before the Fall.
14. God wanted Humanity to sin, and then punished us for doing so.
15. God created people for Hell.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Personal Creed
1. I believe in the Trinity, the infallibility of the written and oral word, the incarnation of Christ, and the justification and sanctification of the soul.
2.I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
3.I have a personal, participatory, justified and sanctifying relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ.
4.I am called to carry out God’s will by loving God, loving myself (recognizing God’s love for me and knowing who I am), and loving my neighbor through service.
5.I believe we are called to root out personal sin by working with Jesus in the sanctification process, which teaches our heart to love and results in perfection after death and resurrection.
6.My primary concern is to store up my treasure in Heaven by promoting a saving relationship in Christ, through the process of creating and participating in deep, loving relationships with my neighbors.
7.The ability to recognize the tragedy of personal sin in my neighbor serves a twofold purpose: to act as a mirror for my own sin, thereby aiding in my personal sanctification; to teach me perspective taking skills, empathy, radical love, acceptance of my neighbor, and the highest form of love; forgiveness.
8.I believe the existence of pain in the world is to teach us to trust, love and forgive through the pain; gain perspective on Christ’s sacrifice and God’s pain, loss and triumph; reveal Christ’s love for His children through service.
9.I believe the main subject in the OT is the omnipotence of God and the full array of human response to this truth. The main point of the NT is God’s response to His own omnipotence, which is love and forgiveness embodied in the man-God Jesus Christ, our ultimate example and only salvation.
10. All truth is God’s truth; therefore all religions, academia, and laws contain varying degrees of truth and are profitable for the development of our mind and relationships with others.
2.I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
3.I have a personal, participatory, justified and sanctifying relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ.
4.I am called to carry out God’s will by loving God, loving myself (recognizing God’s love for me and knowing who I am), and loving my neighbor through service.
5.I believe we are called to root out personal sin by working with Jesus in the sanctification process, which teaches our heart to love and results in perfection after death and resurrection.
6.My primary concern is to store up my treasure in Heaven by promoting a saving relationship in Christ, through the process of creating and participating in deep, loving relationships with my neighbors.
7.The ability to recognize the tragedy of personal sin in my neighbor serves a twofold purpose: to act as a mirror for my own sin, thereby aiding in my personal sanctification; to teach me perspective taking skills, empathy, radical love, acceptance of my neighbor, and the highest form of love; forgiveness.
8.I believe the existence of pain in the world is to teach us to trust, love and forgive through the pain; gain perspective on Christ’s sacrifice and God’s pain, loss and triumph; reveal Christ’s love for His children through service.
9.I believe the main subject in the OT is the omnipotence of God and the full array of human response to this truth. The main point of the NT is God’s response to His own omnipotence, which is love and forgiveness embodied in the man-God Jesus Christ, our ultimate example and only salvation.
10. All truth is God’s truth; therefore all religions, academia, and laws contain varying degrees of truth and are profitable for the development of our mind and relationships with others.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Stay the Course!
Here is a post I wrote several years ago and decided to re-post after recently engaging in a rather nasty religious debate. Here are my observations about the conversational style of people who are more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.
After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let's take a closer look, shall we?
1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to simply supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.
2. Rely on Mocking or Sarcasm to ignite passion: If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken). BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)
3. Do not give an inch: If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation! In all cases, never concede even a minor point to your opponent.
4. Make your opponent work harder: Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has to prove you wrong. If he presents troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit. Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.
5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent: After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning. Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.
6. Stay the Course!: Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.
After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let's take a closer look, shall we?
1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to simply supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.
2. Rely on Mocking or Sarcasm to ignite passion: If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken). BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)
3. Do not give an inch: If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation! In all cases, never concede even a minor point to your opponent.
4. Make your opponent work harder: Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has to prove you wrong. If he presents troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit. Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.
5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent: After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning. Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.
6. Stay the Course!: Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Boiling it down
Recently, I have been thinking a lot about the Old Testament. The fact is, I cannot reconcile the depiction of God in the OT with the God I worship, and I am tired of making up lame excuses for the horrific acts portrayed. Here is the deal, if God is really as violent and petty as He is described by the writer's of the OT, it would be unethical to worship Him. I have more compassion for my dogs than God seems to have for the people He created.
