Cosmic Therapy

"Top 10 Liberal Hypocrisies" Considered (2): "Contradiction #2: Pro-Technology vs. Anti-Free Market"

2012-01-15T11:33:00.000-08:00

This one's easy -- so easy I'm almost embarrassed to even bother. But, here goes.

Mr. Vallorani's 2nd attempt at a stab-wound:

Contradiction #2: Pro-Technology vs. Anti-Free Market

I love Apple products. I think Steve Jobs was a genius. I have a MacBook Pro, an iPad, and an iPhone 4s. Many liberals (especially Occupiers) love Apple products too. As a capitalist, I am consistent in purchasing Apple products. They are not. They build web sites to promote their socialist causes while using software and technology that is only made possible in a free market environment. Apple products would not (and could not) have been created in a socialist nation. There’s no way liberals could fight capitalism without the very tools capitalism provides!

Yes, I too have a Macbook and an iPhone. Vallorani's claim that these could not have been invented in socialist nations is, at best, ignorant, and at worst . . . well, politeness keeps me from saying it.

Here's a link to a recent Washington Post op-ed by Francis Tapon, in which he says:

Hungarians, for example, invented the ballpoint pen and holography. A Hungarian, John George Kemeny, co-invented the BASIC programming language with American Thomas Kurtz. Hungarians also invented artificial blood and the Rubik’s Cube. Four Estonians designed Skype. Russians were the first in space, made the biggest nuclear bomb, designed Tetris, and created the iPhone of assault rifles (the AK-47).

Claims such as Vallorani has made are akin to claims of "American Exceptionalism," which seems to be a doctrinal sine qua non for running for president: we have to promote the myth that we Americans are God's chosen nation, and that we are the "best nation on earth," and such is exhibited in our supremacy in the field of technology. In so doing, we have to have something with which to compare ourselves so that our exceptionalism is supported, and we like to choose those nasty socialist European countries, yada yada yada.

I know most of you (if there are any!) who read this don't actually need to hear what I'm about to say, but just in case someone wanders into my blogden of iniquity: America is a great place to live in many ways, and preferable to many. Personally, I like it (some parts better than others, of course). But guess what: Hungarians and Estonians and Russians and Norwegians and Spaniards (ad infinitum) would also say that they would rather live in their own countries than anywhere else on earth -- and by the way, some of them have indeed visited the United States, and still want to live in their own country. Go figure.

Those claims are also akin to some of the political rhetoric going on among the Republican presidential candidates, which is sometimes directed also at President Obama, concerning their alleged ties to or (at some level) acceptance of the cultures -- and specifically the languages -- of other countries. So, one of them speaks French, another once did a commercial in really bad Spanish, etc. And those things were cast as somehow "bad" or as an affront to American Exceptionalism. Sad. Are we really that determined to be ignorant?

We're not exceptional, and innovation can take place anywhere -- and it has. We're one country among many great places to live. We are not God's chosen nation (just ask the Jews). If we had been, I'm pretty sure God would have unchosen us over the whole genocide thing against the original peoples of this geographical territory, anyway.

Finally, it seems to me that Vallorani's assumption about the free market being necessary to creative work assumes something else that is basically wrong: that greed, acquisition or self-promotion are the only things that can drive innovation. It seems to me that's a godless assumption. Can love of friends and family also drive innovation? What about pure curiosity? What about seeking after God? What about simply trying to understand God's creation? All of these -- and more -- have driven some of the greatest innovations in history, and all without a capitalist "free market" economy.

The fact that some "conservatives" view America this way is ignorant and dangerous. Ignorant we've already discussed. How is it dangerous? Well, ignorance means you will be unable to anticipate threats, because it creates a hubris that assumes our exceptionalism is so clear that no one would dare to challenge us. I think that hubris was what led to 911. Further, the hubris causes us not to take challenges (when we actually see them) seriously. We think we can just stomp into a nation and "shock and awe" them into complete submission. Ten years of Iraqi occupation didn't do that, and apparently has not taught some people anything at all. Hubris.

"Top 10 Liberal Hypocrisies" Considered (1c): First "Contradiction": "Pro-Abortion vs. Anti-Capital Punishment"

2012-01-14T10:24:00.000-08:00

The author of the post, Mr. Brandon Vallorani, lists this as his first example:

Contradiction #1: Pro-Abortion vs. Anti-Capital Punishment

Liberals support the killing of unborn children in the name of convenience, choice, etc. These children have committed no crimes; however, if that child survives abortion and grows up to commit murder later in life, a Liberal will scream “injustice” if that person is sentenced to death.

Interestingly, I know of plenty of Republicans -- in fact, MOST of them -- who would support abortions in cases of rape and incest, or if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. So my first objection to this caricature (and it IS a caricature) is its own hypocrisy.

Let me make my own stance clear here before I go on. My wife and I discussed this when we were engaged (and perhaps even before that, as we became aware that our relationship might become "serious"), and her own statement was to the effect that, if she were pregnant in such a condition, she would carry the baby full term. Period. Even if it cost her own life.

