Calendar

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household.
Exodus 12:1- 3

These are the verses that set the stage for the passover story, which is the final act that emancipates the Israelites from the bonds of Egyptian slavery.  To speak to an Israelite about salvation, was to speak about the Exodus.

What I find interesting in these preliminary verses, is the fact that the Jewish calendar is completely reshaped by the event of God's manifest salvation.  God's work changes where the year begins.

Through the history of the Jewish and Christian faiths, events in which God's salvation, power, or judgment were manifested in a distinct and significant way were commemorated as holidays.  There were entire seasons of anticipation building up to these holidays.  For Jesus followers, Christmas and Easter were (and in some cases are) preceeded with 40 day periods of fasting and/or contemplation on the significance of the essence of God putting on skin, dying, and three days later rising from the dead.  To earlier Christians, the rhythms of historical days significant to God's people were the hinges of the Christian calendar.

Somewhere along the way, many of us lost this.

Maybe it's because I live in California.  There are few seasonal changes, and since I work manual labor, fasting leaves me light-headed (this is probably just a sad justification for my distaste for fasting).

I'm not saying we all need to fast for the advent and lent seasons.  I'm not even saying that you need to subscribe to commemorating any of the special days that are significant to me.  What I am saying is that it is a helpful practice to be intentional about the things we celebrate.  If we base our calendars solely on government holidays, we will either find ourselves worshipping the heroes of the state, or commemorating a meaningless day off of work.

Some practical ideas, search for a hero or an event that reminds you of the story you are a part of.  Discover how remarkable people in history embodied a life well lived and be intentional about commemorating them.

As a Christ follower, there are many saints (official heroes) in the history of my tradition whose courage, selflessness, and love inspire me.  There are feast days for these saints usually set either on the day they were born or the day they were martyred.

But this practice is not limited to my brothers and sisters who identify themselves with the Christian faith.  Whoever you are, unjust systems thrive on complacent people who have lost their stories, who then arbitrarily locate themselves in the contemporary status quo.  Find ways to re-root yourself.

If you're a pacifist, find a non-violent activist that changed the course of history and commemorate a significant moment in their life.

If you're an anti-statist, find a dissident that inspires you and celebrate the their birth/martyrdom day.

If you love animals, pick a day to celebrate an endangered animal, raise awareness and throw a vegan bbq.

If you're a militarist, keep celebrating the government holidays.
(I know they're not all war holidays, I'm just poking fun)

Voting

Three years ago I would have assumed that my friends who refrained from voting were apathetic deadbeats.  Though I think this is still true of many who don’t vote, I now know that it is not true of the friends I have in mind, who are some of the most principled and opinionated people this side of the Mississippi.  Though I probably won’t do their explanation any justice, their conscious decision to refrain from voting is an act of intentional disagreement with the power structures of the representative democracy of the US.  They don’t vote because they believe that 50% + 1 should not be able to determine the conditions for 50% - 1. 

In my current state of this ideological journey, I am not quite there.  Though I believe the power systems are fundamentally flawed, I think that the system can be used against itself, and through careful political activity, de-legislation, de-regulation, and de-centralization can happen.  My friends take a different approach, and I respect their decisions.


The most common questions in election season are “Who are you voting for?” and “What are you voting on proposition XYZ?”  Though I do believe which name we put an X next to is important, and though I think a “Yes” or “No” vote on a ballot initiative is a serious decision, I think there is a more fundamental question than “Who/What are you voting for?”

Before even flipping through a voter’s guide, you should probably ask yourself…

“How/Why am I voting?”

In workplaces I hear strong opinions like, “Joe Schmo is going to increase funding to jobs in my sector and improve job security.  He’ll increase grants given to organizations in our industry.  We have to vote for him!”  I’ve also heard rants like, “Jane Doe wants to cut the part of the state budget apportioned to my profession, what a lunatic!  Doesn’t she know we’re in a recession!?”  People who vote to preserve or enhance their own jobs without fundamentally questioning the methods that will be employed to do so are voting in a spirit of malicious greed.*  You don’t need to be rich to be possessed by this spirit.  You could even be on welfare.  But if you vote primarily based on what will make your own situation better, without considering the cost, you are possessed by the spirit of greed.  Greed with no regard for justice would be bad enough in a free-market.  Greed with no regard for justice, enforced by a state that has a monopoly on coercive force, would be far worse. 

The identical twin of the spirit of greed is also alive and well.  You hear its hosts saying, “It’s time we paid back those corporate fat cats!  We need to tax the rich!  They can afford it!  While we’re at it, let’s deport everyone in the country who has expired documents and penalize them with a huge fine for being such a huge burden on our system!”  The spirit of jealousy works inversely to the spirit of greed, but is just as shallow.  Instead seeking justice, compassion, and love, those possessed by this spirit of jealousy are motivated by their self-identification as a “have-not.”  In this mindset, everyone else who is wealthy, privileged, or has something that I do not should be forced to pay for their lack of consideration.  Indiscriminate punishment is bad enough when executed by individuals in a free-market.  Indiscriminate punishment when executed by an expansive coercive state is far more damaging. 

Finally, in other ideological circles (especially religious ones) I hear, “If we don’t vote down this proposition, civilization as we know it will be destroyed!  Families will be torn apart, drug cartels will rule the country, and the cutest puppies will be put to death.  We must vote against it!”  After hearing enough threats from political fear-mongers, I think it’s time we stop and ask ourselves, “Could it really be that bad?”  Can we take a second to step outside of our irrational fears to think critically about what is getting everyone so upset?  Maybe in doing so we will reveal the deep prejudices we hold.  Maybe we will encounter new information that we were unwilling to hear that will reveal some part of our logic that is flawed.  Maybe after thinking deeply for a few days, we can intelligently conclude that the world will indeed end with a Yes or No vote.  Nevertheless, we cannot vote possessed by a spirit of fear. 

Side note: As a follower of Jesus, I must confess that I am saddened that so many of my brothers and sisters pushed so strongly two years ago to pass California’s (the state I live in) Proposition 8 (a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage).  I won’t go into a biblical interpretation debate here, but I must expose the clear lack of reflective thought expressed in the marketing of the Prop 8 proponents.  Many ads proclaimed that allowing homosexuals to marry would “profane the sacredness of marriage and destroy the family, the fundamental building block of our society.”  First, of all, it is not the state (neither California nor the USA) that makes marriage sacred. The bond of love between two individuals is sealed in unwavering commitment in the presence GOD.  If you are a Christian, you shouldn’t be looking to the state to make your marriage sacred.  Second of all, Christian marriages in the US have a divorce rate greater than or equal to the marriages of those who don’t consider themselves Christians.  If holy matrimony is being made unholy by something, it’s divorce!  Keeping the state of California from calling committed monogamous homosexuals “married” is not the deciding factor of the sanctity of marriage!  We must not be possessed by the spirit of fear, “for God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” (2 Tim 1:7)

… I digress…

I acknowledge that it is impossible to remove bias.  We all have lenses through which we see the world and our decisions are inevitably affected by them.  But if you are unwilling to even attempt to undergo the work to exercise the demons of malicious greed, hateful jealousy, and irrational fear…

please stay home November 2, 2010.  Or go to the post office and send me a birthday present.

*I qualify it as malicious greed, because I am willing to acknowledge that there is a considerate or compassionate form of greed in which a person seeks to better her or his position through

Lincoln on Slavery

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

—

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861.  The more I read of Lincoln’s speeches, the more I’m disturbed by how I was deceived (knowingly or unknowingly) by my Public School elementary teachers about the “goodness” of this man.  Turns out he may not have hated slavery so much.  For more, read here, here, and here.

Berry on NAIS

Wendell Berry speaks against the NAIS (National Animal Identification System).  The NAIS is an ugly coercive manifestation of Government/Industrial-Meat cronyism.  This would force small local farmers to comply with unrealistic regulations only executable or necessary for industrial meat growers and processors.  For more info, visit noNAIS.org.  For a compelling speech by Wendell Berry on destruction of countryside, go here.