Honestly, a new way of approaching the OT is way past due. Instead of celebrating the atrocities committed by the Israelites, it is time to view their behavior for what it is; nationalistic, opportunistic, superstitious attempts to mold God's will to their own agenda. I am not singling out the Jewish people - all governments and individuals do the same thing. The whole point of the OT is to declare God's Being and set down some rules to live by - the rest of it is a record of inspired cautionary tales, included in the cannon to illustrate how not to respond to God. It is a biography of humanity - our inept attempt to respond to God's Being. We should read the OT as a autobiography - placing ourselves in the shoes of all the characters in order to understand ourselves better. The worst thing we can do is read the OT as a guide to morality because the moral message is the ends justify the means - which is totally unethical.
The NT is God's response to God. Jesus is our example of how God wants us to live - love Him, love ourselves (self awareness) and love our neighbors through service. There is no room for war, genocide, human-made famine, consumerism, nationalism, individualism and the rest of the 'lesser good' behaviors, yet they are still prevalent, however, unconditional love is what we are supposed to be practicing.
So our response to the message of the Bible and Descartes declaration 'I think therefore, I am' is 'God is, therefore I love'
Honestly, a new way of approaching the OT is way past due. Instead of celebrating the atrocities committed by the Israelites, it is time to view their behavior for what it is; nationalistic, opportunistic, superstitious attempts to mold God's will to their own agenda. I am not singling out the Jewish people - all governments and individuals do the same thing. The whole point of the OT is to declare God's Being and set down some rules to live by - the rest of it is a record of inspired cautionary tales, included in the cannon to illustrate how not to respond to God. It is a biography of humanity - our inept attempt to respond to God's Being. We should read the OT as a autobiography - placing ourselves in the shoes of all the characters in order to understand ourselves better. The worst thing we can do is read the OT as a guide to morality because the moral message is the ends justify the means - which is totally unethical.
The NT is God's response to God. Jesus is our example of how God wants us to live - love Him, love ourselves (self awareness) and love our neighbors through service. There is no room for war, genocide, human-made famine, consumerism, nationalism, individualism and the rest of the 'lesser good' behaviors, yet they are still prevalent, however, unconditional love is what we are supposed to be practicing.
So our response to the message of the Bible and Descartes declaration 'I think therefore, I am' is 'God is, therefore I love'
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Journey to Self-Awareness
Referred to as ‘self actualization’, by Maslow and placed at the top of his hierarchy of needs, discovery and acceptance of the True Self (TS) has been recognized by many, as the highest level of consciousness. All the mystical branches of religion hold self awareness as necessary for union with God. From Buddhists to Sufi masters; Cabbalists to medieval Christian mystics; people throughout time have been compelled to overthrow the ego and integrate the TS.
In the Jewish tradition, the OT is humanity’s introduction to Yahweh, or I AM. Throughout Jewish history His declaration of being has elicited an array of responses from humanity, some ethical, others horrifying.
Christianity teaches followers to believe that Jesus fulfilled the OT by providing God’s perfect response to His own introduction. In the NT, God provides us with His Son who explains that we are to recognize His love for us and allow Him to sanctify our hearts, which involves teaching us to love. Despite the narcissistic interpretation of many groups of modern Christians, who deny themselves in a grand act of false modesty, and follow through by martyring themselves for others in an attempt to justify themselves; Jesus tells us to start by loving and accepting ourselves. Only then can we see how much God loves us, which allows us to reach out in obedience and love to our neighbors through service.
The enduring theme of the quest for the self is also found throughout American folklore, specifically Frank Baum’s classic, “The Wizard of Oz”. Much has been written examining the political allegory found within the children’s classic; however, this author has never encountered a psycho-dynamic interpretation. Perhaps unintentionally, Baum’s fairytale presents the story of the true self on a journey to self discovery.