As a young man madly in love, I had a hard time with that. (I'm definitely anti-abortion, but specifically because I'm fully pro-life. Yes, I'm a pro-life Democrat.) I had to picture myself telling doctors, according to my wife's wishes, to let her die and save an unborn fetus. I had to picture my sweet young fiance carrying a baby full-term that was the result of some horrendous act of violence against her. But I also think she was making the right choices. I agree, reluctantly. That's the kind of thing that eventually led us to marry -- we have deep agreement on the big "life-issues" (though we still disagree about the value of country music!). Thankfully we never had that difficult situation arise -- we've been very fortunate. But other people have actually had to face such choices.

In the end, I also have to recognize that I live in a country that at least fashions itself to be a democracy. I don't get to make everybody's choices for them. Most of the people in our nation apparently believe that abortion ought to be allowed in at least certain conditions. That's part of what it means to live in a democratic society. I have to go along with the majority, even if I disagree. I may not like it; I may think the majority is wrong or even immoral. But, I have to go along, just as others have to go along when they hold the minority opinion and I happen to side with the majority.

Most of the Democrats I know are pro-life, even those who believe that everybody gets to make their own choices about abortion. And that's one of the things that Mr. Vallorani doesn't quite grasp, thus he doesn't understand the stance against capital punishment (which many "liberals" hold, though many do not -- so to caricature all liberals as hypocritical seems a bit of a stretch here). I would wager that I'm more pro-life than Mr. Vallorani.

You see, no one is "pro-abortion." That's just a lie that makes a great sound-bite on certain "news" channels and in Republican campaign speeches. It's great to be able to caricature your opponents as horrible death-mongers who are worse than Attila the Hun, etc. Sometimes the comparison might actually have some truth to it, but in this case, it's just hot air. I have never, NEVER had a conversation with a "pro-choice" person who was actually "pro-abortion."

Now, I do have to admit that there are some people who take the whole abortion issue rather casually. I sincerely believe they're wrong to do so, and they do not share my moral convictions. I am fine with, should occasion arise, sharing my own moral convictions with such a person and trying to convince them not to abort. But again, this is a democracy, and there are areas of disagreement on this issue that must also be taken seriously -- for instance, are we talking about a "baby" here, or a "fetus"? To be "pro-life" means to value "life." But when can we call this fetus/baby a "life"? That's a question not of science but of semantics. My own definition I hope is clear, but I have to admit that most others in America have a different set of semantic values that go into their use of the word "life," and I have to allow them their own space and freedom.

So, the caricature of "liberals" is severely misguided here, and even dishonest. One of the responders to the original post (either 1 or 1b) mentioned that in this series I'm attacking a rather weak opponent, and that I should tackle one of the more (allegedly) nuanced statements. I'm ok with that, but this is the statement that, first of all, was being sent around by some of my (allegedly) "conservative" friends, and I'm hearing the same kinds of statements as Mr. Vallorani has made in various campaign speeches of the Republican candidates. So, I don't think I'm out of bounds by trying to point out the flaws in the logic of these statements.

Here's what I would propose: those who style themselves "pro-life" should be consistent about it, and that means also abolishing capital punishment. It also means we have to value not just American babies, but the babies of the Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians -- or wherever else our government decides we need to bomb next. You see, some of my friends (whom I love!) are "anti-abortion" but have no qualms about killing our enemies, even those who are pregnant -- thus killing their unborn babies as well. We don't even spend a lot of time lamenting the destruction. We just sigh and shrug it off as "collateral damage" and "part of the price of war." Bull. Shrugging it off is hypocrisy. Such killings are tragic, and if we took it seriously we'd put a stop to it. But they're our enemies, and despite Jesus' command to love them, we believe it's ok to kill them, including their unborn babies. That, my friends, is indeed hypocrisy.

Again, I'm pro-life. Period. But I also value the lives of those would-be mothers who are faced with tremendously difficult choices. Yes, I want them to take those choices seriously and not casually. But I also want anti-abortionists to take those choices seriously. Unfortunately, most of the anti-abortionist folk are anti-abortion but also anti-involvement. They want to pass a law against abortion, but don't want to do much to help these women face the consequences of carrying this child. I think if we're going to do away with abortion, we need involvement. The children produced have to be cared for and raised -- and in quality homes. If we're not willing to do that by means of personal involvement, it seems rather calloused and indeed casual to be screaming that we need to outlaw abortion.

Further, I don't think we would eliminate abortion by passing laws against it. Abortions occurred even before they were legal, and oftentimes they were fatal or severely injurious to the women. We do NOT want to have the black-market abortions revived! But besides that, the abortions would continue. Why? Because so many Americans have value systems that allow for it. So, the solution is not legislation, but to seek to change the value system. But folks, it seems to me impossible to teach the value of life when we so easily take it and justify it in so many other areas of our civil existence. The truth is that very few even of the Republicans who rail against abortion are really pro-life. Want to end abortion? Stop the wars. Stop invading countries as a "preemptive strike" against something we fear they might do in the future. Stop capital punishment. Pass stricter gun laws and actually enforce them. Pull the plug on the weapons industry. Start putting all that weapons-money we spend as a nation each year into anti-poverty programs that result in real, living-wage jobs for people. And the list could go on and on. Only by valuing life as a society can we convey that "valuing life" means we should do away with abortion. Go figure.