InterpreTorah

I find the relationship between the Torah (the first five books of the Christian and/or Hebrew Bible) and many modern Christians to be quite interesting. 

Sometimes the Torah is deemed to be so outdated and foreign that we ought to ignore it, e.g. “do not make garments out of wool and linen” (Deut 22:11).

Sometimes the Torah is affirmed whole-heartedly and constitutionally imposed upon all citizens of a state, e.g. “do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman” (Lev 18:22).

Sometimes Jesus is used to negate things in the Torah, e.g. Sabbath (Exo 20:8-11 vs. Jesus is our Sabbath rest) and the sacrificial system (Lev 1-7 vs. Jesus is the ultimate atoning sacrifice).

And finally, sometimes the Torah is dismissed because it is far too impractical, e.g. the Year of Jubilee and Land Sabbath (Ex 23:10-12, Leviticus 19:23-25, and Leviticus 25:1-7).

When the Torah is thoughtlessly dismissed, or shallowly used as a proof-text, it ceases to be Spirit-breathed scripture and converts into a mirror of one’s own ideologies.  In fact, I believe this is true of the entire Bible, or any other sacred text.

I believe that if we begin to approach Scripture as a tool to challenge our assumptions and beliefs, instead of using it as a self-gratifying affirmation of the things we already believe, we would be more likely to be transformed into more genuine and thoughtful followers of Jesus.  Approaching scripture in this way keeps us from the dangerous assumption that God is an ever-faithful endorser of our actions, prejudices, and beliefs. 

Does the idea of an economic system that forgives all debt every seven years trouble you?  Spend some time studying and reflecting on the possible benefits or downfalls of such a system.  Look deep and try to find out why it is so troubling to you.  Do your best to seek the mind of God, and figure out why anyone under spiritual inspiration would even fathom penning such an idea.

Perhaps, after much time wrestling with a text we will still conclude that our initial assumptions were better than the alternative interpretations.  But it is not the finding of conclusions that transforms us into more mature followers of God. 

It’s the wrestling.

The struggle allows us to be opinionated and humble… strong and flexible… as the psalmist writes, “like a tree planted by a river.”

The defining characteristic of a healthy tree with deeply watered roots is not its rigidity, but rather its flexibility.

May we all be kind of tree.

Get things done?

As we approach the November midterm elections, the radio waves and my USPS mailbox have been overwhelmed by numerous politicians promising to go to Sacramento or D.C. to “get things done.”  I have become more and more convinced that many of the problems we are facing are not the result of an inability to “get things done.”  Most of the crucial dilemmas of our day are a result of too much getting done.

What we get when they "get things done"
To solve some economic issues related to his choice to close the gold window, Nixon set price and wage controls which converted the medical insurance industry, into an unsustainable comprehensive health-care service industry.

To help impoverished citizens achieve the American dream of going into massive debt to “own a home” (though it’s the lender that truly owns it), lenders were encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to freely lend money with little to no risk analysis, re-inflating an economic bubble destined to be popped.

To increase consumer confidence, the FDIC insures bank depositors up to $250K so that the banks can continue their practices of fractional reserve lending and offering completely unrealistic products to their clients.  They do this fully knowing that their irresponsibility will inevitably be bailed out by newly materialized liquidity from the Federal Reserve, while consumers do nothing to stop it because the government guarantees their $250K (even if the Fed needs to print it). 

To increase national security, the Executive Branch of the government reserves the privilege to engage in overseas military endeavors at will with no approval from congress, separating the decision of war waging even further from the average voting citizen.

Maybe what we have needed over the past years is to have politicians get less done. 

It seems to me like the framers of the U.S. constitution had this in mind since the beginning.

The art of NOT getting things done
Up until 1929, the number of congressional representatives were consistently raised maintaining an average of about 55,000 citizens per representative.  The reapportionment act of 1929 froze the congressional member number at 435 representatives.  Thus our current ratio is about 600,000 citizens per representative.  Each representative now has over ten times more citizens to report to, making it easier to overlook the desire of many citizens, and much simpler to “get things done” in congress. 

Before the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President was the runner up in the Presidential race.  Imagine if John McCain was the Vice President of Barak Obama!  Or if Al Gore was Vice President of George W. Bush!

The Executive Order, which was supposed to be reserved for emergency situations, exponentially increased in frequency of use in the early 1900’s.  Now, the EO has been used to circumvent the role of the legislature in military ventures and policy creation. 

Senators are now voted in by popular vote, but were originally appointed by state legislatures, empowering states on the federal level instead of having a disconnected federal ruling class “representing” individual states.

Large congress.  Competing President and Vice-President.  Strong state’s rights.  Very limited use of the executive order.

This was a great recipe to NOT “get things done.”

Granted, the Constitution in its original form was also filled with racism, classism, and sexism.

But I think they may have been onto something in the “getting things done” department.

Food and Integrity

For the last month, my wife and I have taken an official step into a form of vegetarianism that some call pescetarianism (or pesco-vegetarianism).  This means we stopped eating animal flesh, with the exception of meat from non-mammalian sea creatures.  Due to the nature of conversation, every time I explain why we stopped eating land animal meat, I leave the conversation feeling like I explained it poorly or I left something out.  In writing this post, I’m hoping to definitively state our reasons for pescetarianism in order to have something to point my friends to when I feel like I explained myself poorly.  Maybe in the process I can ask some good questions too.

Katie and I have raised and kept chickens since 2008.  For you poultry folk, in the last year and a half we have raised 7 hens, a Rhode Island Red (Semilla), two Easter Eggers (Archibald and Eve), two Black Australorpes (Pati and Miss Viola), and a Black Sexlink (Fred).  In winter of 2008, we raised a rooster in the Dominican Republic named Napoleon. 

For the last three years Katie and I have hesitantly continued eating chicken meat, full knowing that the reconstituted chicken patty goo that makes up a delicious 99 cent sandwich, once came from an animal not unlike our beloved pets.  We would even spend short periods of time abstaining from meat, but upon realizing how inconvenient and expensive it was, we would return to our animal eating habits. 

That all changed a month ago. 


After watching Food, Inc., and some other documentary films on the commercial farming industry, we began to look more seriously at our food choices.  One interview with a responsible old fashioned farmer stuck in my mind.  He raises animals for meat in a sustainable, chemical-free, minimally processed operation out in open fields.  He said to take another creature’s life for our own sustenance is an intimate thing.  The average consumer is no longer connected to any agrarian elements of life and is now so far removed from the processing operations of the US meat giants that most hardly think of the original source of his or her foods.  After watching this, we internalized the idea of valuing integrity in our food choices, but due to finances and convenience we didn’t live it out.

About four months ago, Semilla, our Rhode Island Red, began displaying very aggressive behavior; so much so, that it was becoming detrimental to the health and well being of our other chickens.  We contemplated the idea of giving her away to a farmer in the rural areas surrounding our city, but we knew she would end up in a crockpot.  Knowing this, we decided that if we need to get rid of her, and if she was going to get cooked anyway, we might as well enjoy her as food instead of letting someone else have the opportunity.  We had poured a year of our life into keeping this chicken well fed, well exercised, and healthy.  So we had a friend of ours helped cull and butcher her. 

Katie couldn’t watch. 

I held Semilla as he grabbed her neck and said, “Ready?”  I won’t go into details, but the process was pretty quick and uncomplicated.  But I can still vividly picture it in my mind and in those moments began to understand the gravity of taking a chicken’s life for food.  We knew we shouldn’t waste her, so we had soup and decided to finish off all the meat in our house and buy no more.

A person might think that we made an emotional decision and were shocked and disturbed out of eating chicken.  I can honestly say that the emotions, shock, and disturbance from the experience of participating in taking Semilla’s life have worn off.  So I know trauma is not the primary motivator.

Our primary reason is that we have now more fully embraced the value of integrity in our choices.

