Children Say The Darnest Things About "Beasts" and Bring Wisdom to Light

Today, while swinging my grand-daughter on the swing, I asked her questions about why she was afraid to go higher. What was she afraid of, etc. And, then, I asked her about this afternoon's movie that we watched while she "rested". The movie was Disney's "Beauty and the Beast".

She kept saying after it was intially over that the beast changed into a boy, as if that surprised her. While swinging I asked her about whether she thought she could over-come her fear of the "beast". She said, "No". When I asked her "why?": she answered because I would be afraid of the beast. When I suggested to her that Belle was also afraid but that she also was couregeous, she still emphatically said she would still be afraid. I told her that Belle overcame her fear and her love for the beast changed the beast into a man. (It reminded me of "Phantom of the Opera".) I continued to ask her if she thought if love could make a beast a man, but she did not think so.

Then I asked her about "Cinderella", which we watched last night. I asked her about the wicked step-mother and if Cinderella's service to her step-mother made her step-mother change. "Of course not" Hannah said matter of factly. It was obvious to Hanah, that the step-mother proceeded to try to exclude, but lost in the end.

There is a commercial about "hood-winking" children that suggests that even children understand when they have been lied to. And it suggests that this is not the "character" of this advertised insurance company (I think it was an insurance company).

Happy endings happened in both the fairy tales, but real life is not as happily ended. So I told Hannah that not always do people change, no matter what we do. It is really up to us to discern when we are dealing with "evil" or those that will not be changed.

I think this is what fundamentalism is about. Fundamentalists claim absolutes about the larger issues of life, without stopping to think that possibly their worldview is a limited one. Fundamentalism is simplistic theologizing and it leaves real answers for the real world a little less than desired.

We cannot battle evil in one way, only in the way that seems appropriate to us, at a particular time. Evil is personal because it is controlling, manipulative and all consuming. Evil is not satisfied with bits and pieces, but wants to consume the whole of a person.

Evil does not value liberty. This is what some believe discipleship or holiness is about. But, then these would defend their claims based on views of scripture, which are ancient passages about transcendence that was attempting to explain reality the only way they knew how at a particular historical time. God was representative of history within the believing community. It was a interpretive frame that created the community's understanding and "world".

Evil also exists in governmental authority that doesn't limit power, by disrepect of privacy and the right of autonomy. Therefore, do not let your good be evil spoken of and have the heart of a child, to fear that which is to be feared. Stay away from things that are beyond one's ability to understand. That is wisdom in the heart of the child.

Today's "Sermon" on Consecration

Today while attending an honor's college function, one of our professors spoke to us about "seeking first God's Kingdom and His Righteousness" and all these things would be added unto you. The verse has been used as the theme for this year. This professor went on to quote the verse about "leaving all, even father, mother and children for the sake of the Kingdom" to be Jesus' disciple.

Since this professor was a historian, he used Thomas More as an example of dying for his religious conviction versus his commitment to King Henry. He was beheaded for treason. So, his point was that not just family commitments, but also nation-state commitments should be "surrendered" to "His Kingdom". This view is based soley upon faith and not reason, or rationale. No suggestion that the Golden Rule applies to the disciple. The disciple is to be "submitted" so that his life can be consecrated for whatever purpose the Church sees fit.

Many saints have died because they have disagreed to what the "church" or the "state" wanted, or will for their lives or other lives. These martyrs were beheaded, defrauded, defamed, dismissed, excommunicated, tortured, and humiliated "all in the name of Christ and for His Kingdom as the ones in Power understood "the Kingdom". Must we, in modern day society, submit to such lack of rationale, or should we resist, and rebel like these "martyrs" for the faith? Should we submit to power (authority), or should we submit to conscience?

God is not man, that he is to be served by force. Worship that is not from the heart, is not worship. Some would say that one should not rely on emotion or "feelings" as duty is to "enforce" the behavior that is most "approved". Religion that adheres to means of "duty", control, force, or demand, should not be followed, much less submitted to.

Trustworthiness, a mandantory character trait of leaders, should be earned, by the leaders own life and commitments. Obedience should never be because of reward, but because it is "right" and "just". Rewards are irrelavant to those that have character!

Rape in the Name of Religion

Those of us in the West believe that rape is wrong. Why do we believe it is wrong?

1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity.
2.)We believe that humans are not property.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities.

1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity because we believe that there is no difference between male and female, as to "rights" of personal boundaries.

2.)We believe that humans are not to be considered another's property. We believe that humans in relationship do not give up their human rights. Relationship serves the humans involved in mutuality, not in hierarchy.

3.)We believe that humans are not commodities. Humans have value in and of themselves, therefore, they must not be a means to an end.

Religion has sometimes dismissed these values in the name of "god". God sanctions authoritarianism and the use of humiliation to "break the will" of those who resist "His Will'. This is "proper discipline" and teaches or trains those resistant the "costs" of rebellion.

Discipleship means that one does not use reason, but submits to authority without question as this demonstrates a "heart focused on loving God" above "self". This behavior shows that one is surrendered to do "His Will" no matter the costs, and give up everything for the cause of "god" and "his Kingdom".