See, being "pro-life" means much more than simply being "anti-abortion." The equation of those two is a major logic-flaw in the "conservative" position.

"Top 10 Liberal Hypocrisies" Considered (1b): Definitions of "liberal" and "conservative"

2011-12-06T08:04:00.001-08:00

One quick final comment about the labels "liberal" and "conservative": they are useless. Utterly worthless. They really say nothing about the one being labeled except he/she is to the right/left of the one labeling. In other words, all they do is point out that the labeler believes that the one being labeled "conservative" seems to be to the "right" of the labeler, or that the one being labeled "liberal" is to the "left" of the labeler. They say more about the labeler than the labeled.

And as pointed out above, the labels can be very misleading, and since they are typically used polemically, their function is mostly to stir up prejudice rather than to clarify arguments or positions.

Here's why I added this note: I've asserted my conservatism before, and some of my politically "conservative" friends have ignored it and simply responded by saying that they see nothing "conservative" in my positions. Go figure. Of course, I don't care. I really don't. I don't care where I fall on the political spectrum, or whether I'm to someone else's "right" or "left." It's meaningless. Why? Because I'm a Christian. That is my one allegiance -- both in my life and in my political, moral or philosophical arguments (not to mention theological!).

So, when politicians tout their "conservative credentials," I just have to laugh. It's nothing more than a marketing ploy -- an emotional appeal that they hope will garner support from people who actually vote. It's philosophically untenable and in fact dead wrong if one cares to examine the claim.

"Top 10 Liberal Hypocrisies" Considered (1): Definitions of "liberal" and "conservative"

2011-12-04T14:40:00.001-08:00

I'm sometimes told that I'm a "lightning rod." I do seem to be able to create discussion ex nihilo, more or less. I've posted Bible verses that started arguments, for crying out loud! So, I do have my critics, and now and then some of them like to send me pieces that they think will convert me from my evil "liberal" ways to good Christian conservatism. I read these, and I think about them. The one I'm going to consider here in a series of posts was actually sent to me by my wife who over the years has started to consider me a little less crazy than she used to do. (Or so I think; the truth is that I've become more "lefty" over the years.) She saw this posted on Fb a few times so for some strange reason decided I should see it.

Now, I don't know the author, but the piece is posted on a site called "The Patriot Update: A Free Press for the Conservative Revolution." You can read it all in one piece there if you like. I'm going to post it in smaller chunks as I consider each of its alleged discoveries of hypocrisy in order. This is the first installment.

Some initial clarification is in order.

First, I don't consider myself a liberal at all. I know a lot of people see me as one, but I've written about this before. Philosophically I'm a conservative. I'm going to attempt a brief explanation here.

What does it mean to be a "conservative"? It means to conserve something -- to believe that conserving this thing is important and to work to do so. When we use the term "conservative" we're usually talking about certain traditional "values" that we think are important -- like marriage, life, honesty, etc.: "conservative values." Why do we think these things are important? Can we prove that they are somehow "better" than their opposites? Can we prove that honesty, for instance, is better than dishonesty? How would we do that?

Well, we would likely try to show all the trouble that DIShonesty can get one into, and that makes sense to me -- except that our world often rewards dishonesty, and those who are impeccably honest sometimes get, well, shafted. While it would be nice to think that honesty always gets rewarded and that dishonest folks always "get theirs in the end," we know it just doesn't happen that way in our world. Some dishonest folks right this moment are living lives of great luxury and laughing at all us "honest suckers." If you're smart enough and ruthless enough, you can (as Nietzsche said we should) create your own moral standards and leave the "honesty" to those stupid enough to buy into it.

And of course we can all think of situations in which we would lie -- situations like in WWII era Holland, when some of the Dutch were hiding their Jewish neighbors. If the Nazis came and knocked on YOUR door and asked you, "Are you hiding Jews in your house?", would you lie or tell the truth? I'll tell you -- if I had been hiding Jews in my house, I would have lied to protect them. No doubt.

So, why do we continue to think that honesty is better than its opposite? We might simply claim that "everyone just knows that it is" along with the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Problem: if everyone just knew that, why don't they do it? Clearly some people think there is a better way.

In the end, as Christians (and this is the point of view from which I operate) we might have to fall back on a theological explanation: either that God (or scripture) has told us this is what we should do, or that we are told to be imitators of God or of Jesus, and this is they way God/Jesus is.

In other words, when other attempts at justification of honesty have failed, we're going to fall back on our Christian faith and heritage = tradition. Why? Because we think this is the best way to live. Why do we think that? It depends on how you define "best way to live." As Christians we define that by means of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, the stories of whom have been passed down in our scriptures.