If we are not comfortable with killing our own chicken, why should we be comfortable eating the flesh of a chicken that some industrial giant killed for us?  If I couldn’t raise a cow, sheep, or goat and with no remorse kill that animal for food, how could I eat beef, mutton, or goat meat with no remorse? 

Consequently, Katie and I are both unbothered by fishing.  I’ve caught and gutted many-a-fish with my Dad and brother, and experienced no guilt.  So I can continue eating fish without feeling like I’m being duplicitous.  We’ll eat what we would be willing to catch or kill ourselves… we won’t eat what we wouldn’t be willing to catch or kill ourselves.

So for us, this translates to no eating mammals, reptiles, birds or amphibians.  But we do feel comfortable eating fish, and if we were to grow a palate for bugs (don’t hold your breath)… we’d eat them too.

I have heard people say, “I don’t like rotisserie chicken because it still looks like the animal, but I love chicken nuggets or grilled chicken breast because the chicken is unrecognizable!”  If acknowledging that we took an animal’s life is too disturbing or unappetizing for us to eat a chicken leg, then should we really be cultivating a numbness to the effects of our decisions by eating chicken nuggets?



I’m beginning to yield to this principal, allowing it to infiltrate my views and decisions in other areas as well.  I have a long way to go, but I’m beginning.

If I wouldn’t be comfortable condemning my own child to death after he/she has done something wrong, why would I support killing anyone else’s child by approving of the death penalty?

If I wouldn’t be willing to look another person in the eye and kill them in the name of a nation-state, why would I encourage friends, family, or politicians to engage in anymore wars?

If I wouldn’t be willing to steal someone’s money in order to accomplish something that I deem “a good cause,” why would I then support the government taxing its citizens to do the same thing?

Sadly, the answer I get too often is, “Well, I just don’t like to think about it.” 

What we eat, drink, endorse, condemn, buy, and sell are all huge decisions.

I think it’s time that we started thinking about “it.”

Jesus' "non-negotiables"

Richard Rohr.  Forgiveness and love of enemy as Jesus’ “non-negotiables.”

Pacifist Roots of Christianity

The following is from an article I found on Jesusradicals.com, a website dedicated to the expansion of libertarian-socialist (aka anarcho-syndicalism) ideals from a Christian perspective. 

Though I am definitely on the same page with the "libertarian/anarcho-" side of their perspective, I do think any true revolution done with their mindset is bound to return to coercive oppression over time (I can elaborate later, but in the mean time read here for tinifni's analysis of anarcho-capitalism vs. anarcho-syndicalism).  Nevertheless, I think much can be learned from our fellow followers of Jesus on the anarchist left. 

This article fills in some of the detail gaps in my analysis of Romans 13.

The early Christians were pacifists.¹ It was only in the second century did Christians become or remain soldiers. John Cadoux’s explanation for the Christian transition into militarism is of a slippery slope in moral ethics due to economic and political pressure. A major sociological shift had occurred after the second century to even allow Christian soldiers in the Roman military. Rome needed armies, so for the first time in Roman history, individuals who enrolled in the legions were granted citizenship. The Roman Empire had a unique characteristic of bestowing citizenship upon trusted groups of people who shared its ideology rather then its culture. Within Rome, citizens did not pay land taxes until the third century and could move upwards socially and politically. Being a citizen meant the opportunity to be a professional solider and gain power and wealth with the inevitable victories of the Roman army. The pull factor was combined with pushing pressure from Roman society to defend the empire.

At first, this militarization was opposed by important early church writers like Tertullian and Origen (and by general practice) but it was not codified into official Church doctrine by the bishop in Rome. A young Numidian Christian, Maximilianus did not accept conscription in 295 CE and said “I cannot serve as a solider, I cannot do evil; I am Christian”. Despite witnesses like Maximilianus, the door remained open for Constantine’s transformation in the fourth century.
In the Severan period, Christians had gained their first adherents in the Roman upper classes  and when the second Great Persecution came in 253-260 CE, their property was being seized.² Constantine must have seen the advantage from the support of these new Christian military and cultural elites who perhaps feared persecution. This alliance was essential to Constantine’s rise to power in a pagan society.

The use of violence by Constantine and so-called Christian sovereigns came with the establishment of Christendom–which is a hegemony of history, theology and empire. For instance, at the time of the Reformation, the Catholic Church claimed the historical succession of apostles as its authority to be the body of Christ and also claimed a right to depose rulers. It was for Christendom that Luther was more than willing to use violence to reform the entire Catholic Church.  Christendom is why Catholics and Protestants went to war with each other and why both made martyrs of the Anabaptists. Because each claimed authority over Christendom’s temporal and spiritual unity, the Reformation and counter-Reformation was fought for the entirety of Western history and its salvation.

Read the rest of the article here.

Military Football

My High School JV football coach once told me that the best defense is a good offense. 

We lost every game except for one.

The one victory we enjoyed was because the other team forfeited.


Granted, the problem may not have been with the strategy.  The problem may have been in the quality of our offense… we were pretty bad.  Not to mention that we had 14 freshman and sophomore boys,  playing 11 man football.  Not much time to rest when almost everyone is starting offense, defense, and special teams. 

Apparently, my JV football coach must have learned his strategy from the U.S. government.  Unlike our football team, the U.S. government has no shortage of talent or resources.

With military bases filled with active personnel in approximately 90% of the nations of the world, and spooks (those undercover executing black ops) in 100% of the nations of the world, the Department of Defense may need to consider a name-change.  DoD and DIA (the Defense Intelligence Agency) are busy carrying out their defense orders all over the globe, but we ought to ask, is it really defense?

The answer is troubling either way.

If not, then the obvious question for military strategists would be, “Then what are we doing on offense!?”  I would suspect that very few people like to identify themselves as devout imperialists.  Neither would many be willing to admit to being militarists.  Empire is a word that gets thrown around quite a bit as a tool of polemicists in political literature and debates.  But if what U.S. “defense” agencies are doing overseas is not defense, we need to face up to the reality that empire is creeping up on us all over the world.

If what the U.S. is doing overseas is defense, I fear that the conclusion is even more sobering.  If this is the case, the reality of empire is not approaching… it is here.  If the US has a military presence all over the world, and that military is on the defensive, this suggests that the U.S. sees all of those regions as its own.  When “leaders” in any of those regions step out of line and do not comply, rumors of heavy U.S. troop deployment begin to echo through the grapevine. 

“But what about 9/11!?  We need to be defended from another attack like that!”

15 of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian.  None were from Iraq.  All intelligence seems to point to the fact that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. 

Also, though I can understand reasons (namely vengeance) behind the support to invade Afghanistan, I am compelled by the teaching of Jesus to wonder what would have happened if people expressed a mass forgiveness toward the orchestrators and perpetrators of the egregious acts of violence on 9/11/01.  Perhaps that would have been a more disarming course than the one we took.  Instead, the continued U.S. military presence has now sparked a swelling anti-occupation movement comparable to the anti-Soviet sentiment that united Afghans against their communist occupiers in the 1980’s.

I am currently reading a novel “Operation Dark Heart” written by a black ops professional who spent a number of years in Afghanistan.  Though I don’t agree with his view on war, espionage, or much else, much of what he says in his book is quite enlightening.  Apparently it was a bit too enlightening for the taste of the DoD and DIA.  Even though he had the content cleared by the Department of the Army, the DoD and DIA made a massive amount of last minute edits that left large portions of many pages blacked out. 



All that to say, when my infatuation with Jesus, the Jewish peasant from Nazareth, is coupled with my libertarian leanings and the newfound information in this book, a new ideological cocktail is being mixed in my heart and mind, intoxicating me with a greater distaste for U.S. military interventionism and “defense” tactics.

I will most likely continue to blog through this book as insight occurs to me. 


P.S. A day after I finished writing this post, I picked up "Operation Dark Heart" and read the following words on page 45:

"George Patton's rule: The best defense is a good offense."

I guess my football coach stole it from Patton.

Church of Batman

I heard Peter Rollins interviewed by Rob Bell on a Mars Hill podcast this week that provoked a number of paradigm alterations.  Here are my reflections:

Batman had it all wrong.