Denying self means that one does not seek one's own interest, in fact, one must annihlate "self". Self must die, so that others may live. Your life is not your own. You are a slave to "god" and are to serve "him" alone.

Virtue is required in the midst of horrendous abuse of power, as this illustrates one's trust in God, as well as affirming one's commitment "unto death" for the "cause of Christ".

This is "God rape" of the human heart and spirit. And it leaves a damaging view of "god and religion" impressed upon the brain.

"Lordship", Discipleship, and Faith

Christians have defined their faith in many ways, and the implications upon their lives was the result. "Worldviews" within Christendom have attached to them certain expectations, and understandings of itself and those who are intiated by the indoctrination of these traditions within the Christian Church understand the mores, customs and traditions that are implied. These are absolutized views of faith based on Scripture. Those who are not and are not submissive nor teachable are doomed to suffer consequences, as their views are absolute, but do not allow diversity in viewpoint.

I just read where a certain "Name" of an evangelical/fundamentalist leader of "lordship" teaching was based on a nominalistic faith without true discipleship. I disagree, as not only have I read his book (many years ago), have family who attended his seminary, and a friend's whose mother's church was split over the "lordship" teaching...but I think that any faith has an understanding of itself and a resulting expected behavioral "standard"...

The problem with any "lordship" theology is who determines what behavior and by what standard is a life measured? The Pharisees, during Jesus day, had certain purity standards that were specified, so that the behavior could be judged. Jesus, acted in an unconventional way according to their standards. Jesus morality was outside their box and this was the way that his life has led to a higher development of understanding morality. But, his life is not the only moral model.

Lordship can be viewed by many different standards, such as one's dress, custom, behavior, beliefs about ethical views, laws, etc....conformity is the name of the game for those within these types of environments. Questions are not appreciated, in fact, may be the very behavior that subjects one to shunning, criticism or rebuke. Authority's power is mandated by the leadership and judged as the necessary stated or implied behavior...this is the standard within the sect.
Most conservatives work within a conventional frame of reference, whether the authority comes from a written texts, or annointed leaders who speak, and judge for the people, even outside their borders. This attitude breeds prejuidice and unenlightened view, and limits the young in their intellectual development and interests. Some things are just not allowed as vocations within these traditions.

Our democracy allows freedom of speech, which allows questions, discovery, and journeying toward a larger view, a greater good, a more enlarged way of thinking than local and provincial ways of thinking and behaving. The world is too complex to describe in one demension. In our physical reality, we can only take in three demensions whereas, there are many more demensions that we can't "see". but are only understood by higher mathmatics...The order and structure of the world is a mystery which lives beyond reason, and yet is reasonable...Lordship theology and thinking describes faith and discipleship in only a certain way and by a certain standard and moral model...

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.

Missing Finale, a Known Friend and Some Things She Taught Me

I wrote on Sunday about my dog's last day with us and explained what she meant to all of us. She has died of pneumonia. Her last day brought questions to my mind and her absence of two days has underlined some important truths.

Finale was a mutt. She was half Chow and half Golden Retriever, so she was not a "canned" breed of a dog. Finale was known as more than just a dog. She was a beloved pet. I went to the Humane Shelter (both of them) to just remind myself that there were other dogs to be adopted. But, what it revealed was how unique Finale was. She was our dog, which meant she was not "just a dog". We had a relationship to her.

When I went to the Humane Shelter, I saw many different kinds of dogs, and could see that all of them had certain qualities in common. They were, after all, dogs. Now, I am not discounting the fact that these "facts" are also applicable to Finale, as a dog. But, there was much more to her than just her "dogginess".

Her absence these past two days has brought to mind how we "knew" her. I still smell her, can imagine her running toward me when I call. She would come up to be petted and if you didn't oblige, she would nuzzle her nose into your leg, chest or hand. She had a unique way of jumping and was clumsy. But, her idiosyncrisies only endeared her to us. And I miss her terribly.

In thinking of her last day with us, I thought about euthanasia. I watched her struggle and would've done anything to relieve her of her misery, but it was the week-end. And to be honest, I still was hoping for some change for the better.

Knowing Finale as a dog, is not knowing Finale. The same is the case for people. People are more than the material bodies they inhabit and the common characteristics of "humanity". But, their material bodies and the common characteristics are also part and parcel of their existence and "revelation". We cannot reduce man to his parts without doing damage to understanding man and diminishing man to an object to be "conformed" to "right order" or "proper functioning" (discipliship is understood in some segments as a conforming in this way). Man, as an object, is not loved, appreciated, or embraced, but controlled, manipulated and experimented upon for "god", or the "common good". This is not knowing a man as a unique creation, but, controlling man through education (propaganda).

Thinking about Finale's struggle to survive also made me think about what it would be like if she had been a person, who I had loved. What if I was watching my husband or child die like this? Wouldn't I feel the same way, even more so? It was obvious to others that Finale would not survive, but I kept hoping. Is this what happens to others when they face the death of a loved one? I really began to think that it would be best in certain situations to allow life to exit, instead of heroically trying to 'fix" it. There is a time to die. And sometimes embracing death is healing in itself for the person and the family involved.