The story opens when the TS, Dorothy, notices a tornado, emotion trauma, approaching the family farm, which represents her childhood defenses. Her response is to pick up her dog, which is her fear defense, and regress into childhood by running into the farmhouse. It appears that she does not possess the skills to follow her elders, their adult response to the trauma, is represented by seeking refuge in the storm cellar. Predictably, her childhood defenses prove to be inadequate protection against the looming emotional trauma.
Indeed, when the house lands in Oz, she is thrown into an extended period of regression, an emotional place where she is forced to navigate adult issue interpreted using a primitive schema. Eventually, after she confronts her narcissist wounds, her ego, and her dualistic worldview, Dorothy integrates her TS and realizes she already possesses the skills necessary to grow up and thrive in adulthood.
After abandoning the wreckage of her childhood defenses, Dorothy recognizes that she must journey to confront the ego, which she views as the ultimate authority and equipped to help her heal from the trauma endured. First, she sets up a primitive, dualistic worldview, consisting of a self-soothing and self-punishing system, in the guise of the Good Witch of the East, and The Wicked Witch of the West. Also in preparation, she is provided with ruby red slippers, which represent hope, and her primary defense system, fear, or her little black dog, which lashes out at every new situation she will encounter. As the journey unfolds, she incorporates the three defense of her narcissistic wound; the man with no brain, the borderline defense, portrayed as a Scarecrow; the man with no heart, or the narcissistic response, illustrated as a Woodcutter made of tin; and the fear-based response, the schizoid, presented as the Cowardly Lion. The complexity of the characters becomes apparent when the Scarecrow appears insightful, the Tinman displays emotion and the Lion seems protective. Under close examination, true to their character, the Scarecrow’s insight is restricted to caretaking in relationships (borderline); the Tinman’s emotional responses are self-centered (narcissistic); and the Lion’s protective qualities are fear-based, primitive and unable to incorporate the other characters (schizoid).
It is interesting to note that Dorothy spends considerable time trying to soothe the three primary defenses whenever they are triggered by the ravages of her anger towards the Self, which manifest in character representing the dark half of her worldview or the Wicked Witch of the West. It becomes apparent that neither the Scarecrow, Woodcutter, or Lion can stand up to the self directed anger, yet it is repelled by hope, when the ruby red slippers eventually burn the Wicked Witch of the West.
As Dorothy, Toto, Scarecrow, Tinman, and Lion, advance towards the confrontation with the Great and Powerful Oz (TGAPO), navigating specialized attacks from the Wicked Witch of the West, they reach the last manifestation of self directed anger, the poppies, which represent the ultimate expression of anger towards the self; the use of narcotics in an attempt to lull the group to sleep. Only soothing in the light half of the worldview can rouse the narcissistic response, the Tinman, to carry the party through the drug induced haze.
Upon reaching the Emerald City, the self and defenses prepare to meet the ego by hiding its fear-based condition, in the form of the application of various cosmetics. Standing in front of the grandiose display of TGAPO, triggers all the defenses and forces the TS to speak out. Despite the puffed up image of the Ego, the TS is able to confront TGAPO about her need to integrate the Self and travel back to reality. TGAPO gives her a seemingly impossible task, to take away the power of the childish, self directed fear and anger, the representation of the dark half of her worldview. Dorothy, although she still relies on her defenses, confronts the Witch and defeats her, which inadvertently deconstructs her entire dualistic worldview – dark and light.
Interesting enough, after the dualistic worldview is dismantled, the defenses are still in place, until the Ego is confronted once again. During the second meeting, the TS presents the broom to TGAPO and demands the help she was promised. Instead of bestowing the insight promised, the ego is exposed for what it is….simply a ‘little man behind a curtain’. Following a moment of despair, Dorothy, realizes that her defenses can be healed using her own insight, which consequently integrates the Scarecrow, Tinman and Lion into the self. Dorothy than realizes that hope, the ruby red slippers; the same hope that carried her through her journey so far, will also bring her to self actualization and Kansas, or the successful journey from childhood to adolescence.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Repent!
Used as a battle cry for the condemnation of humanity throughout the history of the church, the word repent has often been received by people inside the church, not as a gentle invitation to change behavior, but as a strong-armed, directive to question self-worth and the quality of their relationship with God. Outside the church, people who are subjected to this approach of 'sharing the good news', react appropriately, as if they are experiencing an unjustified attack from illegitimate zealots.
