Christianity is dead, at least my husband read something this morning that made him question me. I told him about the discussions going on in the blogospehere and how many books were out about the "death of Christianity". Why is Christianity or religion dying? And does it matter?
Some have suggested that the death of Christianity has come about because the social needs of our population has gotten met through the social media. People have contact at anytime and anywhere these days. So, why go to church to find a place to be affirmed?This is the challenge of "belonging".
Others have suggested that the theology of the Church just doesn't measure up to our scientific knowledge these days. How can one believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that people can do miracles? These are fairy tales, or myths that make life more bearable, when life is hard. This is the challenge of belief.
Still, some have sought to re-frame theology so that the Church is more "up to date". These have reframed "God" himself, as a process, a becoming, or our experience itself is "god in the making". God is the Present, "I Am" and incorporates all of reality (panentheism). These are not orthodox views. This is the challenge of behavior.
Some have seen this challenge to Christian faith as a challenge to know what/where Christian faith began. These go into scholarly debates about Judean roots and what happened to the Arab. How did ethicities get defined? And what protects their identities. These are questions that serve the work of "peace". Because ethnic identities are what make for 'war'. This is an attempt to re-create a new political belief structure, so Man can understand himself as "human" and not by religous identifications or ethnic identities.
The Christian "end" has also been challenged. It used to be that Christianity understood itself historically. History was "God's history". The teleos of all history was the advent of "Christ" or the second coming. Traditional Christians still believe in a coming judgment, and heaven and hell. But, these also believe in a separate reality/realm, the spritual realm.
Christianity is dead for all practical reasons. But, maybe this is not so bad, as Christianity is about how one sees oneself and others, and rightly or wrongly, Christians see themselves as superior beings, because of their promised eternal life. They are prone to think that those without faith are to be pitied, as they are reprobate.
As an "outsider", Christians like to define themselves by their cateogories where they are the prime arbitrator of truth and values. They are confident that what they believe is absolute for everyone, everywhere. And this is where they miss the mark of finding themselves free from defining themselves by faith alone. What do they personally value apart from any religious claims, do they even know? Why do they value it?
This is my concern. Those that are religous are prone to judge without thinking. And they are prone to throw verses around as if life serves people "black and white" situations and circumstances". Everything is "nice and neatly" organized in their frame of reference and if others don't have themselves organized in such a way, they are a threat to society. While I do not doubt at ALL that organization and order is very important, humans are not commodities to be put in boxes or compartments that frame their lives apart from human contingencies.
Political parties organize their platforms simply. But reality gives politicians complex situations to face. These situations challenge their political promises, because politics serves out contingencies too. We can't control what another country does or doesn't do, ultimately. We can co-operate, negotiate, or sanction, bomb or bring out the troops. But, are we different from those that also seek to have a life?
Government itself is a form of order/structure that seeks to circumvent what is of value. Free societies allow liberty where it concerns human life. Dictators, authoritarian power structures are those that believe that "order" should not be horozonally controlled, but hierarchally. These claim power for themselves, and some do it in the "name of God". This is why those that believe that "God" is not just an idea in one's mind, but a real reality are dangerous to our liberties. But, then, the religious are also Americans, and it is important that they also have a voice.
One thing for sure, humans are a diverse species. We are not clones of one another, though there are similarities in what we desire, how we define that in our lives is vastly different in a free society! And certainly, government is made to prevent desires from running over another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Showing posts with label Christian faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian faith. Show all posts
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Friday, November 19, 2010
Eternal LIFE OR a "Socialized Theology"? and Political Realities
Christians were a Jewish sect. These did not have political power, as they were from marginal professions, such as fishermen and prostitutes. The Jews weren't all in agreement as to "eternal life" or the resurrection.
Could it be that the political reality of life, as to political power was what drove their "theologizing"? I believe so.
The Sadducees did not believe in eternal life or the resurrection, but the Pharisees did. Could it be that the Sadducees who were the more "empowered class", as to money and political power didn't need the "promise" of eternal life, because they had more choices as to their life? I believe this is key to how we "psychologically frame" reality.
Christians and the institution of the Church has used Jesus life as their example of Chrsitian faith. Jesus condemned the "white-washed tombs" of the Pharisees because they weren't living their life like he was, as a humanitarian. But, "Christian" was only a term that was useful after the assembling of "like-minded" individuals, a society. It was a way for these to find a "Place of Belonging". They didn't have that choice in the political realities in Rome.
Fortunately, for Americans, our nation values the right of conscience as to choice. This is what supports our diverse climate as to values in life. But, unfortunately, "Christians" don't know their roots, and why the developed theology had "power" over Chruch doctrine. It was a way to make a "better life" without the practical realities of messy politics.
Could it be that the political reality of life, as to political power was what drove their "theologizing"? I believe so.
The Sadducees did not believe in eternal life or the resurrection, but the Pharisees did. Could it be that the Sadducees who were the more "empowered class", as to money and political power didn't need the "promise" of eternal life, because they had more choices as to their life? I believe this is key to how we "psychologically frame" reality.
Christians and the institution of the Church has used Jesus life as their example of Chrsitian faith. Jesus condemned the "white-washed tombs" of the Pharisees because they weren't living their life like he was, as a humanitarian. But, "Christian" was only a term that was useful after the assembling of "like-minded" individuals, a society. It was a way for these to find a "Place of Belonging". They didn't have that choice in the political realities in Rome.
Fortunately, for Americans, our nation values the right of conscience as to choice. This is what supports our diverse climate as to values in life. But, unfortunately, "Christians" don't know their roots, and why the developed theology had "power" over Chruch doctrine. It was a way to make a "better life" without the practical realities of messy politics.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Addendum to Morality and America
The Christian tradition has sought to answer the question of its veracity. Certainly, everyone would agree that the Christian tradition has had an impact on the world.
The conflict over myth and history has been a battle in the scholarly world. Was Jesus a historical person, or was he a mythological story. Or was his life a real life mythologized by the Church Fathers?
Myth has been known to be useful to represent things that are beyond the discipline of scienctific exploration. And ancient myths have been useful for eons for religions to build their stories, that help to identify a people and form communities of faith.
The same has happened in America's Founding, I think. Our Founding Fathers used myth to help bring unity, identification to a "people", a diverse people. And the unity was based upon natural law, where all were created equal with certain inalienable rights. So, our unity was in our diversity, not our uniformity. Even the Founding Fathers were different in their religious convictions and commitments. And so should Americans be.
If one accepts the former hypothesis, then, the question becomes, is there a God or not? Does it matter?
The conflict over myth and history has been a battle in the scholarly world. Was Jesus a historical person, or was he a mythological story. Or was his life a real life mythologized by the Church Fathers?
Myth has been known to be useful to represent things that are beyond the discipline of scienctific exploration. And ancient myths have been useful for eons for religions to build their stories, that help to identify a people and form communities of faith.
The same has happened in America's Founding, I think. Our Founding Fathers used myth to help bring unity, identification to a "people", a diverse people. And the unity was based upon natural law, where all were created equal with certain inalienable rights. So, our unity was in our diversity, not our uniformity. Even the Founding Fathers were different in their religious convictions and commitments. And so should Americans be.
If one accepts the former hypothesis, then, the question becomes, is there a God or not? Does it matter?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Collectivism Leaves Us Demoralized
“The word 'altruism' was coined in the early nineteenth century by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (who also invented the word 'sociology' ). For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good. It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion--that is, the initiation of physical force--in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others.” -- George H. Smith
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." ...
"As to Kant's version of the altruist morality, he claimed that it was derived from 'pure reason,' not from revelation -- except that it rested on a special instinct for duty, a 'categorical imperative' which one 'just knows.' His version of morality makes the Christian one sound like a healthy, cheerful, benevolent code of selfishness. Christianity merely told man to love his neighbor as himself; that's not exactly rational -- but at least it does not forbid man to love himself. What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer. This is the ultimate form of demanding that man turn himself into a "shmoo" -- the mystic little animal of the Li'l Abbner comic strip, that went around seeking to be eaten by somebody.
