What We Believe In, We Promote

What we believe in we promote; the Church believes in its mission for its own survival, as any entity seeks to survive. Survival is basic to humans physically, socially and psychologically, as well as businesses, States and communities. Survival is the most basic of needs.

Today's sermon was on one of the most primary needs and emphasis of evangelicalism, which is "Evangelism" (but converts are needed in all religions, if they continue to thrive and grow, unless that particular religious tradition builds itself through populating the earth and enculturating the earth in this way.) Though evangelicals don't like to think of themselves as fundamentalists, they really are, because they accept "special revelation" or a 'higher or transcendent truth". Such "truth" was what our pastor talked about today, as it is a means of "transformation".The message took a passage from Acts to suggest that Phillip was to help interpret the eunach's questions about a passage he was reading from Isaiah. This is the "mission of the church' to help others understand their lives within the context of "God's Plan" "Purpose or Vision", which is identified within "the Bible". Such a vision is about about spiritualizing one's understanding, or seeing things through "God's perspective", and surrendering one's understanding to the Magisterium, The Church's "teaching minsters". The Magisterium were the appointed leaders to "conform" converts to "correct doctrine", so that "perfection" might be attained.

The Magesterium talk about transcendent realities, that are not practical realities, except to further the Church's mission. 'Missions" are really about political realities and goals.I must give credit to our pastor, though, as he did affirm the need of "the human". He talked of the evangelical church's "sin" of not listening, or attempting to convert before building relationship, etc. But, the end goal of such relationship is still to convert and conform. "God' is still the priority of such agendas, not the person themself. (But, perhaps, I judge the pastor too harshly, as he truly believes what he preaches, I believe. And we all tend to promote what we believe in, don't we?). The person themself is the end, not "God", in my opinion. And the person, themself, is the answer to many difficulties we face in our nation presently.

The issues of peace, and virtue are Roman values that have come to impact the Church's "mission" as the Church was intially accused of creating a disturbance to peace, and were blamed for the downfall of Rome. But, today, peace and virtue are the "transforming work" of the Church. According to the "first modern historian of the Roman Empire", Edward Gibbon, Christians had lost their "civic virtue", because they were waiting to "be saved" in the next "life". And many in the Roman Empire had handed over its protection to the Praetorian Guard. A recent Time's article suggests that this is what has happened in America today. The "military class" is becoming isolated and insulated from the "power elite" and the average American citizen! Such a gap does not encourage citizenship and the larger issues of character. The Military Academy at Westpoint has as its motto; "We don't lie, cheat, or steal and we don't tolerate those who do". This is a high standard for most of the "power elite". The military is "taken for granted" but not applauded by many. In fact, many liberals think that Utopian ideals are attainable apart from realistic goals and grounded historical realities.

Our pastor's message was a message that the evangelical church wants to promote. And fortunately, in America, one can give their life to what they believe in, not what they are forced to believe!

What Is the Use of "Christian"?

To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.


Charles de Montesquieu

This is the "means for Christian religion", as far as Montesquieu is concerned. The Christian religion upholds Jesus of Nazereth as a "moral example" and his was an example of compasssion for those that didn't "fit". America is great because it is a land of opportunity where all men have inalienable rights to pursue their goals.

Montesquieu was not a "Christian", but was a political philosopher that had a great impact on America's Founding.

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."


~John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.

Christian education should not be about Scripture as an inerrant, infallible "Word of God", but as a philosophy of human nature. The law is the equalizer among men, as the law protects human nature from itself. Human nature is prone to err, as it is limited in scope, self-interested, and opinionated by one's "culture". Scientists understand "human nature" as "survival of the fittest".

Virtue is a defense for civility. Without virtue, civilization would be lost on war, revenge, and spitefulness. Self interest is not bad, it just is. This is why we need to acknowledge and identify what our self interest is about and negotiate our differences. This is where social contract can protect peace and uphold justice.

Without an understanding of human nature, which scientists still are investigating, the world cannot live in peace.

Education for Vocational Purposes Only?

 The education conferene this past Friday continues to "brew" in my mind. What is education really for? Is education only for preparing for a vocation? Is an education also for developing the person, or the "self"? Aren't parents the main influence on a child's life in educational edndeavors and how education is percieved? America has come to not value education for the most part, because of America's entertainment mind-set. And, I think this is a downfall to our culture as a whole. But, if education is to be a value, the question is how is education to be paid for and what would be the "end" of education, then?

Patronage was useful since the beginnings of the university. Patronage was first given under the auspices of the Church, while today, we have "public education". And recently, there has been more talk of business as the patron of education. If the Church was to create the "moral model" in education, and the government tends toward the "mass production" model, then what would be the result of business interests getting their hands into education?

