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!

Religious Conscience and Lifestyle

I recently commented on a friend's post about research on "gay lifestyles". The post was referenced back to "Renew America", which is a Christian grassroots political organization. Such organizations have a particular agenda that they deem significant because of their belief that "God" has ordained Scripture to be the "tried and true" (and right) way to promote human flourishing. I have questions.

First of all, I do not accept that the text as "inspired by God", other than it was written by men in certain situations that granted wisdom of and for that day. Today's wisdom is a scientifically oriented one, not a religiously biased one.

Secondly, I do not believe that anyone should be promoting a re-orientation to another's identity, unless it is damaging to society. This research was promoting a "repentance" from a lifestyle that was considered forbidden by "God", as they take the text at "face value". Such "re-framing" of identity is "in Christ". It is a movement of social organizing for a specific purpose, which is "God's Kingdom", as they interpret Scripture.

Such people believe that "God" exists and oversees all things and "God" has revealed His will in the confines of The Book. This is the traditonal view of evangelical Protestant Christianity, but it does not recognize the broader questions other than take at "face value" what is "to be believed". They seek to validate Scripture by a presuppositonal stance toward it! There is no way to disprove Scripture, because one's community is a self-perpituating entity. Truth is to be proven, and experienced, instead of sought out and discovered! And those that don't believe "lack faith" to believe and be "saved"!

This "tradition" does not take into consideration the history of the Church, or the roots of Judiasm, when they think of "faith". Theirs is an experiential and lived faith that they think is appropriate to promote for everyone. Theirs is an intense "mission focused' and oriented. All people are to be brought under their umbrella, as this is promoting "the Kingdom of God". While such a movement is not rooted in "deep history", it is rooted in American Revivalist tradition, and serves the purposes of furthering the political machine of "the social".

I know what it is like to suffer under another's religious conscience. Transitional and memorable life events were tainted or undermined by those that "thought better" than what I desired! The reason could be nothing other than the "conviction" that they were right and I was wrong, or that they were the "authority"! There was no "discussion" about differences of opinion, because their "conviction" was "not an opinion"!!! It was "God's fact"! If there was resistance, then I was rebellious, disobedient and would live under "God's judgment". The fear of God was to "keep people in line". Such attitudes did not "happen" until there was a conversion experience! Then, the experience somehow gave such as these "God's mind"!

"Self" is defined by such religious cultures and ceases to exist apart from another's sanctoning, sanctimonious and righteous attitude about life and all that is! Persecution will ensue if one does not acquiesce to such "convictions". A Bible beating is the end of such questioning, or differences of opinion. One wonders if these have any sense of "self" other than what they "feel" to be "God". The truth is that "God" is really THEIR conscience! And others are to be conformed to it!

I have come to the point where religion is not beneficial to me, and I do not want to promote it, other than allow those that want to affirm their faith in a way that is non-interfering to others.

When I think back about my journey, I used to also be persuaded that leaving churches that allowed divorcees to teach, or withdrawing approval of those that chose to see things differently was an appropriate way to handle "life's problems". And if everyone would concur with Scripture everyone would come to a unified understanding and life would be "perfect". In the meantime, I was comforted with the fact that life's tragedies were to teach me for "God's purposes"! It was all about me, because I needed it to be!

I still need it to be "about me", as everyone else does. Self interst is a "fact of life". Individuals are unique in their interests, but not in their desires. The desire to be loved, accepted and understood is a human trait, but all individuals will differ in interests, values and commitments. I don't believe that to be "human" means that one has to be a clone in one's interests, values and commitments. This seems to be the case for many in the evangelical camp. They think that if one has a difference of opinion concerning such social issues as abortion, gay marriage, etc. then, you are undermining "God's order" of the universe!

Gay marriage should be legalized in our society because it is just. Society can stll affirm monogomy which affirms the value of the two individuals involved, as well as protect society from STDs. Gays have desires, as all humans do for sexual expression and commitment to the person that means the most to them. That expression should be allowed within the confines of a marital relationship, where the partners can be respected as equal before the law and not marginalized by those that think they have "God's mind"!