Christians need to take back the word repent from those who believe Jesus came to condemn us, rather than love and forgive humanity. I really like Thomas Keating's definition of the word in his booklet, 'The Human Condition', 'Change the direction that you look for your happiness.' Choosing to engage in destructive behavior or sin, is a bad habit we have learned, but we are no longer forced to continue engaging in. The Creation story tells us that Adam and Eve believed they were going to be 'like gods' by learning a new behavior - the ability to make a choice between the good and evil. Instead, their actions took away humanity's ability to make good choices - we became lovers of cutting corners, tricking and cheating others for our own benefit. Indeed, we were narcissistic to the core of our beings; Christ came to give us back the ability to choose the good. As Paul says, we are to 'throw off the Old Man, or our habit of worldliness - rooted in grandiose, narcissistic behavior.
Although humanity was duped in the beginning, the unforgivable sin was not eating the fruit - it was refusing to take personal responsibility for our actions. 'Where are you?', God asked, 'we are hiding because we are naked' (getting exposed or being seen for who they really are is the most terrifying possibility for a narcissist to imagine - in order to escape, they hide behind a grandiose, manufactured version of the ego), Adam replied. 'Who told you that were naked?", God asked - then the fingers start pointing in every direction - the serpent, the women, not me! Their inability to take personal responsibility placed a wedge in their relationship with God that existed until Jesus forgave us.
Christians need to take back the word repent from those who believe Jesus came to condemn us, rather than love and forgive humanity. I really like Thomas Keating's definition of the word in his booklet, 'The Human Condition', 'Change the direction that you look for your happiness.' Choosing to engage in destructive behavior or sin, is a bad habit we have learned, but we are no longer forced to continue engaging in. The Creation story tells us that Adam and Eve believed they were going to be 'like gods' by learning a new behavior - the ability to make a choice between the good and evil. Instead, their actions took away humanity's ability to make good choices - we became lovers of cutting corners, tricking and cheating others for our own benefit. Indeed, we were narcissistic to the core of our beings; Christ came to give us back the ability to choose the good. As Paul says, we are to 'throw off the Old Man, or our habit of worldliness - rooted in grandiose, narcissistic behavior.
Although humanity was duped in the beginning, the unforgivable sin was not eating the fruit - it was refusing to take personal responsibility for our actions. 'Where are you?', God asked, 'we are hiding because we are naked' (getting exposed or being seen for who they really are is the most terrifying possibility for a narcissist to imagine - in order to escape, they hide behind a grandiose, manufactured version of the ego), Adam replied. 'Who told you that were naked?", God asked - then the fingers start pointing in every direction - the serpent, the women, not me! Their inability to take personal responsibility placed a wedge in their relationship with God that existed until Jesus forgave us.
Homosexuality
Is homosexuality really the sin of Sodom? It seems convenient to condemn a behavior that only a small percentage of the population engages in. If you consider this a sin at all, you have to admit that the vast majority of the population is never tempted by it. Ironically, we are all tempted to lie everyday, yet, we tend to hold figures in the OT who also lie as men and women of God who's behavior is justified by God to bring about His will. CS Lewis refused to comment on homosexuality because he was never tempted by it and therefore could not empathize with that population.
Instead, I believe the point of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was the same as the rest of the OT - God is all-powerful. Also, who is more guilty? The mob of people that wanted to reduce the visitors to objects; Lot who tried to apply a human remedy by substituting his daughters for the objects; or the consumerism of our day, where we elevate the status of objects to the level of people?
As with all accounts of human behavior included in the OT, we benefit the most from using them to identify our own behavior, rather than to condemn others.
Instead, I believe the point of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was the same as the rest of the OT - God is all-powerful. Also, who is more guilty? The mob of people that wanted to reduce the visitors to objects; Lot who tried to apply a human remedy by substituting his daughters for the objects; or the consumerism of our day, where we elevate the status of objects to the level of people?