"It is Kant's version of altruism that is generally accepted today, not practiced -- who can practice it? -- but guiltily accepted. It is Kant's version of altruism that people, who have never heard of Kant, profess when they equate self-interest with evil. It is Kant's version of altruism that's working whenever people are afraid to admit the pursuit of any personal pleasure or gain or motive -- whenever men are afraid to confess that they are seeking their own happiness -- whenever businessmen are afraid to say that they are making profits -- whenever the victims of an advancing dictatorship are afraid to assert their "selfish" rights.
"The ultimate monument to Kant and to the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia." – Ayn Rand
I think that demoralization happens whenever choice is devalued or denied. And demoralization leads to addictions, and even suicide, because of the demoralization that subsumes individuality. Russia has a high addiction to alcohol, for instance. Suicide happens mostly from those who have been demoralized through crisis in life. Why live, if one has been annihilated anyway?
Christians "use" the term of self-sacrificial "love" to affirm such sacrifice for the 'greater good'. But, this is does not come from a healthy self assessment, but from a needy and perverted way to gain self-affirmation from others.
Jesus has been useful for Christian "moralists" as an example. But, Jesus life was taken by the power hungry religious and the greedy and powerful State. Fortunately, for us, there is a recourse to such greedy grabs for power over the individual in today's modern world.
We must not allow such means an opportunity to gain a foothold under any "moral guise" of "greater good". Otherwise, we will become pawns to dictators, who demand obedience at the costs of our liberty. We must not submit!
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." ...
"As to Kant's version of the altruist morality, he claimed that it was derived from 'pure reason,' not from revelation -- except that it rested on a special instinct for duty, a 'categorical imperative' which one 'just knows.' His version of morality makes the Christian one sound like a healthy, cheerful, benevolent code of selfishness. Christianity merely told man to love his neighbor as himself; that's not exactly rational -- but at least it does not forbid man to love himself. What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer. This is the ultimate form of demanding that man turn himself into a "shmoo" -- the mystic little animal of the Li'l Abbner comic strip, that went around seeking to be eaten by somebody.
"It is Kant's version of altruism that is generally accepted today, not practiced -- who can practice it? -- but guiltily accepted. It is Kant's version of altruism that people, who have never heard of Kant, profess when they equate self-interest with evil. It is Kant's version of altruism that's working whenever people are afraid to admit the pursuit of any personal pleasure or gain or motive -- whenever men are afraid to confess that they are seeking their own happiness -- whenever businessmen are afraid to say that they are making profits -- whenever the victims of an advancing dictatorship are afraid to assert their "selfish" rights.
"The ultimate monument to Kant and to the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia." – Ayn Rand
I think that demoralization happens whenever choice is devalued or denied. And demoralization leads to addictions, and even suicide, because of the demoralization that subsumes individuality. Russia has a high addiction to alcohol, for instance. Suicide happens mostly from those who have been demoralized through crisis in life. Why live, if one has been annihilated anyway?
Christians "use" the term of self-sacrificial "love" to affirm such sacrifice for the 'greater good'. But, this is does not come from a healthy self assessment, but from a needy and perverted way to gain self-affirmation from others.
Jesus has been useful for Christian "moralists" as an example. But, Jesus life was taken by the power hungry religious and the greedy and powerful State. Fortunately, for us, there is a recourse to such greedy grabs for power over the individual in today's modern world.
We must not allow such means an opportunity to gain a foothold under any "moral guise" of "greater good". Otherwise, we will become pawns to dictators, who demand obedience at the costs of our liberty. We must not submit!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What I Hate to Think
What I hate to think is that God is reduced to the "common Gospel"...
or the "common ideal"....
What I hate to think is that man is reduced to obedience, instead of rational choice....
or "devalued part"....
What I hate to think is that the individual is only understood within his function...
apart from his function, he ceases to exist....
Christians need to cease being "Christian", giving advice, and having all the answers....and knowing what "the Kingdom entails", and what God's will for everyone is...
Christians need to learn how to be, before any "doing"....
As Christians are foremost humans and maybe when they understand how to be "more" human, then they will cease to be "Christians"....
And I will cease hating to think....
or the "common ideal"....
What I hate to think is that man is reduced to obedience, instead of rational choice....
or "devalued part"....
What I hate to think is that the individual is only understood within his function...
apart from his function, he ceases to exist....
Christians need to cease being "Christian", giving advice, and having all the answers....and knowing what "the Kingdom entails", and what God's will for everyone is...
Christians need to learn how to be, before any "doing"....
As Christians are foremost humans and maybe when they understand how to be "more" human, then they will cease to be "Christians"....
And I will cease hating to think....
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Personal Identity and Political Reality
Political Reality is where we live, work and play. These contexts breed the social aspects in one's life. But, these contexts also include how we understand our faith.
Some have separated the sacred and the secular aspects of life, as they represent different "domains". But, the separation of the sacred and secular dissolves religion into belief systems. While belief systems do underlie our behavior, the Church was "committed" to "political reality", or the real world. These realities were not to be separated according to "orthodox faith". Faith is known by behavior, but faith based behavior is not based on rationale, or reason. Faith and Reason have always challenged the Church.
Religious communities have tried to identify how they "help" or what "role" they play in the political realm, where real reality is played out within history. Some of these communities have attempted to "connect" the sacred and secular together within a "moral model". These 'models" which became wholesale theological systems were not based on real history, personal experience, or reason, but on faith. Such is the case in Christian faith with Jesus of Nazereth. These "models" represent certain attributes or universals that might be "missing" within political realities in a given situation.
But, while such theological terms as "incarnation" and "emergent properties" try to "connect" reality to God, as if God exists "outside of time and space, others try to dissolve the distinction of the sacred and secular altogether. I think that this is more healthy, as whenever we signify distinctions, then we separate over issues that divide, instead of unite.
Any and everything is given, so we should not be about the business of making such fine distinctions between the "spiritual and the non-spiritual". There is enough "reality" for anyone to "fit". We must be about the business of allowing the freedom of religious expression of all kinds (and that includes atheism) within the political realm without dissolving the differences of value commitments. This is what the American experiment is/was about. As long as religious freedom does not demand allegience, or subversion of the rule of law, then there should be full expression of religion in the public square.
Some have separated the sacred and the secular aspects of life, as they represent different "domains". But, the separation of the sacred and secular dissolves religion into belief systems. While belief systems do underlie our behavior, the Church was "committed" to "political reality", or the real world. These realities were not to be separated according to "orthodox faith". Faith is known by behavior, but faith based behavior is not based on rationale, or reason. Faith and Reason have always challenged the Church.
Religious communities have tried to identify how they "help" or what "role" they play in the political realm, where real reality is played out within history. Some of these communities have attempted to "connect" the sacred and secular together within a "moral model". These 'models" which became wholesale theological systems were not based on real history, personal experience, or reason, but on faith. Such is the case in Christian faith with Jesus of Nazereth. These "models" represent certain attributes or universals that might be "missing" within political realities in a given situation.
But, while such theological terms as "incarnation" and "emergent properties" try to "connect" reality to God, as if God exists "outside of time and space, others try to dissolve the distinction of the sacred and secular altogether. I think that this is more healthy, as whenever we signify distinctions, then we separate over issues that divide, instead of unite.
Any and everything is given, so we should not be about the business of making such fine distinctions between the "spiritual and the non-spiritual". There is enough "reality" for anyone to "fit". We must be about the business of allowing the freedom of religious expression of all kinds (and that includes atheism) within the political realm without dissolving the differences of value commitments. This is what the American experiment is/was about. As long as religious freedom does not demand allegience, or subversion of the rule of law, then there should be full expression of religion in the public square.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Problem With Christianizing Experience
In the past two weeks, I have talked with two friends who live in two different places,; who I have known in different "times" of my life, and who don't know each other. I have been struck with some similarities of experience, and finding that "christianizing" their experience is horrendously cruel. What do I mean?