The main purpose of a business adventure into education would be for profit. Businesses are mainly interested in profit and there certainly is nothing wrong with profits. The question comes from how business 'investments' in education are handled, as ethics should alway hold sway over business profit margins, as ethics remembers that there are more important aspects to education than profit itself.

Education is in a crisis today and the President has been interested in addressing such problems, knowing that without an education, people will not have a way out of the present economice crisis and the trasition from a manufactoring/industrialized nation, to a communication/information one.

The question that interests me is; Is education for vocational purposes alone? No, because vocation is only the way a person makes money, while an educated population is needed to remain free. Why is this so?

Propaganda is useful to control populations in totaltalitarian regimes. An uneducated population is necessary to further propaganda's purposes, that is, to "control the minds" of the public, so that social order will remain peaceful. The ruling elite will "do as they please", while the population is listening to the "public radio" that tells them how to think and what to believe. This is a danger to America.

But on the other hand, "public" is not a necessarily for Propaganda, if public means solidarity, or fous, as a nation. What should unify our nation, that is a question to be pondered.

So, which model will be best for education? Will the Church's educational model for human development, public interests model or business interests model?

The Church as an institution is to maintain the virtue in a society. And virtue is what is needed for all citizens, not just the "peasant". Leaders are to have the character necessary to inform their conscience, so that they will govern with discretion and discernment. This is necessary for America's future. Otherwise, we will live by the "tribe", or "fittest" mentality. Equal is what America holds dear and makes it a free nation. Equal is about justice.

America's profit margins have become obsessions and have driven men to unethical behavior. This is why our country is having its culture crisis. We cannot trust our elected officials to see themselves as servants of their people. They have become rulers, and dictators, in certain areas. And this is unbecoming to American values, liberties and "ideals".

Education must change if there is to be "hope for America".

Now I Get IT (Kant Must Be Proved)

A long time ago when I was in undergraduate school, I had a professor who idealized Kant. He would uphold the value of the "habit of virtue" and "human flourishing". His ideal was acting according to a "standard" of habit, as "human flourishing " was the goal.

Another professor that I had also wanted to do a "study on Kant", just as another liked the idea of an Eastern Christology. These liked the idea of virtue in a world that is filled with dishonestly (The Noble Lie) and personal gain. So, what these aspired to was a behavioral experiment of sorts.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world," The language is theological, but the experiment was a human one. This is a belief in a divinized human being, a saint, if you will. But, can one "create" a saint from the outside, that is, "form" a person by manipulation, and control?

Yes, I think this can and does happen, but not to those who are attuned to such manipulation and controls. These are those who have "understood that language all their lives. And the greater offense is the betrayal of everything that was good, noble and kind in the world. What they thought was to be trusted has left a gaping hole in the heart and life.

What God wants is Personal Sacrifice, as this is True Faith. One is to die for a cause, alto one might not know what the cause is really for. And yet, one is to believe that "God loves them, personally"! No, it is not God loving the Sacrificed; it is God loving others through the sacrifice. This is the life to be embraced, as this is maturity.

 But, isn't this an object lesson to those that want to do such social engineering? and manipulation of the "facts" and the life or another human being? Faith has to be a peronsl choice of value, not an engineered social experiment.

Evil is not understood as an objective, but a personal experience. This justifies what science does to prove the validity of faith. It doesn't seem short of Facist.

Humans might not be equal in all their abilities, but that doesn't negate their individual value. This is why I've been blogging about individualism. Without intellectual humility, "social" or "collectivity" leads to genocide. This is proven by social psychologist. It is group behavior at its worst!

Our nation has gotten to the point of dividing over "the good" or "the right".  And it is collective thinking. And caught in the midst of these fights are those that have lost hope altogether, because of the life left to them.

My brother's suicide taught me that one cannot tell another what is "right", because the personal weight of what seems "the right" might be the "last straw". Was my brother's suicide a lack of faith? Would one judge his life as a life that lacked "character"? I just wonder how his life really matters to those that make such judgments!

Perfectability and Mutuality in Relationship

Some Christian denominations believe that man is "perfectable". These take "Jesus" as a moral example of faith, lifestyle and purpose. But is this necessarily a universal model for applicability in specifics?

I believe that it is the human aspect of relationship that is the highest moral virtue. And this relationship can be personal, communal, or governmental. But, personal virtue should never be sought apart from society's virtue of upholding human value and supporting human flourishing.

Quoted in Moo's James commentary: "I have often wondered that persons who make boast of professing the Christian religion -- namely love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all men (sic) -- should quarrel with such rancorous animosity and display daily towards one another such bitter hatred, that this, rather than the virtues which they profess, is the readiest criteria of their faith." Spinoza

This was a quote on Ken Schenck's blog, "Quadralateral Thoughts", this morning. I thought is was a good start for what I was thinking on for the past number of months.