We love Batman, because he goes out and beats up bad guys on the weekends.  Bruce Wayne spends all week working at Wayne Enterprises, or lavishly partying at the Gotham City hotspots.  But none of us care all that much about Bruce Wayne.  We care about Batman.  Because of the fantastical things that Bruce Wayne does in his spare time in the evenings, we know him primarily as Batman. 

The series is called The Adventures of Batman, not The Life of Bruce Wayne.

Bruce Wayne holds the reigns of Wayne Enterprises, a massive company with so many assets and so much liquidity, that he can launch a high-tech, multi-million dollar, military campaign to beat up psycho bad guys on the weekends… and nobody notices. 

Why does no one ask about the millions of dollars of corporate excess funneled into this militaristic campaign against the violent and mentally ill people of the Narrows?  Why does no one wonder why the money is not instead spent on programs to help at-risk youth, cultivate sustainable community development efforts, or to provide job training to ex-convicts?


I think the reasons are twofold. 

First, deep in our bones, the myth of redemptive violence makes a comfortable home.  If done in the name of “justice,” beating people up and busting heads is a good in and of itself.  Reconciliation and redemption of broken people are irrelevant.  The only way to redeem bad people is to lock them up like animals, or kill them. 

Secondly, most of us have bought into the Batman delusion.

If a man attends a church service once a week and helps out with the “Feed the Poor” ministry of his church on Thursday nights, do those acts define who he is?  With only this information, we would say he is probably a kind-hearted person with a sincere love for the poor. 

If that same person spends all week running a company that exploits its workers, knowingly sells faulty products, and drastically damages the ecosystems directly surrounding its factories, would you still feel the same about that person?

The problem is that most of us live our lives this way.  We do one or two things a week that firmly resonate with our values and beliefs, and therefore imagine that we are the people that we believe we are.  We affirm love and kindness, and a few loving and kind acts a week help us convince ourselves that we are truly loving and kind people.  The other 98% of our week is irrelevant to our defining of ourselves. 

Many of us have bought into the lie that “it’s what’s on the inside that counts.”  But this couldn’t be further from the truth.  If our beliefs, thoughts, motivations, feelings, and passions do not look at all like our material reality, then all of that stuff “on the inside” is a load of Crap.  The coffee that we drink and the clothes that we wear are far more definitive statements about us than our beliefs about fair-trade and sweatshops. 

It’s what’s on the outside that matters.

We can all come together and communally assert that money doesn’t buy happiness, a bigger home won’t make us better people, and that nicer cars won’t make us more attractive.  But do our actions really reflect that?  Do our spending habits and financial aspirations truly represent those ideological assertions? 

Consequently, Sunday morning services and Thursday evening charity are steps in the exact wrong direction.  Many of us think that a few kind deeds are better than none.  But maybe those kind deeds are the very things that relieve just enough pressure to keep us in our duplicitous lifestyle, still believing in things that we don’t believe in.  Since those deeds keep us convinced that we are who we aren’t, perhaps they are the very things that we need to be stripped of in order to come to grips with the inconvenient and painful reality of who we really are.  Devoid of any redemptive activity, maybe we would then find that we can’t live with ourselves and be forced to change.

So even though Batman spends his weekends fighting for justice and seeking peace (painfully misguided in his methods), he still has to face up to the reality that he is Bruce Wayne.  He is not who he thinks he is.

We are not who we think we are.

If our pious activities do no more than relieve enough pressure to keep our false life afloat, maybe we should give up on those pious activities to save ourselves from an unknowingly duplicitous life.  I prefer to hope in a new kind of spiritual community that can form new spiritual disciplines that make us come face to face with the reality of who we are.

The Church of Bruce Wayne.  Not the Church of Batman.

Admittedly, I am no Batman expert.  So if I am not doing justice to Batman’s philanthropic efforts, I apologize.

Jesus Saves

inspired by a billboard I saw today.

Thirsty

Sermon at Thrive Community Church, 10-3-2010.  I delivered the sermon unplugged, so please forgive the volume variation and white noise.

Side notes:
* I said the hike was one of the worst experiences of my life... but it was also one of the best.
** I threw a cheap shot at my friend Kyle for "being out of shape."  But that was only relative to my other friend Steven.  Kyle is in much better shape than I (he does P90X). 

Book Review: How (Not) to Speak of God

"That which we cannot speak of, is the one thing about whom and to whom we must never stop speaking."

This central theme of Peter Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God resonates in each provocative, unnerving, and insightful chapter.  With a rich background in both philosophy and the evangelical charismatic movement, Peter bravely enters into the sensitive and dangerous territory of theology.  At least once in each chapter I found myself squirming in my chair as Peter's compelling parables, images, and ideas challenged my traditional understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

To read this book is to enter into an experience.

I cannot sum up or regurgitate that experience in a review or blog post.  But I can give a small sampler plate of the ideas he introduces in his book to entice you to sit down for a meal. 



He explores the relationship between idolatry and ideology, explaining how graven images and ideologies designed to help us reflect on God, often times end up taking God's place in our worship.  He then encourages an iconic perspective in our limited thoughts about God.


Our unimaginable God is both transcendent and immanent, and instead of viewing God as anonymous and absent, God overloads our circuitry with hyper-presence.  (For more on this I blogged on it here)

Christianity is simultaneously theistic and atheistic (the accusation of the early Romans), and Peter explores what it means to embody a Christian a/theism. 

Pascal's God-shaped hole imagery claims that only God can satisfy the void in us, but Rollins argues that a genuine seeking to grasp God is the very evidence that an individual has been grasped by God.  The God-shaped hole is evidence of the hyper-presence of God, and we are nourished by our hunger.

If you're already uncomfortable with the idea of an un-graspable God, fearing that it leads us down a road to theological and interpretative relativism, Peter offers a droplet of comfort through an interpretive-range limiting distinction between infinite and transfinite readings.


I could probably continue trying to provide a revelation of the paradoxical mind of Peter Rollins, but it would probably be better if you explored it yourself. 

The second half of the book provides examples of services that embody the ideas presented in the first half of the book.  The working out of these ideas in the community experience of Ikon (the group that gathers for these services) is not only thought provoking, but shocking. 

Shocking in a good way.

If you are strong-hearted and need a good mind-stretching experience... read this book.

I took off petal after petal...

The following poem I found on a Brian McLaren blog post.  Among many positive insights and experiences, a reader of his books also found a deep grief in re-examining the Christianity that she grew up with.  But in this grief there she also found a new word of hope, very accurately expressed in the following poem.  I agree with this reader, and it resonates with my deconstructionist experience in this "following Jesus" thing, so I wanted to share it.

I took off petal after petal, as if you were a rose,
in order to see your soul,
and I didn't see it.

However- everything around-
horizons of fields and oceans-
everything, even what was infinite,
was filled with a perfume,
immense and living.

-Juan Ramon Jimenez

Two Parties: One Goal

When I hear Republicans complaining about Democrats, and Democrats complaining about Republicans I tend to hear the same sentences with different nouns.

"Democrats don't care about our troops!  They spend too much money expanding the government!"

"Republicans don't care about the poor or people on 'Main Street'!  They spend too much money expanding their overseas militaristic endeavors!"

Democrats complain about militaristic global empire.  Republicans complain about domestic government expansion.

Centrist/Moderate
When I say "Democrat" or "Republican," I'm referring to those who consider themselves true Democrats (liberals) or Republicans (conservatives).  Until very recently, both parties have seen growth in the number of moderates.  People who want universal health care, but are okay with paying for a few extra bombs; and people who want to support a surge of militaristic force in any country the executive branch wants to overwhelm, but are okay having the Fed print money to help the poor "own" a home.

Is it anything new?