One friend is married to an alcoholic, who is "in ministry", while the other friend is married, while living "estranged". Both are committed but struggling with staying married, questioning the situation, themselves, dealing with anger, confusion, indifference.... As I talk with them, I listen and try to understand, but I used to try to "christianize" my advice, as I thought that this was the "right" thing to do. I don't do so anymore. I only struggle to help them understand, evaluate, and try to encourage in any way I can.
I find that Christians bring upon these kinds of people trememdous pain, guilt and condemnation, by their patronizing attitude toward their "problems". One of the couples is in a small group and she shares some of her anger and frustration over not being understood and the simplistic way in which everyone else seems to understand their life. Of course, she does not feel free to "really share". Christians are not the first people that one thinks about "running toward".
I don't think that these two friends and their 'problems" are any different from any other human problems in one sense, but in another sense, they are suffering more under the guise of the expectations of "Christians".
These two friends and their "christianized experiences" are not the only ones that have impacted my opinion about Christian faith. My brother many years ago wanted to divorce his wife. My mother would not agree to it, which now she regrets. His marriage was a horrible one, but "good christians" don't divorce. His life ended in suicide. While I am not blaming his marriage as the total cause of his despair, it was a major part. Would he still be living if he had divorced? I don't know, but I wonder how our "christianized" encouragement damned his life!
Christians like to live by standards, which sometimes are hard roads to plow in the real world. The real world is not simple, and real solutions are not christianized experiences. Real solutions are political, moral and ethical questions about values that make up life. What is important to a person needs affirmation, if at all possible, not "christianized" condemnation.
"Christian" in evangelical/conservative terms has meant a "culture". But, that culture can be inhumane in their attempts to christianize experiences in the real world.
I have come to a point where Christian has no meaning, because what the word used to mean has dissappated. And under the circumstances, I think that is a good thing.
One friend is married to an alcoholic, who is "in ministry", while the other friend is married, while living "estranged". Both are committed but struggling with staying married, questioning the situation, themselves, dealing with anger, confusion, indifference.... As I talk with them, I listen and try to understand, but I used to try to "christianize" my advice, as I thought that this was the "right" thing to do. I don't do so anymore. I only struggle to help them understand, evaluate, and try to encourage in any way I can.
I find that Christians bring upon these kinds of people trememdous pain, guilt and condemnation, by their patronizing attitude toward their "problems". One of the couples is in a small group and she shares some of her anger and frustration over not being understood and the simplistic way in which everyone else seems to understand their life. Of course, she does not feel free to "really share". Christians are not the first people that one thinks about "running toward".
I don't think that these two friends and their 'problems" are any different from any other human problems in one sense, but in another sense, they are suffering more under the guise of the expectations of "Christians".
These two friends and their "christianized experiences" are not the only ones that have impacted my opinion about Christian faith. My brother many years ago wanted to divorce his wife. My mother would not agree to it, which now she regrets. His marriage was a horrible one, but "good christians" don't divorce. His life ended in suicide. While I am not blaming his marriage as the total cause of his despair, it was a major part. Would he still be living if he had divorced? I don't know, but I wonder how our "christianized" encouragement damned his life!
Christians like to live by standards, which sometimes are hard roads to plow in the real world. The real world is not simple, and real solutions are not christianized experiences. Real solutions are political, moral and ethical questions about values that make up life. What is important to a person needs affirmation, if at all possible, not "christianized" condemnation.
"Christian" in evangelical/conservative terms has meant a "culture". But, that culture can be inhumane in their attempts to christianize experiences in the real world.
I have come to a point where Christian has no meaning, because what the word used to mean has dissappated. And under the circumstances, I think that is a good thing.
Monday, March 9, 2009
You Have No Choice as a traditional Christian
You have no choice as a Christian, because you must subscribe to "His plan", as defined by the prescribed authority. You have no choice because your life is already determined! You just need to find out what is determined for you and "Submit". Submission is a virtue that is of highest value to those "over you", as it shows how much you "trust God". And faith is most of all how one "trusts God". Faith in not about reason. No, faith is about going into the fire or into the den of lions, or into the presence of 'the king" without qualms, because "God is with you". Faith is brainless, because a child can believe and that is what the "kingdom is about". One who has grown in faith is one who is childlike and uses the proper terms so that others know that they have been intitiated into the special group of the "born again".
If one has become "intitiated" into this "special group", then one is immune to certain things that the "common person" is not. Some people of faith believe that they are immune to physcial illness, others believe that faith gives you immunity to poverty, while others believe that faith subverts the social structures themselves so that one is protected from death. And even in death, one is immune because the faithful will inherit eternal life.
I find that faith is for those who do not want to take political action, but submit to their "lot in life". Life is about politics, as that is where one lives their life and make their choices. Choice is about determining what is of most imporatance and value. And Christians believe that "god" and "others" should be the greatest importance.
But, those in Scripture had no choice for the most part, as their "lot in life" was not our democracy. Our democracy allows the individual to choose and determine their values. And any individual can "worship god" in doing whatever they desire with diligence and delight....
If one has become "intitiated" into this "special group", then one is immune to certain things that the "common person" is not. Some people of faith believe that they are immune to physcial illness, others believe that faith gives you immunity to poverty, while others believe that faith subverts the social structures themselves so that one is protected from death. And even in death, one is immune because the faithful will inherit eternal life.
I find that faith is for those who do not want to take political action, but submit to their "lot in life". Life is about politics, as that is where one lives their life and make their choices. Choice is about determining what is of most imporatance and value. And Christians believe that "god" and "others" should be the greatest importance.
But, those in Scripture had no choice for the most part, as their "lot in life" was not our democracy. Our democracy allows the individual to choose and determine their values. And any individual can "worship god" in doing whatever they desire with diligence and delight....
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Problem of Exclusivist Claims
In all of my reading and sifting, struggling and I'm sure not understanding all of the complexities as it regards the tradition of Christian faith. One thing is for sure, there is no consensus, in regards to the text's understanding whether its hisoricity, it's meaning, and how the Church came to be.
I find that the dialogue is interesting, because it doesn't make absolute claims, but listens and stretches to understand.
I find, on the other hand, those who want to assert certainty in their exclusivist positions, are doing so for other reasons than "truth". There may be personal identity issues, or personal agendas, perhaps, even a "protection of the faith "once delivered to the saints". This stance saddens me, as it leaves large gaps in bridging an understanding among religious traditions, that would lend itself to human compassion, instead of dogmatic assertions and concrete opinions that harden one's attitude and approach to those who disagree.
I just heard today that the public schools were doing education in diverse religious traditions, helping students to understand another's traditon. I think this is a good exercise for minds to be expanded and hearts enlarged.
The Christian Church has much to loose, however, in opening up the discussion to others that differ in views. Although I do believe that culture is influenced by tradition, it isn't always in a positive way. Absolute claims are those that breed radicalism and an irrationality that leads to emotional reactions, instead of a steady and rational dialogue. We need more of the later in our world today, not the former.
I am hoping that those who are apologists will at least concede that their claims also "bridge a gap" of understanding within history. Whether one believes Scripture is historical or not, still need to admit that history is not a science of certain claims of exclusive interpretive texts.
I find that the dialogue is interesting, because it doesn't make absolute claims, but listens and stretches to understand.
I find, on the other hand, those who want to assert certainty in their exclusivist positions, are doing so for other reasons than "truth". There may be personal identity issues, or personal agendas, perhaps, even a "protection of the faith "once delivered to the saints". This stance saddens me, as it leaves large gaps in bridging an understanding among religious traditions, that would lend itself to human compassion, instead of dogmatic assertions and concrete opinions that harden one's attitude and approach to those who disagree.
I just heard today that the public schools were doing education in diverse religious traditions, helping students to understand another's traditon. I think this is a good exercise for minds to be expanded and hearts enlarged.