So, we're going to be relying on the Christian tradition that produced our scriptures, and we have to admit that not everyone accepts our scripture as, indeed, scripture. Other religions have their own scriptures. And this means that we think that the Christian definition of honesty is worth preserving simply because we think it is the best definition available. We could ask "why?" here again, but pretty soon you realize we're just like a dog chasing its tail, and this chase for a "final answer" can go on interminably if we let it. I do think we'll finally come down to comparing Jesus to other great religious teachers, and I don't think we should be afraid of that. But even then, we're going to have to argue that Jesus' life represents the best way of life for human beings -- and again, we're back to trying to define what we mean by that, and we have another argument on our hands.

My solution is to admit that we have a tradition that we think we can argue for, but it's still a tradition. In reality, all thinking takes place within traditions (that's a broader point I won't try to demonstrate here).

So, I believe in conserving the Christian tradition. That means I'm a conservative.

Now: "liberalism." The liberal point of view was created in and along with the Enlightenment, and was indeed a rejection of tradition. To be "enlightened," according to Kant (in his little book What is Enlightenment?) was to reject traditional morality in favor of "thinking for oneself." More specifically, to "think for oneself" entailed a rejection of the traditional sources for morality, such as family, society, church and even the Bible! In fact, Kant later wrote a book called Religion Within the Bounds of Reason Alone in which he tried to set Christianity on a purely rational basis (in my opinion it was a colossal failure).

So, as several contemporary thinkers have pointed out, America is by definition a nation of liberals. We all (with only a few exceptions like myself) believe that we have rejected tradition (which we haven't -- but that's another argument) in favor of thinking for ourselves. We believe that morality can be determined in a purely rational manner (but even Plato and Aristotle believed that you could not have morality without divine input!). So even people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are liberals. They do not believe in conserving certain values because they are traditional, but they argue for them on (what they think is) a purely rational basis. Further, they think that anyone who is really rational will see the truth of their positions -- which is another of the myths of the Enlightenment, i.e., that their version of "rationality" is indeed UNIVERSAL rationality = shared by ALL RATIONAL PEOPLE.

To be sure, there are in America different kinds of liberals: there are "left-leaning liberals" like Al Gore and Bill Clinton (and I really can't put Barack Obama in this category) and "right-leaning liberals" like Limbaugh and the GOP and the Tea Partiers, etc. But they're all liberals.

And I'm a conservative.

So, if you want to argue with me, at some point you'll have to dispute my claims that certain positions deserve the label "Christian." In other words, you'll have to argue that my positions are not "Christian," rather than that they might be bad economic or foreign policy, etc.

The "99%"????

2011-11-02T14:52:00.000-07:00

Recently I've seen this pic posted several times on Facebook:

I know those who have posted this believe that they are calling attention to the fact that here in America we are better off (at least economically) than are many other nations of the world. No doubt about that.

Also, I think they are probably trying to say: "quit whining!" Another sentiment with which I can agree -- at least in part.

Here's the part that bugs me.

First of all, reminding us that there are others in the world who suffer deeply does not change anything about our situation in the United States. We've still been duped, cheated and otherwise mugged by the banking industry that created the housing bubble that burst and thus began this crisis. And yes, it is a "crisis" -- for many, many of our fellow Americans. There are indeed many (over 9% of us in America) who are out of work and don't know how they're going to continue to provide life's basic needs for themselves and/or their families. Is the top part of the photo merely a prophecy of what may become of those pictured in the bottom part?

Second, let's not forget that the crisis that began with American banks did not stay in America. It quickly spread around the globe. Every geographical area of our globe (except probably for the Arctic and Antarctic, presumably) has come under an economic "downswing," characterized in many places as a recession. So, if the top photo was taken recently, then those folks are also suffering because of the world-wide economic downturn.

In other words, the "99%" of the bottom photo are not separate from the "99%" of the top photo. Those in the Occupy movement are not "whining" because they don't want to work, because they want a free ride or a handout. They are protesting an unjust system that has been rigged against everyone who is not an "insider" to the kind of financial trading/pirating that has characterized our banking industry. So, the starving people at the top and the Occupy people at the bottom are all part of the "99%" -- which in fact probably means that "99%" needs to be expanded into "99.999999%," or something like that.

As I walked into a pizza place a couple of weeks ago I heard a lady on her cellphone telling the person on the other end of her call that the protesters should quit whining and go get a second job. Can we please just admit that it's just not that easy for many people? That there are real difficulties supporting a family in today's economy? That jobs that pay enough to support a family just aren't that readily available? That a "second job" for some is an impossibility until we can get them a decent FIRST JOB?

Certainly I can't speak for everyone who has turned out for one of the Occupy protests, but many of them seem to understand that this is not just an American issue -- that it is indeed global, and that they are protesting not just for their own benefit but for the benefit of all those around the world who are suffering from economic disadvantage. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed.

Obamacare

2011-06-13T13:27:00.000-07:00

Good stuff from Henry Chu, head of the LA Times' London bureau, on British reaction to the health-care debate in both America and in Great Britain: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fg-britain-health-care-20110613,0,1237142.story

In short, the British don't mind a little tinkering with their National Health Service, but the idea of privatizing it is abhorrent to them, and politicians are stumbling all over themselves in the rush to apologize for any comment that indicates they favor an "American Style Health Care System." Go figure.