Tea Parties!
This new Tea party phenomenon is refreshing to many because it gets back to "true" conservative principles.  The rhetoric of new candidates is strong, honest, and principled.  They proclaim the strong message of strong morality and small government.  But the danger in all of this "true" conservatism, is that it only flies the banner of "small government" in domestic policies, particularly in fiscal issues.  For example, they want smaller government and fiscal responsibility in health care, welfare, and social security, but they want bigger government and more spending in the securing of the national border, enforcement of morality, and expansion of the military. 


All that to say, of the two parties that vie for political power in the USA, neither is truly for "small government" or against "global empire."  Candidates on both sides are slowly working toward the same thing with occasional exceptions like Ron Paul.  Perhaps a chart will help make it more clear what's happening.

Even with the advent of the Tea Party, or other such anti-incumbency movements, if there is no fundamental change in the prevailing centrist/big-government agenda, and if the USA continues on the same trajectory, we will continue to see this government hit new peaks in imperialism and tyranny.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Albert Einstein, (attributed) US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

Techno-Spying: Case Study in Double Standards

Another lesson in double standards.


This is an excerpt from a CNET news post from during the campaign:

“For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and ‘wiretaps without warrants,’ he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

“It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

“In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: ‘No.’”

The following is the first paragraph of a report posted earlier today, September 27, 2010, by Lolita C. Baldor (AP):

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is pushing to make it easier for the government to tap into internet and e-mail communications. But the plan has already drawn condemnation from privacy groups and communications firms may be wary of its costs and scope."

I find it interesting that the sins of a previous regime are always terrible until the new regime provides for the expansion of those same sins for their own purposes.

I think this is a valuable lesson for those who vote.  If a candidate who is currently not in charge claims that he/she will reduce or eliminate his/her power once he/she is elected, you have reasonable grounds for doubt.

Christians and Government

The Text: Romans 13:1-7

“1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Troubling Texts
What kind of libertarian Christian nutcase would have the audacity to post this verse on his blog?

Apparently I do.

To be completely honest, I disagree with stuff I read in the Bible sometimes.  When I read the book of Joshua and see God commanding the Israelites to kill every last man, woman, and child… I am troubled.  The death penalty for unruly children, the validation of the institution of slavery, and the easy ways to divorce a woman (not unlike our modern policy) outlined in the Torah, echoed throughout much of the Hebrew Scriptures, and even segments of the New Testament… those are troubling too.  There is a lot of troubling stuff in the Bible.  Much ink has been spilled debating and wrestling with these issues.  In fact, in Matthew 5 we see Jesus himself wrestling with Scripture, boldly proclaiming his refrain, “You have heard it said… but I tell you….”

I don’t intend to settle all troubling aspects of the Bible in a blog post, or a series of blog posts, or a book, or a series of books.  In fact, I don’t even intend to settle the one issue that I’m going to focus on in this blog.  I think as we inhabit a societal and cultural context far different from the authors of scripture, it is important that we NEVER stop wrestling with the text.  So, with a hermeneutic of humility (a term I stole from my friend Sam Andress), I proceed with the wrestling match on the topic of government.  Round 74,365… ready… go.

Wrestling with the Text

Governments are from God
For most people, namely Statists (whether or not they know that’s what they are), Romans 13:1-7 is not disturbing at all.  God likes government, right?  He puts those governments in power to subdue the peoples of the earth on behalf of God.  A surface reading of this passage would lead us to believe that government is the power intermediary for normal people like us, and God.  Therefore, people who disagree with or don’t obey governments are not only in danger of prison, but in danger of hell too.  Thus, we should all pay taxes, vote religiously, and follow the will of the government that is looking out for our good, right?


Something to note here is the context in which Paul is writing.  First of all, Paul writes his letter to the Roman Church, which in the midst of the peak of the Roman Empire was quite small compared to its modern counterpart.  He writes the Roman Church from Corinth, another metropolis within the boundaries of the Roman Empire.  Ten to fifteen years later Paul would get to see Rome with his own eyes…but not as a tourist… as a prisoner.  It is there that, according to church tradition, the Roman Empire takes off his head.  It is that same Roman Empire that burned Jerusalem down to ashes and destroyed the second temple pioneered by their ancestors Ezra and Nehemiah.  It is this same Roman Empire that sent Christians into the coliseum to be devoured by wild beasts and killed by gladiators for the entertainment of the masses.  The same Roman Empire wrapped Christians in wax and burned them alive like candles to light the path to the Emperor’s residence.

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good.”

If we take only a superficial reading of this text, we would be forced to believe the early Christians were committing egregious wrongs against the empire to deserve such treatment.  Ironically, one of the main charges brought against Christians was atheism.  They didn’t worship the Roman gods.  They defiantly exchanged the Roman pledge, “Caesar is Lord,” with “Jesus is Lord.”  They had the nerve to say that a new Kingdom, superior to that of the emperor, was brought into the world through a Jewish peasant named Jesus.  They didn’t burn incense on the altar to worship Caesar on their way into the Agoura, the Roman “WalMart,” so they were not given the mark on their hand that privied them to access to buy and sell the fruits of imperial wealth (makes you rethink that whole “mark of the beast” stuff, huh?).

What nerve those early Christians had to violate the sanctity of God’s Roman Empire!


Under this stream of reasoning, Christian citizens under Pol Pot should have complied and renounced whatever they needed to under his oppressive regime in Cambodia.  Iraqi Christians should have been the first ones to volunteer for the front lines of battle in Saddam Hussein’s fight against the invading armies.  Christians under Hitler should have gladly taken Jews to the concentration camps (sadly, some did).  After all, those authorities were put there for our own good.

I don’t think I am crazy to think that such a superficial reading is lacking.  Am I?


A Deeper Historical Look into the Text
In its infancy, Christians were largely considered Jews.  They were Jews that followed the teachings of a different Rabbi whom they called the Messiah, or the Christ.  Jews had a bad reputation in the Roman Empire.  Not only were they atheists as described above, but they had a nasty habit of using all of their resources to drive out occupying armies.  Only 200 years before Paul, they took back the land of Israel from Antiochus Epiphanes (one of Alexander the Great’s successors) under Judas “the Hammer” Maccabeus in the second century BC.  Years later, when Rome took over Jerusalem from the rule of the Hasmoneans (the line of Jewish kings between Antiochus Epiphanes and Rome), the Jews began planning and executing revolts.  Though some saw short lived success, all attempts had failed.  Even after Jesus, the Jews kept at it, which is how the temple ended up being destroyed in the year 70AD.

In addition to organized revolts, largely carried out by the Zealots, a secret society of assassins called the Sicarii (Latin for “dagger-men”) would hide daggers under their cloaks and quietly stab Roman officials and Jewish compliance advocates while in large crowds.  They would then disappear into the masses to remain undiscovered. 

The teachings of the Rabbi Jesus, led his followers away from the sword of the Zealots and the Sicarii.  He taught that the Kingdom of God is at hand, available and present.  Jesus’ Kingdom of God was not contingent on the presence or absence of occupying forces.  Jesus’ Kingdom was truly in control.

Thus, one layer of this Romans 13 onion that must be peeled back is Paul’s motive for writing this passage to the Church in Rome.  Perhaps Paul was making these statements about the Roman government to show that this new Jesus movement was not like the other Jewish movements that the Romans had grown accustomed to.  This new Jesus movement did not center on deposing Caesar.  This movement had given up the sword for something better that didn’t rely on the “sovereignty” of their own nation-state.  This movement relied on the sovereignty of God.  This movement had the ability to function, and even thrive, no matter what oppressive regime had a foot on their necks.  This movement could submit under violent and corrupt power structures, and without having to give up its soul. 

Words in the Text
Submit does not mean obey.  We see this in the crucifixion, incarceration, and beheading of Christ and almost every one of his disciples, including Paul.  Just by worshiping the invisible God, and by proclaiming Jesus as Lord, Christians lived in disobedience to the government.  But when the government came to take them away to be killed, they submitted.