The Christian Church has much to loose, however, in opening up the discussion to others that differ in views. Although I do believe that culture is influenced by tradition, it isn't always in a positive way. Absolute claims are those that breed radicalism and an irrationality that leads to emotional reactions, instead of a steady and rational dialogue. We need more of the later in our world today, not the former.
I am hoping that those who are apologists will at least concede that their claims also "bridge a gap" of understanding within history. Whether one believes Scripture is historical or not, still need to admit that history is not a science of certain claims of exclusive interpretive texts.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Absurdity of Belief
Some believe that God is in control of history and that history is a revelation of God's kingdom on earth. This cannot be true, as it is not provable. It is only belief. For instance, it is absurdity of the worst kind to think that "God uses" the Holocost....this is simply unbelievable, and many have become atheist because of it...Why?
Besides a belief in a God that controls history, there has to be a commitment to "bring in that reality in the real world", which is not an idea that prevades all religious traditions, nor is it an understanding of reality according to some scientific understandings. One has to believe that leaders are wise enought to know what the "Kingdom is" and how to plan for the future in regards to "the Kingdom". But, because this is not representative of all traditions, even Christian ones, then, it is presumption towards our government's commitment to represent all traditions.
This does not mean that Christians should have no voice in regards to policy in the public square, but that their voice should be only one among many voices in our public square. Christians have various understandings which should be respected in our free and open government. This is why our government cannot legislate any form of religious tradition. There is a separation of powers that protects the power from being invested in one area of government. Justice would be undermined if the legislative branch were to legalize a belief system. We believe that all people have the right for equal representation under law, which is what Guatanamo is/was about.
Those who theologize to those who are suffering under dominant rulers, and other leaders, who seek to control events through mishandling the "rule of law", are doing God injustice, as well as man. God is scapegoated by the irresponsible, ignorant, disrespectful, arrogant behavior of those who hold power like this.
Power is to be used to serve another. This is what public service is about, but as we have experienced, even within our democracy, power can also be used for self-serving purposes, if there is no accountability and balance to that power. This is abuse of power and it creates the inhumane treatment of others, in the name of some other name, than what it's real name is, Evil. It disregards and claims innocence.
Passivity is not the place for dealing with evil. Evil must be engaged carefully, as it is deceptive, and controlling. Evil does not care about the humane, or the human. All evil wants is to win the control, the power and the very lives of others.
Americans came face to face with evil on 9/11 and have suffered for it ever since. We haven't had an evil that is this subversive, and yet, very prominent, as it is not openly political and nationalistic, as Hitler's Nazism was. It is a culture of religious zeal and intolerance that idealizes one's understanding of God and the afterlife. It is faith without reason, and is not reasonable. It is not open to be engaged in education, as it's views are "right" and "true". And it's indoctrination starts early in life, and controls all aspects of life for those under its rule. It is a complete allegeiance of life, at the costs of life itself.
Christians beware of over-zealous groups, and ideaologies that promise anything in the name of faith alone!
Besides a belief in a God that controls history, there has to be a commitment to "bring in that reality in the real world", which is not an idea that prevades all religious traditions, nor is it an understanding of reality according to some scientific understandings. One has to believe that leaders are wise enought to know what the "Kingdom is" and how to plan for the future in regards to "the Kingdom". But, because this is not representative of all traditions, even Christian ones, then, it is presumption towards our government's commitment to represent all traditions.
This does not mean that Christians should have no voice in regards to policy in the public square, but that their voice should be only one among many voices in our public square. Christians have various understandings which should be respected in our free and open government. This is why our government cannot legislate any form of religious tradition. There is a separation of powers that protects the power from being invested in one area of government. Justice would be undermined if the legislative branch were to legalize a belief system. We believe that all people have the right for equal representation under law, which is what Guatanamo is/was about.
Those who theologize to those who are suffering under dominant rulers, and other leaders, who seek to control events through mishandling the "rule of law", are doing God injustice, as well as man. God is scapegoated by the irresponsible, ignorant, disrespectful, arrogant behavior of those who hold power like this.
Power is to be used to serve another. This is what public service is about, but as we have experienced, even within our democracy, power can also be used for self-serving purposes, if there is no accountability and balance to that power. This is abuse of power and it creates the inhumane treatment of others, in the name of some other name, than what it's real name is, Evil. It disregards and claims innocence.
Passivity is not the place for dealing with evil. Evil must be engaged carefully, as it is deceptive, and controlling. Evil does not care about the humane, or the human. All evil wants is to win the control, the power and the very lives of others.
Americans came face to face with evil on 9/11 and have suffered for it ever since. We haven't had an evil that is this subversive, and yet, very prominent, as it is not openly political and nationalistic, as Hitler's Nazism was. It is a culture of religious zeal and intolerance that idealizes one's understanding of God and the afterlife. It is faith without reason, and is not reasonable. It is not open to be engaged in education, as it's views are "right" and "true". And it's indoctrination starts early in life, and controls all aspects of life for those under its rule. It is a complete allegeiance of life, at the costs of life itself.
Christians beware of over-zealous groups, and ideaologies that promise anything in the name of faith alone!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What Today Means to America and the Church
Today has meaning for every American and many , at least, in the Western World. Meaning is the "stuff" of value(s) and it is represented in symbols, which enlarge one's imagination because of their meaning.
America's symbols of Flag, Monuments, and Buildings are the "stuff" of Washington, D.C., where these are promeniently displayed. Many have used the symbol of the "Flag" to protest policy in its burning, others have used it to represent comradie to its meaning, in parades, or the creation of monuments, such as the Three Soldiers Raising the Flag, after WWII. Our country allows the freedom of protest, as it values opinions outside the frey of convention. And because policy is made by those who have listened to a particular position, some think that this is why lobbyists are really the strongest force in our country's legislation. And many believe that lobbyists are the "doom" of our county's freedoms, as it empowers the powerful, while limiting the voice of those outside the power structures of corporation, and special interests. Many fear that our very freedoms are at stake because organized crime could have a hand in these lobbying.
While protest is allowed, because we value all voices, even when it seemingly undermines the consensus, it is only because we value every groups right of expression. The most vivid memory I have of this protest was of the Vietnam War. It was a turbulant time and while many protested, much was done that undermined our values of "law and order". Freedom to protest or assembly is valued, but not in a disordered or violent way. Ours are the values of diverse opeinions, freedom of expression, and "law and order", because we value reason, and rationality in our discourse.
Christians also value representation in their government, and "law and order". And they also value (at least some forms) symbolization of "faith" in Cross, eucharist, baptism, etc. But, many Christians do not value the freedom to protest, or disagree with "outside" approved sources, in evaluating their understanding of faith. There is not "freethought" allowed, as it is feared that freethought will undermine religion's tradition altogether. This does not have to be so. History has proven that many have enlarged the vision, and hope through embracing the "ideas" that were outside the approved "circle" of reference.
Today's evangelicals, for the most part, adhere to Scripture as their only authority. And, yet, do not really, seek to understand their faith within a larger context of Church history, and the natural and social sciences. It is important in faith's rationale and appeal to the educated, as well, as understanding faith that is grounded in the 'real world", so that there is no appeal to a sweet by and by, which dismisses and diminishes the real suffering in the world.
My hope for America, as well as the Church, is that both would enlarge their vision, by giving room to those outside the power structures to have a voice and make a difference in those very power structures. It is only in balancing power that power is accountable and responsible to govern all. Otherwise, power, tyranny, and special interest control. And none of us would want that!
America's symbols of Flag, Monuments, and Buildings are the "stuff" of Washington, D.C., where these are promeniently displayed. Many have used the symbol of the "Flag" to protest policy in its burning, others have used it to represent comradie to its meaning, in parades, or the creation of monuments, such as the Three Soldiers Raising the Flag, after WWII. Our country allows the freedom of protest, as it values opinions outside the frey of convention. And because policy is made by those who have listened to a particular position, some think that this is why lobbyists are really the strongest force in our country's legislation. And many believe that lobbyists are the "doom" of our county's freedoms, as it empowers the powerful, while limiting the voice of those outside the power structures of corporation, and special interests. Many fear that our very freedoms are at stake because organized crime could have a hand in these lobbying.