In the final analysis, "Obamacare" will end up being a great compliment. You heard it here first.

Thanks to Mike Gipson for the link to the Henry Chu piece.

Voodoo Economics

2011-04-08T20:55:00.000-07:00

I'm furious. I'm livid. I've been lied to, flat out, to my face, by someone you would think you would be able to trust.

I took a look at some of the new budget proposal being leveraged by the Republican party this week. Independent analysis -- a simple AP news story -- said clearly that the proposal would do several things, among them get rid of the health care law and to privatize Medicare and turn it into "vouchers." Sounds suspicious to me, just on the surface.

So, I called my local congressional Representative's office -- James Lankford. Didn't get to talk with him (go figure), but I asked The Voice on the phone if Lankford supported the budget proposal. The Voice exuberantly answered in the affirmative, and told me that Lankford had been on the subcommittee that had approved the proposal to go to the full House. Hmmmph.

So, as calmly as I could (probably not all that much) I told The Voice that Lankford needed to reconsider. He asked why. I told him that this proposal would cripple a lot of people -- that we need medicare and the health care bill. The Voice informed me that the proposal did not touch Medicare.

That's a lie. "Hogwash" is the most polite term I can think of here. I can think of many terms more descriptive and therefore more accurate. He's lying. Don't take my word for it. Please. Don't. Check it out.

And check out this column in the NY Times (I know, that horribly "liberal" publication, yada yada yada) by Nobel Prize winner for economics, Paul Krugman.

Notice where he gets his numbers for analysis of the Republican budget proposal: from the Congressional Budget Office -- a non-partisan office. Where did they get their numbers? They were provided by the Republicans.

So, working with numbers provided by the Republicans who proposed the budget -- what did they come up with? Huge deficits. A bankrupt nation. It's nothing but tax cuts for the rich and reduction in spending on programs that help those who need help the most.

This budget proposal is sinful. It attempts to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly. We are turning the nation of "give me your tired and your poor" into the nation of "I've got mine and I'll shoot the b------ who tries to take it from me!"

I'm sorry, but that's just not like Jesus. Wait -- I take that back. I'm not sorry for saying that.

He also lied to me about military spending. Somewhere between 48% and 54% of federal spending goes into the military. Just google for info.

But Lankford's phone Voice essentially told me I was crazy and I needed to check my figures, and that "entitlement programs" make up most of the federal budgets. Bull.

Of course, I told him he needed to check HIS figures. Had a great affect on him I'll tell you. What a snappy comeback.

Well, I've checked around a little more. There are a variety of estimates out there. But all of them demonstrate that the military is our biggest expenditure. And again, I would challenge any Christian to come up with logical support for that expense on Biblical/Christian grounds. It just can't be done. We're supposed to love our enemies. Period. For some odd reason I think that means "don't kill them."

But, even if Christians do support the military -- does it have to be so large? We are the only nation that has military bases outside of our own borders, and we have almost 800 military bases world-wide. We are an empire. A militaristic empire. If we say nothing else here, we must at least say that we could cut back a bit and then we'd have the money to take care of those in our society who are unable to completely take care of themselves.

But, the Republican budget proposal won't do that. It will take care of the wealthiest members of our society and cut out as much assistance to the lower strata as it can. It's the budget of "I've got mine!"

Parting shot, from the Washington Post (no "liberal" source this time!): the report of the words of Rajiv Shah, the administrator for the US Agency for International Development, before congress this week. Shah said:

We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying. Of that 70,000, 30,000 would come from malaria control programs that would have to be scaled back, specifically. The other 40,000 is broken out as 24,000 who would die because of a lack of support for immunizations and other investments, and 16,000 would be because of the lack of skilled attendants at birth.

The Republican response came from Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.):

Nearly every administration witness appearing before the Appropriations Committee . . . has put forward nightmare scenarios and dire numbers to argue why we should not be reducing spending in any program. Republicans won't be drawn into a debate over what might happen based on speculations and hype.

So, there's your "compassionate conservatism" for you. Is that like Jesus? Really -- tell me. It is just this kind of thing that made me repent of voting Republican. Yes, I did -- I voted for Reagan. May God have mercy.

It's OK to be Jewish (or whatever)

2011-04-04T17:40:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the blog of "Beach Bum," (who's been following my blog here for a short time) -- "The Life and Times of a Carolina Parrothead" -- I've also run across the blog of Karen Van der Zee, called "Life in the Expat Lane." Haven't read much of it yet, but what I've read has been more than entertaining and even a bit enlightening. She lives "abroad," and in some very strange places, and she writes about her experiences. She has written a book, available in ebook format for $2.95 (if I recall correctly [yup, just checked]) called You're Moving Where? The first chapter, "It's OK to be Jewish," is available free, and relates her experiences in her first few days living in the Palestinian West Bank town of Ramallah, where she discovers it's ok to be Jewish (which she's not).