Established in this passage means “having been placed.”  There is not a huge denotative difference between being established and being placed, but the connotative difference makes it worth mentioning.  The power structures are not “ordained” or “anointed” of God.  According to Paul, they have been placed there.  This is not a validation of the object being placed, but rather is an acknowledgment of God’s hand in its location.  For example, the prophets of Israel were able to acknowledge that Babylon was a tool in God’s hand of judgment on Judah for their sin. However, at the same time those same prophets were able to call out the inherent evil of the very tool in God’s hand. 

What to do with this Text
In light of the apparent contradictions between the affirmations of Romans 13:1-7, and the actual experience of the author of the text, the journey from exegesis to interpretation, and interpretation to application must be taken carefully.

To interpret this text we must take into account the experience of the author and the textual context of the passage.  We have already explored some of Paul’s experience of these “God-placed authorities,” and how he suffered much at their hands.  As Paul is wrapping up the body of his letter to the Romans(chapters 1-11) in which he reiterates that the gospel is now available to both Jews and Gentiles, he comes to a sort of exhortative climax telling the readers,

“offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

Then, at the end of chapter 12 Paul encourages the reader to “not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.”  Immediately afterward he enters his discussion of authority figures. 

His treatment of earthly authorities, namely governments, must be read through the lens of chapter 12.  His call to submit to governments, exclude a call to mirror or conform to those governments.  Instead Christians ought to offer their entire beings to God and be transformed by God’s Kingdom.  Also, the natural progression from the last verse of Romans 12 and the first verse of Romans 13 must be taken into consideration.  Perhaps, Paul is encouraging persecuted Christians to avoid the way of the Zealots and Sicarii, and instead to pursue the way of love.  Thus, instead of being overcome by the evil of the empire, Christians are to respond to persecution and injustice with love and goodness.  This doesn’t mean Christians ought to like the injustice.  Though they “bless those who curse” them (Rom 12:14) and don’t “repay evil for evil” (Rom 12:17) the Church is still admonished to “hate what is evil” (Rom 12:9) in direct connection to their sincerity in love. 

Therefore, Paul is admonishing Christians to live under the authorities in submission, not consumed with returning the evils of the empire.  Instead of focusing on finding a way to take vengeance into one’s own hands and depose the rulers of darkness, Christians are told to focus on doing good.  Though it is clear that doing good (as in the case of most of the early church) can land a person in prison or on death row, violent insurrection is a much more likely and speedy way to get a person there.  If returning good for evil does not end in the fall of evil power structures, it is not the job of the Christian to use evil means to accomplish favorable ends. “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom 12:19)

The Text for Today
We do not live under the same kind of empire as the early Christians did.  Democratic republics, socialist republics, and communist regimes are all relatively new phenomenon.  But a few things remain the same.  Unconsented confiscation of property in the name of national interest (e.g. taxes, imminent domain), wars in the name of expansion or “preservation” of states, and systematic silencing of voices that disagree with the ruling class all continue in today’s governments.  Much happens now under these power structures that are in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Rabbi that we call Christ.  Unfortunately, in our society, Christians admonish one another to use this fallen system of coercion and violence to enforce “Christian morality.”  When these admonitions are questioned, powerful Christians (or advocates of a powerful Christian state) quickly site Romans 13:1-7 as a scriptural advocate for their “righteous” desire for coercive power.  But if we would interpret those verses through the lens of Romans 12 and the teachings of Jesus, we would end up with a completely different approach to the issues of governments and authorities. 

One thing remains the same in the application of Romans 13:1-7, violent insurrection is not the answer.  The injustices and evil inherent to governing structures must be acknowledged as evil, and hated (Rom 12:9).
However, using the tools from the toolbox of a coercive governmental entity in an attempt to overcome that entity, gains nothing but a new coercive entity.  The call of a Christian is to find creative ways to be in submission to his or her contemporary government without being complicit in the activities of those governments.

We are to fly under the imperial radar to work against the destruction and violence of governments, while proliferating weapons of mass construction like faith, hope, justice, kindness, gentleness, self-control, hospitality, humility, and above all love.  We must sincerely wrestle with the righteousness of actions that may make us complicit with coercive governments.

We must prayerfully consider the programs and wars we finance by paying taxes.  We must consider the perpetuation of empowering a “ruling class” and coercively enforcing our opinions by voting.  We must understand the contradiction between following the way of the crucified Christ and enlisting in the armed forces.

This post, though long, is by no means a full treatment of the Romans 13 passage.  There is so much more to be wrestled with and written.  Since this work is largely incomplete, I will not give any definite answers to how we ought to answer these new governmental issues facing Christians. What I will encourage is the opening of a discussion in the modern Church.  In this discussion we must find a way to live under authorities while being transformed to embody the goodness and love of God whose Kingdom stands in direct opposition to the kingdoms of this world.

We must lead an insurrection of hope.

We must stir up a revolution of peace.

We must wage a war of love.

Two/One Reasonable Person(s)

"Pascal once wrote: 'Finally, let them recognize that there are two kinds of people one can call reasonable; those who serve God with all their heart because they know him, and those who seek him with all their heart because they do not know him.'

But what if these two people are really only reasonable when they are thought to be two different parts of the one person?  What if only those who truly serve God can really know what it is to yearn for God, and only those who truly desire God can really know what it is to serve God?"

Part of a service titled "Prodigal" at Ikon, the religious community of which Peter Rollins is part.  Taken from his book How (Not) to Speak of God.

Apologetics as Defroster

I typically think of Christian apologetics as something that I, as a Christian, need to apologize for.  As far as personal, social, or spiritual transformation is concerned, I find apologetics severely lacking the ability to accomplish such goals. Nevertheless, I came to a new understanding last night.

Last night, I attended a seminar at Azusa Pacific University where the keynote speaker was Dinesh D'Souza.  I am convinced that I will never fully agree with anyone on all things.  In everone else's wrongness, I'm sure there's some rightness.  And in my own rightness, I'm sure that there's some wrongness.  So, I'm not going to really focus on the things on which I disagreed with D'Souza.  In fact, it wasn't the presentation of specific facts or philosophical arguments that ended up making an impression on me.  What became impressed upon my mind was the need to dispell widely held myths that many atheists use as ammo against theists.  I realized this, because he called into question some of the "facts" that I had bought into without question. 

In the marketplace of ideas, theists have been dismissed as superstitious, regressive, and tribally-violent people, but Dinesh D'Souza pretty convincingly illustrated the need for great faith to buy into an atheistic worldview, and shed light on the many of the details behind the atrocities in the history of religion.  There's no doubt that Stephen Hawking is a far more superior thinker than I, but some of the cutting edge developments in the physics community make such blind-faith explanations for existence, life, and the universe, that its hard to see it as being any more "scientific" than us religious folks.  For example: there is an infinite number of other universes simultaneously existing with ours, complete with different laws of nature that make it impossible to observe, study, or experience.  If you ask for empirical evidence, you will be told such a request will never be met. 


Also, many of the religious atrocities of the past and present have been ramped up and inflated in order "prove" that religion is always violent and regressive.  This doesn't downgrade the depravity of the community behind such atrocities, but one must consider the scale and scope of these events in context.  For example, the worst inquisition, the Spanish inquisition, killed an average of 6-7 people each year over a period of 350 years (about 2000 total).  Pol Pot, deeply influenced by his marxist atheist views, killed about 2 million innocent people in 3 years.  This doesn't diminish the horror of the inquisition, but for me, it puts it in perspective.  If you would have asked me 3 days ago how many were killed in the Spanish inquisition, I would have said millions.  Also, the heart and soul of many "religous" wars are found not in doctrinal disagreements, but rather in land, power, and the desire for corrupt governmental forces to get their hands on scarce resources.




All that to say, I now see worth in apologetics.  I don't think that people can be forced into a relationship with God through power dialogues where someone is made to feel stupid for being anything but a Christian (or even just a theist).  A loving relationship with the divine Creator of all things doesn't happen by being shamed or "convinced" that such a relationship is the only logical course for a person to take. 

However, with the thick cloud of propaganda fogging up the windshields of the masses, I think it is important to turn on the defroster.  Not because it will force people to see the beauty beyond, but it will at least help make the choice visible.