While protest is allowed, because we value all voices, even when it seemingly undermines the consensus, it is only because we value every groups right of expression. The most vivid memory I have of this protest was of the Vietnam War. It was a turbulant time and while many protested, much was done that undermined our values of "law and order". Freedom to protest or assembly is valued, but not in a disordered or violent way. Ours are the values of diverse opeinions, freedom of expression, and "law and order", because we value reason, and rationality in our discourse.
Christians also value representation in their government, and "law and order". And they also value (at least some forms) symbolization of "faith" in Cross, eucharist, baptism, etc. But, many Christians do not value the freedom to protest, or disagree with "outside" approved sources, in evaluating their understanding of faith. There is not "freethought" allowed, as it is feared that freethought will undermine religion's tradition altogether. This does not have to be so. History has proven that many have enlarged the vision, and hope through embracing the "ideas" that were outside the approved "circle" of reference.
Today's evangelicals, for the most part, adhere to Scripture as their only authority. And, yet, do not really, seek to understand their faith within a larger context of Church history, and the natural and social sciences. It is important in faith's rationale and appeal to the educated, as well, as understanding faith that is grounded in the 'real world", so that there is no appeal to a sweet by and by, which dismisses and diminishes the real suffering in the world.
My hope for America, as well as the Church, is that both would enlarge their vision, by giving room to those outside the power structures to have a voice and make a difference in those very power structures. It is only in balancing power that power is accountable and responsible to govern all. Otherwise, power, tyranny, and special interest control. And none of us would want that!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Conservative Evangelicals Call for Concern
I just read a friend's forwarded e-mail about a concern over the UN's passage of "Defamation of Religions" resolution. It is driven by th 57 Islamic states to protect themselves from "persecution" of practicing their religion. It calls for tolerance.
Of course, evangelical Christians are concerned because their faith is the "right one" and those who risk their lives by converting Muslims are in danger of death, as well as the converted. The question remains, can we be tolerant to intolerance? Certainly international law would promote tolerance in general, but it should protect the human rights of the individual and not give Islam the right to kill in the name of their religion (god). It is outrageous that the West cannot take a stand against intolerance such as this. It combines law and religion over conscience and demands obedience under fear of death. This type of culture is a culture of death indeed, for it leaves no room for creativity or difference and it impedes the full development and flourishing of man. Human rights have no "rights" within Islam's tight frame of identity.
There is much discussion concerning what it means to be a human being. Islam doesn't care about what it means to be a human being because their view of God is more important than man and being a human being.
Of course, evangelical Christians are concerned because their faith is the "right one" and those who risk their lives by converting Muslims are in danger of death, as well as the converted. The question remains, can we be tolerant to intolerance? Certainly international law would promote tolerance in general, but it should protect the human rights of the individual and not give Islam the right to kill in the name of their religion (god). It is outrageous that the West cannot take a stand against intolerance such as this. It combines law and religion over conscience and demands obedience under fear of death. This type of culture is a culture of death indeed, for it leaves no room for creativity or difference and it impedes the full development and flourishing of man. Human rights have no "rights" within Islam's tight frame of identity.
There is much discussion concerning what it means to be a human being. Islam doesn't care about what it means to be a human being because their view of God is more important than man and being a human being.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Circumcision, Christianity, and Common Sense
I was told tonight by a scholar of "Lost Christianities" that Christian faith was rooted in Muslim faith and that someone from this time period would have felt more comfortable in a Mosque than a Western Church and that some of the practices, such as how they pray were much closer to Christian roots. While I understand that Jewish, Islamic and Christian roots are rooted in the Hebrew text, I do not adhere to this tradition's understanding of ethics...
In "Infidel", a Somalian woman talks about how she is circumcised and sewn up to prevent premarital intercourse. She has no pleasure within her marital sexual experience as she is torn and scared by the procedure! She cannot go outside without a male accompanying her. She recites all of her geneology for generations back, as this is her identity and tribal culture.
Phillip Jenkins, a religious studies professor, as well as historian of 20th century America, etc. from PennState, spoke on his new book, "Lost Christianities". His approach was solely a religious one and I was curious as he did not talk about colonialism or politics in general. Religious studies, of course, does not necessarily cover other subjects, but I find it very limiting and narrow to view a tradition even within its own history without expanding that udnerstanding beyond the tradition. Traditions do create a "world", but a limited one....
Christianity is rooted in Judiasm and was a peasant movement. In understanding group identity and how these identities form, Christianity became a separate identity under the writers of Pauls letters and was furthered through the testimony of the scribes who wrote the Gospels. It was an attempt to create a special identity within a God framework, as Judiasm had in the past. Those who have been discriminated, the "outsider", are those who are likely to create their own story, rather than identify with those who persecute or oppose them. Was this what Dr. Jenkins purposes happened to these people under the persecution of Constantine and the Crusades? The empire persecutes the underdogs and the underdogs create a way to survive under persecution. It is an interesting thought/theory. I don't know enough about the history and have not read Dr. Jenkins book.
I do know that Hirshi Ayraan Ali is an atheist because of her abuse. Her identity is not found within a God framework, but a political one. I don't find that this is wrong, as we all desire to survive in the best environment possible, which is one that is free of oppression, whether it be religious, or political. Common sense tells us that we choose freedom for our own self-interest, as well as the interests of others! What better framework than our American identity?
In "Infidel", a Somalian woman talks about how she is circumcised and sewn up to prevent premarital intercourse. She has no pleasure within her marital sexual experience as she is torn and scared by the procedure! She cannot go outside without a male accompanying her. She recites all of her geneology for generations back, as this is her identity and tribal culture.
Phillip Jenkins, a religious studies professor, as well as historian of 20th century America, etc. from PennState, spoke on his new book, "Lost Christianities". His approach was solely a religious one and I was curious as he did not talk about colonialism or politics in general. Religious studies, of course, does not necessarily cover other subjects, but I find it very limiting and narrow to view a tradition even within its own history without expanding that udnerstanding beyond the tradition. Traditions do create a "world", but a limited one....
Christianity is rooted in Judiasm and was a peasant movement. In understanding group identity and how these identities form, Christianity became a separate identity under the writers of Pauls letters and was furthered through the testimony of the scribes who wrote the Gospels. It was an attempt to create a special identity within a God framework, as Judiasm had in the past. Those who have been discriminated, the "outsider", are those who are likely to create their own story, rather than identify with those who persecute or oppose them. Was this what Dr. Jenkins purposes happened to these people under the persecution of Constantine and the Crusades? The empire persecutes the underdogs and the underdogs create a way to survive under persecution. It is an interesting thought/theory. I don't know enough about the history and have not read Dr. Jenkins book.
I do know that Hirshi Ayraan Ali is an atheist because of her abuse. Her identity is not found within a God framework, but a political one. I don't find that this is wrong, as we all desire to survive in the best environment possible, which is one that is free of oppression, whether it be religious, or political. Common sense tells us that we choose freedom for our own self-interest, as well as the interests of others! What better framework than our American identity?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Church and Discrimination
Historically, the traditional Church becomes discriminatory. Discrimination among Christians is based on many authorities. These authorities are limiting factors in understanding the universal principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Many Christians would say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were misguided goals of an individual's life. I would like to take them one by one and discuss what I believe is the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
Life. Life is a human universal. Without life, we can not pursue any other opportunity. Life is experienced by the individual. Therefore, individual life must be protected, first and foremost. But, how is life defined? Life can be defined by it's physicality, as well as it's "abundance". If life is limited to the physical aspects, without supporting its abundance, life seems futile. The futility of life is found when man ceases to have "rewards" for his labor, or hope for his goals. While life's rewards and goals are aspects of a flourishing life, life cannot be realized apart from proper government that recognizes the individual's right to pursue his own ends.