A theme I've touched on before on this blog and on Facebook is that the Muslim faith is not "inherently violent," and that all Muslims are NOT "terrorists," etc. And it's a topic on which people like to disagree with me. Well, I think I have an advantage in this argument because I have some Muslims who are friends. In fact, I've made friends of Muslims in various places around the world -- New York, Vienna, Austria, the Philippines. The one on the train from Poughkeepsie, New York, admitted to me (in 1985) not only that he was Muslim, but "it's even worse than that," he said: "I'm Shiite." And this was only a few years after the incident in Iran during the Jimmy Carter administration. The fellow in the Philippines (on an all-night ferry from Butuan to Cebu) drank his beer and confessed to me why he was a lousy Muslim (in part because he was drinking beer!). Oh -- and I forgot the mention the guy (apparently Turkish) we shared a train compartment with in Europe who looked like Sadaam Hussein. No kidding. He gave chocolates to the kids. Nice guy! We communicated a little in broken German (well, mine was broken). And the pizza guy in Vienna who wanted to practice his English. Yada yada yada (a Hebrew expression; "yada" means "I know" in Hebrew).

So, thanks, Beach Bum -- who has some really good posts of his own.

Intervention in Libya

2011-04-01T19:04:00.001-07:00

Just as I'm nearly always unable to watch violent crime shows (whether "reality" or merely fiction), I've been unable to pay attention to most of what is going on in Libya. Violence is abhorrent to me. I cannot stand to watch the newscasts that show bombs being dropped, and so on. Knowing that we -- the US -- had just started a THIRD war just pains me.

And it's not that I'm incapable of violence. Unfortunately, far from it. I am committed to non-violence, but in part because I know the kind of hate that I feel from time to time -- but I don't like it. I won't give you examples, but you can take my word for it.

I am also committed to human freedom, and I empathize with the folks in Libya who have suffered repression for many years. I want them to have something better. No one should have to live in terror. "Give peace, O Lord, in all the world, for only in you can we live in safety" -- this is part of one of the prayers in the Book of Common Prayer that I say almost daily. People should be able to live in peace and safety because we are all children of God.

But, though I empathize with the rebels in Libya, I cannot support the role the US is playing in that conflict. I cannot support it because, though we might regard Gadhafi and his forces as our enemies, we Christians are called to love our enemies -- even (and perhaps especially) those who would like to kill us and may be actively trying to do so at some given moment. Think Jesus here. He didn't hate (wow!) those who were beating him, spitting on him, insulting him, pounding nails through his feet and forearms, cramming a ring of thorns down on his scalp, and so on. And it wasn't just that he was the Son of God -- a ploy we sometimes use to try to keep Jesus sanitary and out of the way of any real temptation. Nope. He faced temptations with exactly the same tools available to me and to you -- prayer, fasting, scripture. He was tempted in every way just as we are. Which means he was tempted to hate those who hated him and insulted him and insulted his God!!!! Tempted; but he didn't do it. He didn't hate them. We cannot hate our enemies. We must love them. Even Gadhafi.

But, so it has been argued, if we didn't intervene, Gadhafi's forces would have overrun the rebels and made a quick end to the effort to secure their human rights. We could not just "do nothing." Intervention was the right thing to do.

This is the stereotypical argument against non-violence. Non-violence is simply equated with "doing nothing" or non-intervention, and those two (alleged) opposites are juxtaposed as if they were the only two possibilities.

That's simply a lack of imagination, at best, and at worst it is a lust for and trust in violence. Is it true that violence breeds violence? Doesn't history teach us that much? Can we really count on violence to "change the world" (as if creating more violence would really constitute a "change")? The Dr. Phil question needs to be asked here: "So, how's that working out for you?" So long as we keep our historical blinders on, we might think it's working out pretty well.

"Pacifism" does not equal "passivism." Non-violence is not non-intervention. It does, however, require more imagination and infinitely more courage. Could we have sent blue-helmeted UN troops into Libya? Could we have encouraged the rebels to follow the example of Egypt and renounce violence?

"But that wouldn't work!" I can hear the protests already. And they may well be correct. It may not, in this particular case, work. There is equally no guarantee that the violence will "work." So violence is what nations do in place of trusting God.

But it's not what Christians are called to do. We are not called to "solutions that work," or that we think we can secure under our own power. We're not called to make things work. We're called to be faithful to the one we call "Lord" -- the very one who loved his enemies.

Simon Barrow of the Ekklesia Project said a similar thing in this article. He has imagination. And courage. And he points out that it is a lie that violence was our only option. Good stuff.

Parting shot by Bob Herbert, NY Times

2011-03-26T14:44:00.001-07:00

Thanks to Professor Mike Gipson for providing this link to Bob Herbert's last NY Times column.

I've had the idea for some time that the growing disparity between the uber-rich and the poor, with a shrinking middle class, will drive the US closer and closer toward "social unrest," which if successful might remain peaceful, but if unsuccessful might . . . well, things could get ugly. Interestingly, though, it has been the right wing folks who have been talking about "second amendment solutions." Can we read the handwriting on the wall?