As with all accounts of human behavior included in the OT, we benefit the most from using them to identify our own behavior, rather than to condemn others.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Forgiveness
I am very interested in Forgiveness. I believe it is the highest example of love and the meaning of life - not to mention God's incredible, merciful, and elegant response to the problem of pain. Learning to forgive another person and yourself in the face of injustice is perfectly sublime.
A story of forgiveness always come to my mind when I contemplate this topic - I am sure most people remember it - when the Amish community in PA choose to be a witness to the world by forgiving one of their own people for a mass shooting in one of their towns. I get chills thinking about it - God made it possible - His mercy made it possible to sew up the chaism of pain caused by the Fall through a monumental action - the highest example of charity - forgiveness. Because Jesus forgives us, we now know how to forgive others, in the face of a world that is terribly unjust.
I would love to hear any stories of forgiveness that you would like to share.
How can we learn to forgive radically?
A story of forgiveness always come to my mind when I contemplate this topic - I am sure most people remember it - when the Amish community in PA choose to be a witness to the world by forgiving one of their own people for a mass shooting in one of their towns. I get chills thinking about it - God made it possible - His mercy made it possible to sew up the chaism of pain caused by the Fall through a monumental action - the highest example of charity - forgiveness. Because Jesus forgives us, we now know how to forgive others, in the face of a world that is terribly unjust.
I would love to hear any stories of forgiveness that you would like to share.
How can we learn to forgive radically?
Boasting
The sin of pride usually described in the form of boasting is soundly condemned throughout the Bible, especially by Paul. It is interesting that our culture does not seem to share this ideal, in fact, we appear to revel in worldliness as no other culture has since Rome. Why is it then that we are so quick to point out and condemn all the sins Paul used simply to illustrate worldliness, without getting his point? Stop being proud of your worldliness! Stop condemning - stop being inhospitable to your neighbors - stop acquiring things and start focusing on loving God and your neighbor.
I think Paul's writings have become notorious in some Christian circles as being judgmental because when we read his letters we are missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Paul's point is always stop boasting / start loving - all the sins he mentions are used to illustrate this greater point.
How should we interpret Paul's writings?
How can we practice humility in opposition to our culture?
I think Paul's writings have become notorious in some Christian circles as being judgmental because when we read his letters we are missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Paul's point is always stop boasting / start loving - all the sins he mentions are used to illustrate this greater point.
How should we interpret Paul's writings?
How can we practice humility in opposition to our culture?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Dualism
A recent conversation with my parents, which was marred with disagreement at every turn, helped me to realize how our worldviews differ markedly. Although this is not a new discovery, in the past I have had difficulty identifying or describing the root difference. After giving this issue some thought, and re-reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, I have determined that my parent's generation holds an exclusive view of the world, while my view is inclusive. This fact has a profound affect on everything we believe. I have chosen to describe my worldview as the "all-inclusive and" and my parent's generation's view as "the search for the absolute or". I have always disliked the manner in which people throw around the term "Postmodernism" to describe the death of the America we once knew, however it is a valid description of the current worldview we are experiencing today. Mere Christianity reads like a manifesto for Modernism, which, in my opinion is why it is the least relevant of Lewis' works. Indeed, the first page addresses the most important question of the day, "is there absolute truth?", which, in the book, takes the form of a common morality. It appears antiquated today, to get hung up on determining absolute truth before making a decision or determining value. In our postmodern world, with it's vast amount of differing opinions, it is critical to explore as many as possible rather than getting caught up in determining truth. Of course, this way of thinking has it's downside, without an emphasis on finding absolute truth, we run the risk of not valuing anything.
Another interesting thought concerns the relationship between my parent's generation and their grandchildren. The gap seems to be even wider - my generation was raised in Modernist schools - we at least know how to think that way.
Another interesting thought concerns the relationship between my parent's generation and their grandchildren. The gap seems to be even wider - my generation was raised in Modernist schools - we at least know how to think that way.
Friday, January 22, 2010
All faiths welcome
I am catholic, an oblate of Mt. Angel Monastery, and I have created this blog to record my thoughts on Christianity and as a forum for interfaith dialogue. Since I am new to the whole idea of blogging - this site with inevitably evolve according to need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)