Liberty. Government, such as we have in America, encourages engagement and recognizes everyone's right to pursue life's abundance as they deem fit, within the boundaries of law. This is how liberty is defined. But, traditional Christians do not support an individual's right to pursue his own ends, as Christians define life as a commitment to the "cause of the Kingdom of God" (how is the Kingdom defined?), or as a self abenagtion of life, itself. Life cannot be enjoyed for its own sake. It must have a purpose (or function of the church?)! Liberty is not the message of traditional Christian faith, as it is always about God's will and not the individual's will.
Happiness. As Christian faith is about "loving God first", Christians do not affirm seeking "happiness". Happiness is based on circumstances in the material realm, which undermines "faith" in a trascendent reality. The transcendent reality is more important than the real world and life of the individual. Acesticism has been understood as a form of "sanctification" by some, just as it did in Judiasm and other religious faiths. Ascesticism does not affirm the life of the material, but the spiritual. In fact, asceticism denies affirming life's "here and now".
Christian faith has been defined by tradition's doctrine, by Scriptural texts, and by Church authorities, but has never affirmed tolerance of individual difference. This is the reason why so many churches split over how they understand their faith and its commitments. This has happened historically and is still occurring. Churches are defined by their definitions of right (and wrong), while individuals seek after what is true for themselves. What are the values that are most important to uphold and seek?And Why? These are important questions for the young adult to evaluate in coming to terms with what his own passion is and what he wants to commit to.
Progressive Christians are more open to change than the traditional ones. The dilemma for progressives is where to draw the line to maintain a "group identity", where the traditional Christian has all of the elements of his faith defined for him. Progressive Christians base their faith on reason. Traditional Christians base their authority outside of themselves. The question for the Church is whether the Church should see itself as an institution established by God that is not to be questioned, or as a social structure that needs to challenge itself often in its understanding of faith, reason and what that means....otherwise, Christians will be discriminating and not even recognize it, until much too late....
Life. Life is a human universal. Without life, we can not pursue any other opportunity. Life is experienced by the individual. Therefore, individual life must be protected, first and foremost. But, how is life defined? Life can be defined by it's physicality, as well as it's "abundance". If life is limited to the physical aspects, without supporting its abundance, life seems futile. The futility of life is found when man ceases to have "rewards" for his labor, or hope for his goals. While life's rewards and goals are aspects of a flourishing life, life cannot be realized apart from proper government that recognizes the individual's right to pursue his own ends.
Liberty. Government, such as we have in America, encourages engagement and recognizes everyone's right to pursue life's abundance as they deem fit, within the boundaries of law. This is how liberty is defined. But, traditional Christians do not support an individual's right to pursue his own ends, as Christians define life as a commitment to the "cause of the Kingdom of God" (how is the Kingdom defined?), or as a self abenagtion of life, itself. Life cannot be enjoyed for its own sake. It must have a purpose (or function of the church?)! Liberty is not the message of traditional Christian faith, as it is always about God's will and not the individual's will.
Happiness. As Christian faith is about "loving God first", Christians do not affirm seeking "happiness". Happiness is based on circumstances in the material realm, which undermines "faith" in a trascendent reality. The transcendent reality is more important than the real world and life of the individual. Acesticism has been understood as a form of "sanctification" by some, just as it did in Judiasm and other religious faiths. Ascesticism does not affirm the life of the material, but the spiritual. In fact, asceticism denies affirming life's "here and now".
Christian faith has been defined by tradition's doctrine, by Scriptural texts, and by Church authorities, but has never affirmed tolerance of individual difference. This is the reason why so many churches split over how they understand their faith and its commitments. This has happened historically and is still occurring. Churches are defined by their definitions of right (and wrong), while individuals seek after what is true for themselves. What are the values that are most important to uphold and seek?And Why? These are important questions for the young adult to evaluate in coming to terms with what his own passion is and what he wants to commit to.
Progressive Christians are more open to change than the traditional ones. The dilemma for progressives is where to draw the line to maintain a "group identity", where the traditional Christian has all of the elements of his faith defined for him. Progressive Christians base their faith on reason. Traditional Christians base their authority outside of themselves. The question for the Church is whether the Church should see itself as an institution established by God that is not to be questioned, or as a social structure that needs to challenge itself often in its understanding of faith, reason and what that means....otherwise, Christians will be discriminating and not even recognize it, until much too late....
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Trinity, God, and the Function of Roles
I found it a little irritating that there was a discussion at Trinity Evangelical about the roles of the Trinity. The discussion was about whether the Son eternally submits to the Father. This view is a complementarian view that would influence how one views male and female roles and functions. Don't people go to great extremes to give credence to what they believe and with not verifiability to boot?
Why do we find that it is necessary to have an authority behind our opinion? Why do we think that a rationale based on our own personal conviction and reasonable explaination is not enough? Who do we want to influence to see our side of the debate and for what reason? Do we really think that some things even matter? How important are the things that we are debating? Some, I'm sure, believe that the eternal destiny of the soul is at stake. I am sorry for them.
Practical matters such as public policy, economics, government, education, national security, international relations, etc. are much more important to be informed about and to discuss because they matter in this life. We don't know about the next life, we only have a belief, that is unprovable.
I remember a time when I was so certain that what I believed was truth for all people and without their coming to understand my way of thinking, people would perish and die without God. I was passionate and committed. But, itis is not a life of rest and peace, but one filled with the responsibility for the world's salvation. The most important aspect on anyone's life was the spiritual, to the extent of denying what the real world even meant. This frame of mind is unhealthy. If God is God, and we are responsible, then I find that being responsible within our own "worlds" is all that one needs to be concerned with. We are not called to take the whole world on, but be faithful in the little that is before us.
I am not interested in Christian faith, but faith, for I believe that God does not see the kind of faith, just the trust of faith. The trust of faith is not some "jump over the moon" to prove one's faith, but a quiet rest of "what is" and a "patient diligence" in the present about what is in front of you. Great visions are not necessary, for it is the widow's mite and the prostitute's worship that meant more to God than all the Pharisees and Sadducees did all together! I find that it is in being and affirming life for oneself and others that one finds life.
So, it is not about the Trinity, or God, or the functions and roles of male and female, but a response to the grace that is given in life in the present
Why do we find that it is necessary to have an authority behind our opinion? Why do we think that a rationale based on our own personal conviction and reasonable explaination is not enough? Who do we want to influence to see our side of the debate and for what reason? Do we really think that some things even matter? How important are the things that we are debating? Some, I'm sure, believe that the eternal destiny of the soul is at stake. I am sorry for them.
Practical matters such as public policy, economics, government, education, national security, international relations, etc. are much more important to be informed about and to discuss because they matter in this life. We don't know about the next life, we only have a belief, that is unprovable.
I remember a time when I was so certain that what I believed was truth for all people and without their coming to understand my way of thinking, people would perish and die without God. I was passionate and committed. But, itis is not a life of rest and peace, but one filled with the responsibility for the world's salvation. The most important aspect on anyone's life was the spiritual, to the extent of denying what the real world even meant. This frame of mind is unhealthy. If God is God, and we are responsible, then I find that being responsible within our own "worlds" is all that one needs to be concerned with. We are not called to take the whole world on, but be faithful in the little that is before us.
I am not interested in Christian faith, but faith, for I believe that God does not see the kind of faith, just the trust of faith. The trust of faith is not some "jump over the moon" to prove one's faith, but a quiet rest of "what is" and a "patient diligence" in the present about what is in front of you. Great visions are not necessary, for it is the widow's mite and the prostitute's worship that meant more to God than all the Pharisees and Sadducees did all together! I find that it is in being and affirming life for oneself and others that one finds life.
So, it is not about the Trinity, or God, or the functions and roles of male and female, but a response to the grace that is given in life in the present
Monday, September 29, 2008
Heart, Soul and Head
What is faith about anyway?
As children, we are made to be a part of a nuturing environment, When this does not happen, the child is left without resolution in his soul. This can distort the child's perception of himself and the world.