Because I believe in Jesus, I believe I should love my enemies, even those who want to kill me and will do so if given half a chance. Love, not kill them. So I am not advocating revolution. But I suspect that people driven to desperation who do not share my conviction about loving enemies will at some point be willing to do things I am not. It pains me to write this, but it's a prediction and nothing more.

Of course, those folks who are the uber-rich will simply take their fortunes with them to their private islands in the Caribbean with their private armies, or run off to live in whatever nation will give them the best tax breaks and the least interference with their weapons purchases. I doubt any social unrest will greatly affect the top 10% percent income folks that Herbert talks about in his column.

Can change happen peacefully? I hope so. But it will not if the agenda of some to balance the national and state budgets on the backs of the poor is successful. Those who want to cut programs of assistance to the poor and even the elderly, and to remove health care, etc., recite the usual mantra that these programs are in essence "handouts" to the poor, and the poor are "freeloading off of hardworking Americans," etc.

Occasionally, of course, that occurs. NO ONE, not even Democrats or (gasp!) socialists, are in favor of allowing people to freeload when they are capable of contributing. BOTH SIDES of this argument are against "freeloading," and we try to set up our programs so that freeloading does not occur. People who CAN contribute MUST contribute. Again, we're not 100% successful with that, but that's the goal of even Democrats.

So please: those who think assistance programs are all about allowing "freeloading," get off it. Stop lying.

Both sides also agree that there are some people who, for various reasons, either cannot contribute (the disabled, etc.), or who have already contributed enough (such as the elderly who have worked hard all their lives, paid into Social Security, and would like to have a few years of retirement and relaxation as they close our their lives in peace). There are some elderly, however, who have such a great retirement package via their investments or private retirement programs that they don't need Social Security. If that is the case, then it would be for the best of our society as a whole for them to give it up. What that level is should be determined by a discussion at all levels of our society.

Where the disagreement seems to take place, it seems to me, is on the question of public assistance to people who are physically able to work, but have other obstacles: lack of education, children to raise, etc. Sometimes their own bad choices have contributed to their status.

Folks who typically want to cut programs for these folks tend to understand their status as completely the result of their bad choices, so completely their own responsibility. Therefore, since their status is completely their own fault, no one else has the responsibility to help them. Do they live in a depressed area where there are few jobs? Well, they should move somewhere else. Do they have too many kids to take care for, and lack education to get a job that pays well enough to support them all? Well, they should have used birth control. They should have gone to college. They should get off their rear ends and get SOME kind of job -- even if it means that they have to leave their kids in day care, and they can't really afford day care, or by the time they paid for daycare they would not have enough money left to pay rent and buy groceries. Well, it's their own fault. They could have made better choices at age fourteen or fifteen or sixteen, and their lives would have been better. It is their own fault, so no one else has responsibility to help them.

On the other side are those who can look at such situations and admit that our society does NOT give everyone equal opportunity. In theory, of course we do. But I know (and have written about it in the past) that many people -- especially people of color in America -- do not perceive that there is equal opportunity. They do not grow up with positive role models continually telling them that they can do whatever they put their minds to -- that they can go to college, grad school, or that they can achieve good things in their lives -- all the things I learned to believe about myself because I had good parents and a good social situation. There are those who believe that we as a society have contributed to this situation and as a society should address it. (Certainly there are those who grow up in negative surroundings that indeed rise above them. But, look at the statistics: there are many more who do not. ) Yes, people make bad choices. Some people, it seems to me, are probably unteachable in this regard. But as a society we have to keep trying. And the only way to do that is to have programs that the rest of us pay into, hoping that some people will find their way to "get on their feet" and eventually to contribute. It may mean we need to provide day care for their children so the adults can either go to school or get job training. If we do that, we're also going to need to find a way to guarantee them jobs after the training is done. There has to be hope. If there is no real hope of a better life afterward, the program will certainly fail.

Health care also has to be a concern. I'm baffled by our folks in Oklahoma who complain that "Obamacare" is going to cost "us" (who is that?) money. We have many more insured in OK now, so it is definitely helping some people. We've receive federal money to help with that.

But the biggest factor is this: people without health insurance will still get medical care, but it will be at the ER, and in the end it costs the rest of us much more than if they had health insurance and could go to the doctor before something becomes an emergency -- or they will not have to use the ER as their "regular doctor." Preventative medicine is cheaper in the long run than crisis medicine. So, if we take health insurance away from people covered by the federal health insurance law, we'll all still pay for their health care. It will just cost us more. The federal plan is cheaper for society as a whole.

So why is it that so many people now seem to be on the "balance the budget bandwagon"? I don't have a good answer for that. I'm in favor of balancing the budget, but not of removing the protections for the poor and elderly, and so on. So, where do we cut?

Where do we spend the most? Look it up. Here's one assessment: military spending is 54% of the federal budged, and approximately $1,449 billion. Non-military is 46% and $1,210 billion (2009 figures).

So, when Bob Herbert points out that we're trying to remove "social programs" and have entered another war, I'm depressed and even incensed. And more depressed because so many Christians think that removing the assistance to the poor and needy and carrying on three wars -- and spending the greatest part of our nation's money on them -- is somehow "right," or "righteous," or "just" or "holy." It is none of those things.

