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