I had understood my faith to have "healed" these childish needs. I had found God's love "to look over my fault and see my need" (as Andre Crouch's song proclaimed). But, this was not healthy faith. Why do I say this? Because anything that does not delve into the soul to bring resolution, still is breeding ground for hurt and pain. The childish need, although met in a mythical world, is still left faltering if the nurturing environment of the Church fails.
In coming to Adulthood, we learn that no one is responsible but ourselves for what we are and what we become, because we do not allow another to define our life. And some would go so far as say that even God does not define our life, as His will is more general in how he innately gifted us. The need for safety is gone, as we have become centered on the values that bring us meaning. These values do not have to be within faith commitments, but do bring us identity.
So, faith can be defined within or without a community of faith, it is a matter of personal values and commitments to oneself as an identification factor. Who and what do I desire to bring meaning and purpose into life? And what is it that life will count for? These are the over-riding questions that face most yount adults in ther pursuit of life-calling. The university's calling of bringing resolution to the confusion during this stage of life is an important one. But, it is not an easy one.
As children, we are made to be a part of a nuturing environment, When this does not happen, the child is left without resolution in his soul. This can distort the child's perception of himself and the world.
I had understood my faith to have "healed" these childish needs. I had found God's love "to look over my fault and see my need" (as Andre Crouch's song proclaimed). But, this was not healthy faith. Why do I say this? Because anything that does not delve into the soul to bring resolution, still is breeding ground for hurt and pain. The childish need, although met in a mythical world, is still left faltering if the nurturing environment of the Church fails.
In coming to Adulthood, we learn that no one is responsible but ourselves for what we are and what we become, because we do not allow another to define our life. And some would go so far as say that even God does not define our life, as His will is more general in how he innately gifted us. The need for safety is gone, as we have become centered on the values that bring us meaning. These values do not have to be within faith commitments, but do bring us identity.
So, faith can be defined within or without a community of faith, it is a matter of personal values and commitments to oneself as an identification factor. Who and what do I desire to bring meaning and purpose into life? And what is it that life will count for? These are the over-riding questions that face most yount adults in ther pursuit of life-calling. The university's calling of bringing resolution to the confusion during this stage of life is an important one. But, it is not an easy one.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Church and The State
I have been thinking about the interface of Church and State, lately.
Today First Thing on the Square had a post on "The Real Problem With Bishops". In this entry, it was argued that Biden, Pelosi, and other Catholics in public office needed to represent the Catholic Church's stance on social issues. One bishop even took the stance of denying communion to politicians.
This intrigues me. On one hand, the Church wants public officials to represent Them in public office, excluding everyone else's conscience, while on the other hand, this one bishop felt that the political position itself was 'unholy" enough to deny communion.
I have also read where there is academic understaking of how the Jews/Judiasm identified themselves in ancient history.
Why all of this quadmire? Because the Church can't define itself in today's climate of globalization, and individuality.
While I can understand and agree that the Church on one hand must define what it means to be a part of the Church, how does that affect a member's participation in the "world"?
I think Niebuhr's model of the cultural interface, and the Quadralateral hold some promise of understanding and starting the dialogue across the spectrum of beliefs in the Church.
Niebuhr understood the call to the Church to be "in the world but not of it" in four ways....
The Christ IN Culture is the Scriptural part of the Quadralateral. This represents the Christ figure's role in the world. This challenge is not without understanding the Church's place within the Jewish Tradition and understanding its connection to other religious traditions.
The Christ OF Culture is Tradition's role, as far as understanding the values of the Church.
The Christ ABOVE Culture is Experience's role, in affirming that God is still above the world.
The Christ AGAINST Culture is Reason's role of critique in and of the Church.
While understanding that the Church must have a voice, the Church must alos allow difference to other voices. This means that there would be a stark difference between the Church and Islam in regards to "Law" and opennes to other traditions, understandings, etc. The Church is not called to oppress in the name of religion, nor to become a Kingdom of this World and its Systems and understandings of itself. The Church is not God, but an instrument of God.
The Church, as a political institution, should not forget its first mission and call to alleviate the suffering in the world. This first call is multi-dimensional.
Any Christian is called to this position,.
The individual's alleviation of suffering is found within the Church's doors, whether in counselling, charitable service, pastoral ministry.
The Church should also not forget it's call to permeate the public discourse so that its voice is heard loudly, boldly and clearly. These are those whose call is to the political or public service areas of mission and service. These are offices of public service.
In a free society, such as America, the Church should not just beome political in its understandings of itself. A political institution does not bring a redemptive message to those who have no hope. This mission is a domestic and foreign mission of charity, and human rights. Therefore, the Church and State should remain in separate spheres of influence, otherwise, those who disagree in regards to conscience, could not disagree, for fear of intimidation from the Church. The Church should always have an open ear to others.
The Church's message must be open to change, so that its message is accommodating to reason's challenges. Reason is the Church's friend, for reason is universal in scope and should be a mission of development in education.
The sacred and secular realms should understand themselves as opened before each other and influencing the other in growth and pertinence and relavance to society. The American Experiment is, after all, a unique one.
Today First Thing on the Square had a post on "The Real Problem With Bishops". In this entry, it was argued that Biden, Pelosi, and other Catholics in public office needed to represent the Catholic Church's stance on social issues. One bishop even took the stance of denying communion to politicians.
This intrigues me. On one hand, the Church wants public officials to represent Them in public office, excluding everyone else's conscience, while on the other hand, this one bishop felt that the political position itself was 'unholy" enough to deny communion.
I have also read where there is academic understaking of how the Jews/Judiasm identified themselves in ancient history.
Why all of this quadmire? Because the Church can't define itself in today's climate of globalization, and individuality.
While I can understand and agree that the Church on one hand must define what it means to be a part of the Church, how does that affect a member's participation in the "world"?
I think Niebuhr's model of the cultural interface, and the Quadralateral hold some promise of understanding and starting the dialogue across the spectrum of beliefs in the Church.
Niebuhr understood the call to the Church to be "in the world but not of it" in four ways....
The Christ IN Culture is the Scriptural part of the Quadralateral. This represents the Christ figure's role in the world. This challenge is not without understanding the Church's place within the Jewish Tradition and understanding its connection to other religious traditions.
The Christ OF Culture is Tradition's role, as far as understanding the values of the Church.
The Christ ABOVE Culture is Experience's role, in affirming that God is still above the world.
The Christ AGAINST Culture is Reason's role of critique in and of the Church.
While understanding that the Church must have a voice, the Church must alos allow difference to other voices. This means that there would be a stark difference between the Church and Islam in regards to "Law" and opennes to other traditions, understandings, etc. The Church is not called to oppress in the name of religion, nor to become a Kingdom of this World and its Systems and understandings of itself. The Church is not God, but an instrument of God.
The Church, as a political institution, should not forget its first mission and call to alleviate the suffering in the world. This first call is multi-dimensional.
Any Christian is called to this position,.
The individual's alleviation of suffering is found within the Church's doors, whether in counselling, charitable service, pastoral ministry.
The Church should also not forget it's call to permeate the public discourse so that its voice is heard loudly, boldly and clearly. These are those whose call is to the political or public service areas of mission and service. These are offices of public service.
In a free society, such as America, the Church should not just beome political in its understandings of itself. A political institution does not bring a redemptive message to those who have no hope. This mission is a domestic and foreign mission of charity, and human rights. Therefore, the Church and State should remain in separate spheres of influence, otherwise, those who disagree in regards to conscience, could not disagree, for fear of intimidation from the Church. The Church should always have an open ear to others.
The Church's message must be open to change, so that its message is accommodating to reason's challenges. Reason is the Church's friend, for reason is universal in scope and should be a mission of development in education.