The assumption of Spinoza is that something "more" than mere normal human relationships is required of the Christian community. Is this feasible? If so, is it healthy?

1). "charity to all men"....this is the "ideal" of Christian faith, but is it really possible to be charitable to ALL? As we live within contexts, we are limited by those contexts. We cannot be charitable to ALL. So location is a necessary qualification.

2.) "virtues, they profess".....virtue is personal and corporal....Is it virtuous for the corporal to "take a life" for good reason or purpose, without their personal knowledge and consent? (This is what happened to Jesus, but was what happened to Jesus, just? And should this be a "standard" for today's modern world?) Is it virtuous for a person in such circumstances, to "look the other way", "turn the other cheek" and "not speak out" against such injustice? What about those whose livlihoods are jeopordized because of someong breaking a law? ( Jesus responded by surrendering to the authorities and "not saying a word". But, what about speaking out against power that is unbalanced and "demented"?)Therefore, virtue is only illustrated within the context of community, but it does not act always in the ways that we suppose. Wisdom demands discernment about what is required in specific situations when it comes to abuse of power, issues of control, and disregard of another's person. Human rights demands that there be an "accounting".

3.)"should quarrel with such rancorous animosity and display daily towards one another such bitter hatred".....is "conflict" in itself, evil? Does peace mean by definition that there will be no differences to resolve because one party submits to the other party's desire without question? Isn't this stance allowing domination of another human being? And for what reason? Is there ever a justification to domination? I don't believe so. I don't believe this is what a free society allows, as we believe that each one of us has a "right" and a duty to use the gifts and ambitions that have been gifted. But, "selfish ambition" is not virtuous, nor considerate of another.

So, what does a "modern virtuous" Christian do?

1.) Obey the laws of their land. This is universally understood for those fortunate enough to live in free Constitutional governments.
2.) Fulfill his duty to his family. This is also universally understood in working for a living and supporting one's family, but the "duty" beyond that is interpreted in various ways according to individual conscience and human need.
3.)Loving one's neighbor. This also is understood, but is interpreted in various ways. Those that believe in a prescriptive view of the law, believe that Scripture has told us to take care of the orphans and the widow and the poor. Because these people view Scripture as absolute, they deem it mandantory for All Chrstians to do what Scripture specifically says. But, if one meets any other need of a neighbor, is this deemed "sub-par" to "what is written"?
4.) Being kind to one's enemy. Since love is so often considered a feeling in our society, then I use the word "kind", which conveys a respect and regard for one's enemy. But being kind does not mean that one agrees or submits to an enemy. Forbearance is needed.
5.) Many other virtues will be evident, but will vary according to the specific individual and giftings....and convictions.

We dare no make a list and check it twice in standardizing what we in behavior from specific individuals, unless it is the above mentioned universals of character.

What Is a "Dog" in Cultural Terms?

"Dog" was a derogatory term in scripture. "As a dog returns to his vomit"....dogs are still understood in derogatory ways. Both science and religion use the term differently from their perspectives.

Science uses "dog" as those who are not "top dogs", as science understands the "survival of the fittest" and since this is the "way of the world", this is the way they understand survival. It lacks humility and evenness of temper concerning reason's "claims" to truth! Because science is focused on the pragmatic, it looses focus on more universal reasons of practice. Sciences specificity dissolves ways of crossing boundaries of understanding, as its understandings are so specifically specialized. It demands diversity at the expense of unity. But, it is reason's strength.

While science's claims can be arrogant and dissolve focus on a unifying focus, so are religious claims to truth. Religion understands itself as the "center of the universe", while dismissing the absolute vastness that is the universe. The Church's understanding remains ideologically similar to their view of the physical universe in the past. The earth was considered the center by the Church, but science revealed that the earth was not the center. While the Church eventually came to embrace science's claims, it still remains convinced of itself as "the center" of truth, not understanding it's purpose. Religion is contextually oriented without knowing it. "Dogs" in religious terms are those who do not adhere to understanding their way (cultural distinctives). Religion demands conformity and limits diversity

This is where the university should live, in the space between the two! The universals of science must understand that they only know in part, while attempting to understand the whole. And religion should understand their contextuality of "difference" is not universal, but no less important to affirm. The Church is one among many faiths, which represent many cultural forms of understanding "god".

Diversity in unity and unity in diversity is imperative in this complex, interdependent and vast "world". We should not define our understandings as ultimate, but broaden our understandings through diverse interactions with others that are open to difference and open to learn. None of us will know everything there is to know, but I have a dream that one day, all of us will become unified diversity.

Virtue and/or Value?