A Note for Humanism and It's Ideals

I have been reading and reading and it seems to me that today's thrust for religion is humanistis, rather than Theistic. But, what are the problems of humanism, as an ideal? Humanism can't be held as individuals in their OWN right are the only end, not some cultural "ideal"! Otherwise, individuals are not values, only the "ideal", which is unattainable in this world.

All "solutions" are pragmatic ones, which mean that there is planning and "engineering" of sorts, which makes for success in a given strategy. But, goals of universalization or universals, themselves aren't pragmatic, because the world is much too large and diverse. Unless one wants to promote a uniformity upon the world. This solution politically and practically speaking is 'communism". Equality is regulated by some "power" which is unregulated itself. And this is the problem, isn't it?

Yesterday, when I heard that we would be sending special troops into Central Africa, I wondered why. Was it necessary to sacrifice our special forces to such an endeavor, when we are already stretched militarily and financially? Didn't our Constituton ask the President and other elected officials to protect our country and uphold our Constitution? Then, how come our Representatives are not protecting OUR interests? This is an underhanded way to promote humanistic values, isn't it? And is the intent to dissolve our nation of it power, to prevent "special priviledge'? Or is it our "moral duty" to protect the loss of life in ALL OTHER countries, at the same time reducing our military budgets and submitting to tyranncial governments? What is to be the outcome IF we do not RESIST such governments? And haven't our attempts to equip others to protect themselves ended up backfiring on us at a later date? There will not be Utopian ideals attained in this world and life. And yet, humanists want Utopian ideals and dreams.

The Jews have been the foundation to a Christian undestanding of "priviledge" and our humanitarian values have should restitution to the Holocost for them. What is to be our resitution to the world in giving this land to the Jews? Will the Jews continue to be ostericized by the world and hated by the Muslim? Do we think that when we try to rectify "injustice", as perceived by one that we un-do justice on the other hand? Will our attempts at pacifying Islam result in what has been a warning from those that should know; Islam's desire to hold global power and dominance?

It seems to me that there is a naive and idealistic hope that the "world will live in peace" and we will all live happily ever after! The problem is; if that can't be true for each and all individuals, then how in the Hell can it be true for the WORLD? Society is only made up of individuals, as society ONLY exists in the mind!!

"God" Is Always Used for Christian Justification

I am tired, weary and angry over people asserting their knowledge about "God" and justifying what they do as "Biblical"! In the same breathe these people will contradict themselves, because it justifies their judgment about others, while defending their right, choice or value. This is why I vote for self-reflection and honestly admitting what one really wants. But, perhaps, that is too painful to face, as it makes for painful acknowledgment of need, weakness, or lack, which the person might think reflects upon their own self image.

We all have self-images that we think are important to protect or value, but when "self-image" or reputation becomes a dominating force to convince others about "God" or "right", then it leaves a "bad taste in the mouth".

For instance, I was talking with a friend the other day. She'd been hurt, and she had righful reason to be. I was trying to be a good listener, but when she went into a tirade about those who'd hurt her standing under "God's judgment" and claiming that they would have to give an account to "God". I was "put off". She was needing reassurance that she was valued at that moment and didn't want to admit that her attempt at "promoting God's judgment" was just a sorry attempt to justify her right to have her feelings. I hate for "God" to be the justifier of another's existance, or right to have feelings of anger, hurt, etc.! It seems like denial, deflection and outright self deception!

Another instance of "God" justifying a position that should be acknowledged, is when there is competition and jealousy. Competition and jealousy are known to be human tendencies that "take over" when one doesn't feel valued or special. These inhibits another's ability to enjoy another's specialness, or success for fear that it will diminish ther own sense of 'self". Or their self image is so bound up in what the other thinks or says about them, that they are frozen in their ability to express gratitude or honest praise!

So, I think that "God" is a useful means to control, manipulate and judge another without taking self responsibility about one's own feelings and what is transpiring. That is not liberty but bondage. It is self-deluded attempt to feel better or more important, than another. And that isn't "righteous indignation", it is pride. The ugly kind!

Sovereignty and the Global

Today's world leave one with a quandary about what to do and how to thnk in "global ways". Doesn't globalism dissolve identficaton and personal boundaries? These are questions about Sovereignty.