The sacred and secular realms should understand themselves as opened before each other and influencing the other in growth and pertinence and relavance to society. The American Experiment is, after all, a unique one.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
My Pastor's Sermon on the Impossible God
My pastor's sermon today was on the second commandment; Thou shalt have no other gods before me. He explained that idolatry was anythint that came in between the person and God. God was alone to be worshipped, but so often we humans look at the "real world" and start to think of these things as God. And yet, I would suggest that Jesus said that humanity was the "face of God". Jesus, said that, "If you do it to one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me".
Jesus ministered to a specific group of people. He identified with the outcasts, and sinner. These were those who were outside the scope of the political (outcast) and religious (sinner) realms of power. Jesus, as a role model cannot be universal, either, otherwise, where would governmental leaders be? or educators? or any other "job" outside of charitable service?
It was a tipe rope of sorts for my pastor to stretch and walk between antinominism and nomism....the absolute and relative, context and standard. These questions are ones that plague the Church in addressing postmodernity. But, how does society, and society's social structures view this "gift of the law"?
Israel, according to the Scriptures, was not a nation at the time of the giving of the "law". Moses, according to the story, got the law from God. Therefore, Israel was known by her law and that made her "God's people". Today's modern nation-state is known by the government that rules that nation. Laws are the boundaries that define that government. Unfortunately, many nations do not have laws that protect the common person. Dictators, tribal chiefs and terrorists all seek power at the costs of others. Civilized nations have sought to come together and formulate interantional law. These laws are agreed upon to protect human rights.
But, as my pastor pointed out, absolutizing the law can bring atrocious acts of oppression and presumption, while not having law is not knowing how to distinguish between "godliness and worldliness". This is a holiness tradition within the Christian tradition, the Wesleyan Church. Their focus from Wesley's time was the question: Is there sin in your life? Wesley, the father of Methodism, started groups that were accountable to one another.
What is the purpose of accountability? Accountability helps us see clearly where we need to grow in our character. Others can help us know where our strengths and weaknesses are. The question is, what is uniquely "Christian" about this? Leadership courses that are taught all across the land are based on Character development. There has even been a move in education about character development in our public schools.
There is no unique Christian message, as the Christian message is the message of humanity. Humanity is made in God's image and though this is true, humanities' social structures are the instrucments that God uses to develop us. Today's social structures are broken in America. How do we resolve this problem? What do you think?
Jesus ministered to a specific group of people. He identified with the outcasts, and sinner. These were those who were outside the scope of the political (outcast) and religious (sinner) realms of power. Jesus, as a role model cannot be universal, either, otherwise, where would governmental leaders be? or educators? or any other "job" outside of charitable service?
It was a tipe rope of sorts for my pastor to stretch and walk between antinominism and nomism....the absolute and relative, context and standard. These questions are ones that plague the Church in addressing postmodernity. But, how does society, and society's social structures view this "gift of the law"?
Israel, according to the Scriptures, was not a nation at the time of the giving of the "law". Moses, according to the story, got the law from God. Therefore, Israel was known by her law and that made her "God's people". Today's modern nation-state is known by the government that rules that nation. Laws are the boundaries that define that government. Unfortunately, many nations do not have laws that protect the common person. Dictators, tribal chiefs and terrorists all seek power at the costs of others. Civilized nations have sought to come together and formulate interantional law. These laws are agreed upon to protect human rights.
But, as my pastor pointed out, absolutizing the law can bring atrocious acts of oppression and presumption, while not having law is not knowing how to distinguish between "godliness and worldliness". This is a holiness tradition within the Christian tradition, the Wesleyan Church. Their focus from Wesley's time was the question: Is there sin in your life? Wesley, the father of Methodism, started groups that were accountable to one another.
What is the purpose of accountability? Accountability helps us see clearly where we need to grow in our character. Others can help us know where our strengths and weaknesses are. The question is, what is uniquely "Christian" about this? Leadership courses that are taught all across the land are based on Character development. There has even been a move in education about character development in our public schools.
There is no unique Christian message, as the Christian message is the message of humanity. Humanity is made in God's image and though this is true, humanities' social structures are the instrucments that God uses to develop us. Today's social structures are broken in America. How do we resolve this problem? What do you think?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
What Is the Scriptures Usefulness?
The Scriptures are used by evangelicals as a way to understand God and his ways. The requirements of God are written in black and white and some, believe, are not debatable. But, are Scriptures a supernatural text that is absolute? Yes and No.
The Scripture cover over many years and are individual texts, written in different languages to many different contexts. There is no way of bringing a coherent whole to the text. Biblical scholars have sought to understand the different contexts of the individual writings and the individual authors of those writings. The social and political contexts are easier to ascertain than the author's intention, at times. What was the real 'mind-set" of Paul, for instance when he seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth about some issues? What was his "worldview? Is there a Christian "worldview"? I would say, no. There are Christian worldviewS, but not one worldview. Not only are there differences due to denominational emphasis, but there are also differences because of how one understands the text itself.
We can understand the text as inspired, just as any text that previenently shows forth God's glory through natural revelation. This means that the text is not inspired apart from the people who wrote the text. Inspiration is grounded in the natural. The text is a "form of art" and represents truths that are universal, if understood within context and with a keen eye toward principles of "wisdom". In the sense that people are inspired by God's gifting, the Scriptures are inspired. But, the Scriptures are not some superspiritualized text that is "above" humanity. The Scriptures are not God, they only reveal things about God and man.
Scriptures cannot be absolutized as law. The giving of the law was within a particular culture and paradigm. And the law was interpreted as what gave distinction to the people of God before they had a homeland (a nation-state). The Law defined an undefined people. It was their identity. Today's nation state maintains an ordered structure through law that brings a more defined identity to the individual through culture. Identity is not anti-thetical to being Christian, because being Christian, is about being human.
But, is this view of Scripture appropriate? Do we render the text as a rule-book, where everyone adheres to the "standards" that are written without recourse or re-dress from the distinctiveness of the contexts of the text, the people of the text and people of today?
These questions will be answered differently within Christian commitment. We must allow that diversity, otherwise, we limit God's revelation to our limited minds, understanding, context, knowledge of the world in the present, etc. Surely, then we would understand that the text has been understood differently. And surely we understand that the text is the text of only one tradition. It is not the whole of revelation. It is only a part.
The Scripture cover over many years and are individual texts, written in different languages to many different contexts. There is no way of bringing a coherent whole to the text. Biblical scholars have sought to understand the different contexts of the individual writings and the individual authors of those writings. The social and political contexts are easier to ascertain than the author's intention, at times. What was the real 'mind-set" of Paul, for instance when he seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth about some issues? What was his "worldview? Is there a Christian "worldview"? I would say, no. There are Christian worldviewS, but not one worldview. Not only are there differences due to denominational emphasis, but there are also differences because of how one understands the text itself.
We can understand the text as inspired, just as any text that previenently shows forth God's glory through natural revelation. This means that the text is not inspired apart from the people who wrote the text. Inspiration is grounded in the natural. The text is a "form of art" and represents truths that are universal, if understood within context and with a keen eye toward principles of "wisdom". In the sense that people are inspired by God's gifting, the Scriptures are inspired. But, the Scriptures are not some superspiritualized text that is "above" humanity. The Scriptures are not God, they only reveal things about God and man.
Scriptures cannot be absolutized as law. The giving of the law was within a particular culture and paradigm. And the law was interpreted as what gave distinction to the people of God before they had a homeland (a nation-state). The Law defined an undefined people. It was their identity. Today's nation state maintains an ordered structure through law that brings a more defined identity to the individual through culture. Identity is not anti-thetical to being Christian, because being Christian, is about being human.
But, is this view of Scripture appropriate? Do we render the text as a rule-book, where everyone adheres to the "standards" that are written without recourse or re-dress from the distinctiveness of the contexts of the text, the people of the text and people of today?
These questions will be answered differently within Christian commitment. We must allow that diversity, otherwise, we limit God's revelation to our limited minds, understanding, context, knowledge of the world in the present, etc. Surely, then we would understand that the text has been understood differently. And surely we understand that the text is the text of only one tradition. It is not the whole of revelation. It is only a part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