CA Lotto: Case Study in Double Standards

Gambling is illegal in the State of California.  Naturally I think gambling should be legal.  Anyone should be allowed to make voluntary foolish choices to throw their money away at large casinos wishing for riches, just as a child throws a penny in a shopping center fountain in hopes of a puppy.  However, Californian legislators have decided to legislate morality on this issue, as they have in many other areas.

As always, though, there are exceptions that are (or were) convenient to the empowered elite at one point in time or another.  The few exceptions outlined in the California constitution seem extremely arbitrary.  Casinos like the ones in Nevada and New Jersey are explicitly banned (those two states are specifically mentioned, by the way), unless it is on Native American reservation land.  Some other gambling opportunities are legal but only if conducted for a legal non-profit purpose and 90% of the proceeds goes to the non-profit cause.  Betting on horseraces is permitted too.  Though flawed fundamentally, I can at least see the reasoning behind allowing casinos on Native American land and not everywhere else... the guilt thing right?  And the non-profit thing... okay, they should at least let people throw away their money to "help others," right? 

But horseracing? 

Was there a horseracing lobby that pushed for the legalization of horse races?  Dog racers and pig racers didn't have a strong enough lobbying firm.  Nor did the advocates for football pools, poker nights, and world soccer tournaments.  Poor saps.

All of that is mind-numbingly frustrating enough... but here's the part that chaps my hide.  I'll quote directly from the CA constitution.

CA Constitution Article IV, Legislative, Sec. 19., subdivisions (a) and (d) state:

"(a) The Legislature has no power to authorize lotteries, and shall prohibit the sale of lottery tickets in the State.

...
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), there is authorized the establishment of a California State Lottery."

Really?  They couldn't even put their double standard on a separate page to help our eyes glaze over and ignore it?  I suppose they assume that no one reads the state constitution anyway, so it seemed safe enough to them.  They essentially say "No one is allowed to have lotteries... except us of course!"  Sillyness.  Officials would probably claim that it is for a non-profit cause, like propping up our deeply flawed public school system where most kids are trained for a life in military service, union jobs, or prison.  Even still, I'm not convinced that entities with "non-profit" status are entitled to special exceptions to laws, even stupid laws.  And I say this as a board member of a non-profit! 

I have a better solution... instead of adding more exceptions and double standards to the Article IV of the CA constitution to rectify a stupid law, we should add one last provision, subdivision (g) should state:
(g) Subdivisions (a) through (f) are indefinitely nullified.

Hypernymity

As I study and read the works of the ancient mystic mothers and fathers of the church, who spent their time in seclusion meditating on God, I am always struck by the vague, careful, poetic, and tentative language.  Then when I read modern theological treatises, I'm overwhelmed by the extreme opposite.  Modern theology is marked by specificity, mountains of definitions, and prosaic assertive language.  Because of these stark contrasts I have subconsciously built the following dichotomy: the mystic focuses on the lofty transcendence of God who is far beyond understanding, and the modern theologian focuses on the immanent accessibility of God who is reasonably comprehensible. As I have continued my thinking about God, and my experiences with God, I have maintained a subconscious tendency to categorize it all in one of those two categories: the immanence of God or transcendence of God.

In Peter Rollins' book, How (Not) to Speak of God, he gives this dichotomy a swift kick in the behind by introducing a new concept that exposes a flaw in the incomplete duality.  He calls this new concept hypernymity. He writes:

"... God ought to be understood as radically transcendent, not because God is somehow distant and remote from us, but precisely because God is immanent.  In the same way that the sun blinds the one who looks directly at its light, so God's incoming blinds our intellect.  In this way the God who is testified to in the Judeo-Christian tradition saturates our understanding with a blinding presence.  This type of transcendent-immanence can be described as 'hypernimity'.  While anonymity offers too little information for our understanding to grasp... hypernymity gives us far too much information.  Instead of being limited by the poverty of absence we are short-circuited by the excess of presence.  The anonymous and the hypernymous both resist reduction to complete understanding, but for very different reasons."

The desert fathers and mothers ventured out into the wilderness to encounter God, and the writing that emerged from their experiences were reverently poetic, acknowledging the poverty of their own words in trying to describe God.  Many modern minds might suggest that they failed in their mission, because in their quest for an encounter and understanding of God they didn't find any concrete answers.  But I have a hunch that the explainable god built with concrete answers and systematic theologies, is just as much of a god as the calf Aaron fashioned out of gold for a festival "in the name of Yahweh."  We build ideological idols in the name of God, but we end up worshipping lifeless objects.  We neglect the ultimate Subject of the universe, the God whose brilliance blinds us, and whose glory short-circuits us.

A Proposal: If War Fixes Economies...

I listen to talk radio quite a bit.  Even if I disagree with a vast majority of the views presented, I find it very entertaining.  On almost a daily basis, I hear our current economic recession talked about in direct comparison to the Great Depression of the early 20th century.  When radio hosts and economic "experts" talk about the current crisis, a commonly held opinion is that the government is lying to us about our recovery.  The end is not in sight, and none of us knows when the end will come.  We don't know when things will really start to turn around.  I agree that the end is not in sight and believe that the economic and monetary policies of the last 80 years have crippled us.  I also believe the policies of the last 3 years have exponentially worsened and compounded the situation.

But here's what I really find interesting.

It's clear that our current situation is quite similar to the Great Depression.  But many "experts" seem to believe that it was WWII that got us out of that tough situation 80 years ago. So according to the logic of the experts, it was a worldwide war that saved us and turned around our economy, not the returning war veterans that industriously labored to revive the manufacturing (non-war) and service sectors that were starving through the great majority of the duration of the war. 



I heard a well stated point on a Lew Rockwell podcast about a year ago. 

If the entire world is in an economic crisis,

and,

If war on a global scale turns economies around,

then this should be our plan:

All of the nations of the world who are struggling economically should manufacture massive war boats loaded with fighter jets, tanks, artillery, and supplies for soldiers. 

All of these war boats should meet in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. 

All living personnel should abandon ship, and when everyone is at a safe distance, all of the war supplies should be detonated and sunk to the bottom of the ocean. 

Economic crisis solved... and no one had to die!

Emerging Church

On many occasions I have used the words “emergent” or “emerging” to describe myself.  On almost as many occasions I have distanced myself from those identifying adjectives, most frequently after reading or hearing someone characterize the “emerging Church” movement as something I definitely do not stand for or believe in.  I have often heard that the “emerging Church” is a group of Christians half-heartedly living out a relativist, hipster, emotional, seeker-sensitive, hollowed-out version of Christianity.  As I have said many times before, if that’s what emergent is, then I’m not that. 

But I still like reading and listening to Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Shane Hipps, and Tony Jones.  All four of them frequently appear on various Christian leaders’ “Heretic of the week” lists.  I know that the challenges and ideas presented in their books do not match the caricature-like renderings of their staunch conservative and staunch liberal critics. 

Today, I began reading a book written by someone else who is bound to make the “Heretic of the week” lists as frequently as Brian, Rob, Shane, and Tony.  The book is called How (Not) to Speak of God.  In the introduction I found some comments on the emerging Church that were helpful to my understanding of why I relate to the movement and what fuels the disdain of critics.  Speaking of the emerging conversation he says:

“Indeed, it is in the fruits of this conversation that I see real hope for a robust, challenging and inspirational form of Christianity, one with roots in the past, a sensitivity to the present, and a vision for the future.  The term ‘emerging Church’ has also been used to describe this diverse community.  While it is a useful term, the word ‘Church’ can be quite misleading, since the movement is not so much developing a distinct religious tradition within Christianity, but rather is re-introducing ideas that help to both revitalize already existing religious traditions and build bridges between them.  It is not then a revolution that is in the process of creating something new but rather one that is returning to something very old.  It is here that I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton when he wrote of a desire to one day pen a story that tells of an English yachtsman who miscalculated his journey and returned to England with the belief that he had discovered a new land.  On sharing this idea, he writes:

‘There will probably be a general impression that the man who landed (armed to the teeth and talking by signs) to plant a British flag on that barbaric temple which turned out to be the Pavilion at Brighton, felt rather a fool.  I am not concerned to deny that he looked like a fool.  But if you imagine that he felt like a fool, or that at any rate that the sense of folly was his sole or his dominant emotion, then you have not studied with sufficient delicacy the rich romantic nature of the hero of this tale.’