Sovereignty is about boundaries, and the "rule of law". Laws describe crime and courts convict those that haven't respected the boundaries that protect the social order. Countries respect another country's right to differ, as we allow diplomatic immunity to those that might trangress one nation's laws, that aren't especially important in another country.

I think about Hirshi Ayan Ali, who has escaped Somalia and an arranged marriage, to find herself in the Netherlands getting an education and a sear on Parliament. When it was finally found ou that her citizenship was based on deception, then the Dutch had to investigate the right of her citizenship. In the end, she was allowed citizenship on the basis that her deception was not considered deception in Somalia! Hirshi's understanding when she filled out the form for citizenship was interpreted by her reference point, Somalian tradition.

It has just been pointed out that when an artificial identity is imposed, without the person coming to terms with their identity themselves, that there is resistance. Such a case could be made with the European Union and how difficult it was in the first place to bring about a unity, to see countries revert back to their identifying natonalities!!!

One wonders what this might mean in global affairs that have to do with business interests, national security and individual rights. Corporations now have rights to personhood, which might mean that individuals aren't considered any more a person, than a corporation....national security is of interest if one believes that nation states should and do have various interests to protect....but that isn't the frame in today's post-modern culture, where anything and everything s up for grabs.

I believe that there must be a prioritizingof values, before one can make a choice about what to do in a particular situation. Human rights is a universal, but is the United Nations to supercede the nation-state and its right to self-defense? Self-defense is a natural right! And must be protected...if we want to maintain civilization itself! Otherwise, groups of all kinds make for a cloudy future for defense of liberty, as equality will be imposed, not sought as a natural right by individuals!!!

9-11, a Call for Help! And Is Government the Answer?

Today, is the 10th anniversary of our nation's face to face encounter with terrorism. It was a human Tragedy, but it was also an act of War! How do we see it today, and how will it affect our views in the future? These are questions I'm sure many have on their minds and hearts today!

Terror is an act that is taken against another's Sovereignty. Sovereignty has to do with the right to rule. And the right to rule has to do with government. Our nation values self-government as our ideal, as it protects the values of liberty and conscience. This is the reason why we value human rights, as an ideal.

Humans form societies, and our Founding Fathers created our country to be founded on a basic understanding of "self government". The individual was to rule, not be ruled or dominated by another. Our government was the first to undermine the 'Divine Right of Kings", where government's officials were "granted the right" or "annointed" to rule by "God". Our nation was formed by men that used higher education and human reason to form the rules, or laws that were to govern society. These laws protected individual rights. Reason was unique in man and was the foundation of "conscience".

Today, on the 10th anniversary of 9-11, do we see the need for more government, or less, than our Founders understood to be legitimate? How much is too much, when our nation looks toward a future? Is the future to be determined by government officials, or individual citizens? Are we to be "a people", or a government? Civic responsibility is the responsibility of all of us in a free and open society. "The people" should have the right to their own sovereignty, otherwise, governemnt will not seek legitamacy. The consent of the governed is the only way to protect against intrusive and invasive corruptions of power!

Human Right, as Universal? or The Nation State as the Universal?

Many assert that human rights are the ulitmate universal. While I have no doubt that American liberties are what I value, is this what everyone else values as an ultimate? It seems that human rights has been a useful means to manipulate the American public to undermine public policy in our own nation, to benefit those that are not as tolerant! Are there universals that can be accepted by everyone? This is a question about what is 'human": one's cultural values, or the moral order that should rule all interests??? One is based on personal conscience and/or values", the other is based on "law". One values culture, and the individual, while the other values the nation state. What is really Sovereign, one's conscience, as to " values", or law? Is moral order more important than diversity? Are one's duties more important than one's choices? Or is choice to be limited by the State, such that we become militaristic/deterministic in our culture?

American society has been an open society, as to choices about values. Those that want to regulate human behavior might be seeking somethng other than liberty of conscience as to one's personal choices about values. These want to control and conform, not allow tolerance toward difference and diversity of interests.

Our society needs "shape", but not at the costs of liberty, otherwise, those that have intolerant philosophies might just use them to manipulate to conform our nation to their own designs! And all America looses! And citizens will be clones, of the State, whether relgious or political.