Christians have believed that Christ's life was exempliary. They believe that his life was a life of virtue, as he "gave up his life" for others. This was the fulfillment of the "law of Moses" and the Golden Rule. He did not consider himself above others. While his life was exempliary, was his life the only life that is to be emulated?

Our nation's values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is the virtue of Jesus life, as he believed, as any moral model does, that others were to be valued equally. Each individual has the "right" to choose how he defines what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means. As a nation, we have protected civil liberties where the individual was a self-determining agent. Our nation had no "moral agenda", per se. We believed that "common sense", and nature had endowed humans with reason, which would inform the conscience and will.

The clash over values and virtue is a dirty one, as the humanistically inclined would adhere to a values based education that believes in reason's right to choose, whereas, the religiously inclined would look toward the life of virtue, as based on the example of Jesus.

While the religiously inclined tout Jesus life and example, they do not use virtue as their own measurement when their ideology clashes with those of a "values based" mentality, or other religious moral models. While values define the society, virtue defines the individual. Both are necessary components to a full view of personhood made in God's image. While virtue and values are the necessary ingredients for a full developed person, each person will uniquely manifest those components within their life.

Virtue without values is a person who has not developed their own identity and value system, while the value based person could be one that was oriented toward values that would destroy themself or others. The values based person, who has no virtue, in their pursuit of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is bound to breed a destructive influence in society. Therefore, both virtue and value need to be affirmed for a balanced and beneficial life.

Common Concerns for Societial Good

I just heard a discussion about the octupulets that were just recently born. Questions arise as to the ethical basis of the woman's decision to get pregnant and whether this was appropriate, and on what basis does one make the argument pro or con. As I was listening, it occurred to me that there is a similarity to the excess in Wall Street, and the disregard of limitation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This woman is educated, but does not behave as if she is, because her desire for children disregards all rationale. She has no husband, and her only support is her mother. The family is also in bankruptcy. These children will need health care, and possibly special education. We, the taxpayer will pay. While it is legal to pursue pregnancy, even in vitro fertilization, is it the best for all concerned? These are questions that some would resolve by highlighting the "right to life". There are larger issues to be considered.

Larger issues are alos the case concerning the excess desire at Wall Street to get the most out of another's investment, without much risk in the process. Similarly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the guise of "helping", gave to those who should not have been approved their loans, because everyone deserves their fair shake at owning their own home.This is the free market and equal opportunity to the extreme of societal interests.

Each example highlights a problem with our country's values; desire with disregard for anyone else, greed, as to another's posessions, and a mentality of entitlement. No wonder our country is on the verge of collapse. Americans have had these values driving their interests and lives for many years, now; desire, greed and entitlement. We are a people, that do not respect other's their right to life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness!

Revolution of a Passive Resistance

Some have understood Jesus life as exempliary for Christians to emulate, while others have understood that Jesus' life was a life that signified injustice personified.

Christendom has heralded this life as salvific, but nothing salvific happens other than this one life resisting in passivity the injustic of the religious and political systems of his day. He did not resist as an activist of any kind, but in quiet resistance in ministering to the outsiders. He, himself, was not one of the elite.

Today, in America, Christians do not face persecution. We, for the most part, have a government that allows religious freedom. Freedom, in our country is manifested in many ways, from religious expression to personal lifestyle. These values are what makes man like "god" in moral image. It is only in moral choice that moral virtue, or moral value can be assessed or judged. But, moral choice is not clearly evaluated, unless there is some standard of measurement, or an ultimate model. Consevative Christians believe that this standard is in the text or the life of Jesus, as written within Scripture.

Jesus' life was modeled on a sectarian model, historically. But, his life has been interpreted differently by many. His life inspired Martin Luther King, Jr., who brought about a social revolution with passive resistance. He did not seek a violent revolution, although violence happened and in the end, he paid for his commitment with his life.

I don't believe that conservative Christians of a Calvinistic flavor, who seek to carry out a discipleship "program", understand truely that the individual must choose their own personal values, if there is any moral virtue or value, whatsoever. Theirs is an understanding of Providence, Sovereignty, eschaotological "hope", etc. But, in understanding life in this way, they do not understand that Scriptures are not written with all of the theological jargon that "comes with the package of Christendom". Scriptures are undestood within a "Christian" framework that superintends agendas, that are presumed to be "God's will".

Although Jesus, as a moral model, has value, his life does not universalize virtue. Virtue is just as much appreciated in many "revolutionaries" that were not passive in their resistance. Justice cannot be sought in passivity (unless one wants to wait for the "sweet by and by")...

Freedom and justice for all means that each individual has a right to representation and equal treatment under law. Jesus' life did not have these protections. It is not "un-Christian" to seek protection under law. It is a moral duty, as it holds others accountable to right relationship.