The hero of Chesterton’s allegory overcomes any sense of foolishness with a profound joy, as he is in a unique position to experience the wonder and fear associated with discovering something new alongside the comfort and security of having come home.”

The last sentence accurately captures my experience.  As I have learned from the emerging Church conversation, I have found ways of thinking and living that seem to be “fresh and new.”  But as I read more Church history, I realize they are aged, tested by generations, and deep.

I was born and christened Catholic, raised Baptist, engaged by Pentecostals, and mentored by Wesleyans.  In my childhood I met the God of fire and brimstone. In my teen years I met a God whose morality was relevant to my situation.  In my college years I met a revolutionary Jesus that came to declare liberation to the poor and oppressed.  I also met a God who has spoken to and dealt with his people in monasteries and centralized institutional religion for thousands of years before me.  In my marriage I met a Jesus who was serious about what he said about Kingdom life and ethics.  In my career as a gardener I have encountered a God who meets me in the beauty of trees, mountains, birds, and sunrises through mystical experiences that would be destroyed by words, descriptions, or explanations.

Each aspect of God that I was introduced to, and each faith tradition I was presented with has taken me through a series of transitions, leading me to a more complete, but still incomplete, understanding of who God is, who I am, and what I am supposed to do about it.  Each transition did not lead me to a conversion experience where I needed to reject the God I knew before, but rather built bridges for me to take hold of the truth and reality presented in each of my past stages. 

It is not relativism.  It is not universalism.  It is not ecumenicalism. 

But I am not sure if there really is an easy word that sums up that experience in a nice neat gift-wrapped package. 

So if that’s what “emerging Church-ism” is… then I guess I’m that.

Wedding and Feast

"There is a lot of money and power to be had in convincing people we can create an Eden here on earth.  Cults are formed when leaders make such absurd promises.  Products are sold convincing people that they are missing out on the perfect life.  And political groups tend to scare people by convincing them we are losing Eden, or inspire people by telling them we can rebuild what God has destroyed.  We all get worked into a frenzy over things that will not happen until Jesus returns.  The truth is, we can make things a little better or a little worse, but utopia does not hang in the balance of our vote or of what products we buy.

"All of this may sound depressing to you, but I don't mean it to be. I've lived some good stories now, and those stories have improved the quality of my life.  But I've also let go of the idea things will ever be made perfect, at least while I am walking around on this planet.  I've let go of the idea that this life has a climax.... When you stop expecting people to be perfect, you can like them for who they are.  And when you stop expecting material possessions to complete you, you'd be surprised at how much pleasure you get in material possessions.  And when you stop expecting God to end all your troubles, you'd be surprised how much you like spending time with God.

"Do I still think there will be a day when all wrongs are made right, when our souls find the completion they are looking for?  I do.  But when all things are made right, it won't be because of some preacher or snake-oil salesman or politician or writer making promises in his book.  I think, instead, this will be done by Jesus.  And it will be at a wedding.  And there will be a feast."

Donald Miller, A Million Miles in a Thousand Years.

Kosher and Gay

I found this post on Tony Jones' Blog.  I found it enlightening and hilarious!  Hope you enjoy.

    =    
A funny, and telling, thought experiment at Reddit.  What if kosher Jews used the same reasoning that anti-gay Christians used?  Here’s the post, and click the link below to read the fantastic comments:

As a practicing jew, I believe that my fundamental right to freedom of religious expression is being violated. Right now, you can apply for a restaurant license and sell pork and shellfish in an eating establishment. Look, I’m not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. If they want to sin in the privacy of their own home, they’re welcome to, but the state should not be giving them a license to serve non-kosher items. My kids shouldn’t have to walk through the city and see establishments that promote the eating of unclean animals. The schools shouldn’t be teaching my kids that it’s “okay” to eat like a gentile. And what’s more, this is a slippery slope. If restaurants can be allowed to serve unclean food, it’s only a matter of time until known poisons are allowed. This is a fundamental question of our nation’s judeo-christian values. As Americans, I urge you to support a constitutional amendment that defines a restaurant as a kosher establishment.

Find the original post on Reddit here, and enjoy all of the excellent comments.

Heal the World...?

The people of God have been blessed to be a blessing.

I think that the blessing of Abraham in Genesis 12 is central to the biblical narrative, in that it sets the stage for the future work of God through his people.  I think the observation that we are blessed to be a blessing is of utmost importance for a Church that too often believes their blessing just means they get special treatment from their divine benefactor to the neglect of the rest of those “outsiders”.  We are called into a new adventure that at its very core centers on a relationship with the creator of the universe, that naturally translates into a life of outflow to bless others.

But we ought not lose sight of the crux of this journey… following Jesus.  It is possible to be really nice people who make the world around them a little bit better, and not be walking in harmony with the divine.  Those who follow Jesus become a new kind of community that interacts in a new way with God, each other, and the rest of humanity and creation.  Here is another way of putting it:

“For us, the world has ended.  We may have thought that Jesus came to make nice people even nicer, that Jesus hoped to make a democratic Caesar just a bit more democratic, to make the world a bit better place for the poor.  The Sermon [on the Mount], however, collides with such accommodationist thinking.  It drives us back to a completely new conception of what it means for people to live with one another.  That completely new conception is the church.  All that we have heard said of old is thrown up for grabs, demands to be reexamined, and pushed back to square one.  Square one is that colony made up of those who are special, different, alien, and distinctive only in the sense that they are those who have heard Jesus say “Follow me,” and have come forth to be part of a new people, a colony formed by hearing his invitation and saying yes.”
- Hauerwas & Willimon: Resident Aliens

Community is not the end goal.  It’s just what happens when a bunch of people decide to follow the same Jesus.

Un-Economics

I listened to President Obama’s speech on Friday and the first bit of his White House press conference.  The more I listen to politicians on both sides about the economy, (though they evidently are on the same Statist side) the more I begin to feel like I’m in a different universe, complete with different laws of economics, physics, and probably even chess.  In this parallel universe you hear things like:

“We need to lower taxes on the ‘middle class’ so they can work to ‘grow the economy.’  But if they encounter a little bit of success and achieve their goals, then we’re going to nail them for being super rich.” 

And,

“What got us in this mess was rampant unsustainable lending and borrowing because of the unchecked government subsidization of real estate debt.  So what we need to do is subsidize more debt, increase the money supply more, and encourage banks to lend at record low rates to ensure that people with no money and no assets can buy a home and prop up dying businesses by putting them further in debt to keep up with payroll.”

So, wait, let me get this right… the financially successful are the evil enemy, so we need to tax them so we can turn “middle-class working Americans” into financially successful people.  WHAT?!  And if it was our debt that inflated the bubble that got us into this mess, how is more debt going to fix this?  I sit back and think, what a crock!  Good thing everyone has better sense than the politicians! 

But in my daily conversations, and glimpses into the media… it seems like 99% of people are nodding their heads at this stuff.  I’d like to think that everyone is innocently ignorant.  I’d like to think that this is all just a manifestation of mob phenomenon of ignorance.  Others don’t have the same luxury that I do, to know which economic sources to tap into and learn from, right?

But voices like Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul have been increasing the frequency of their moments in the public light.  But no one listens, and the talking heads continue spouting their nonsense answers!  So I know that not everyone is ignorant.  Something tells me that there are some powerful, intentional, malevolent forces working against economic sanity. 

And since these forces, human or institutional, will most likely be close to impossible to silence without the use of coercive force… then the minority of sane people in the world must find a way to be louder, clearer, and more compelling.

Any volunteers?