Just a few select pieces of evidence from the Bible (there are many others). The prophet Amos condemns the practices of the rich Israelites who are "building houses of hewn stone" (5.11), "lie on beds of ivory, and lounge on their couches, and eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the stall" (in other words, they're giving themselves great feasts), "who drink wine from bowls and anoint themselves with the finest oils" (they have the very best of spa/health care -- 6.4, 6) -- who in essence are "living the good life."

But, they "trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain . . . and push aside the needy in the gate"; they "trample on the needy and bring to ruin the poor of the land . . . buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals" (6.11-12, 8.4, 8.6). In other words, though they're living the good life, they don't care for the poor among them. They enjoy the good life at the expense of the poor -- thus they trade the poor for their new pair of shoes and their comfortable houses.

You can read the judgment passages for yourself. It's harsh, to say the least. When Amos pleads: "let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream" (5.24), he's pleading on behalf of the poor. He's not just saying "avoid the big sins like idolatry and adultery." "Justice" and "righteousness" are attributes of God and are frequently used either in tandem or synonymously. Also, in fact ONLY God is truly "good" (says Jesus -- Matthew 19.17, Mark 10.18, Luke 18.19). We tend to define "justice" as "getting what one deserves," and as opposite of "mercy." But in the Old Testament, especially in the prophets and the Psalms, they seem to point in another direction. Notice Psalm 72.1: "Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son." The writer then proceeds to describe what practical effects will ensue if God does that: "May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor" (72.2-4).

If the king does this, he should be rewarded (v. 11), "For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight" (72.12-14).

"Justice" and "righteousness," then, are not just keeping oneself away from the "big sins," nor are they the opposite of "mercy." In fact, they are the very definition of "mercy." And "mercy" is the very definition of "justice and righteousness."

This is why so many theologians have pointed out that God has a "preference for the poor." Jesus never said "blessed are the rich." He said "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6.20).

Hey -- don't blame me, I didn't make this stuff up.

I don't know if Bob Herbert would agree with all of this, but I suspect he would with good bits of it.

But in the final analysis, Christians have to be on the side of the poor. And to those who say "I AM on the side of the poor -- I just think we should do it individually, or that it should be churches that assist the poor, not government": I challenge you with history. It has never been done. It may be true that if Christians all pooled their money we could do away with world hunger. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It ain't happening. Poverty and hunger and disease are huge problems. They will not be addressed by small institutions -- nor no institutions. I suspect that excuse is just another way for we Christians to be selfish. It may not be for you, but it is for many. So, that claim is empty and needs to be abandoned.

Others will fall back on the words of Jesus: "the poor you always have with you." I'm pretty sure that wasn't a statement of a social program, and we shouldn't take it as one. That was a statement directed toward those who grumbled about the woman who anointed him with perfume just before his death -- here was an opportunity that would never occur again, and there would be plenty of time to do good for the poor later on (Mtt. 26.11, Mark 14.7, John 12.8). That's all. He's not claiming that poverty should not be addressed or cannot be solved.

Simply put, the new budgets I'm seeing proposed are immoral. They demonstrate what we as a nation value, and they are showing more and more clearly that we as a nation are selfish, therefore immoral. Do we as Christians have the guts to stand up and tell this to our legislators? To our neighbors? To our church leaders? To our President? To our state governors? If we let this opportunity go by, we are just as guilty as the Israelites addressed by Amos.

Why support NPR?

2011-03-25T18:44:00.000-07:00

Here's why.

Because NPR isn't owned by someone who is concerned to make money for themselves or stockholders. Profit isn't a motive. Truth is. Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers or the Kennedy family or whoever can't control this kind of news or analysis. If you treasure democracy, you must treasure independent sources of information because you cannot vote well if you cannot get good information.

I for one do get annoyed at NPR from time to time because it seems to me that they bend over backwards to allow some voices to be heard that I really don't want to hear. But I know they need to be heard, and I myself NEED to hear them. But as I've said on this blog before, I also consult a variety of newspapers and news sources, such as the BBC and Al Jazeera (both the online news source and the magazine -- don't be afraid, you won't get "Muslimized" or something if you go to their site. But you will definitely get a different view of the news, and your view of the US may indeed be challenged. Even if you don't agree, you'll have to do a better job of defending your point of view! If you can't take that and deal with it, you have no claim to be pursuing the truth. So stop telling the rest of us that you are.).

More on "charity"

2011-01-20T21:37:00.000-08:00

From Slavoj Zizek, First as Tragedy, Then as Farce (p. 81):

Towards the end of 2008, a research group studying trends in tuberculosis epidemics in Eastern Europe over the last few decades made their main results public. Having analyzed data from more than 20 states, the researchers from Cambridge and Yale established a clear correlation between loans made to these states by the IMF and the rise in cases of tuberculosis---once the loans stop, the TB epidemics recede. The explanation for this apparently weird correlation is simple: the condition for getting IMF loans is that the recipient state has to introduce "financial discipline," i.e., reduce public spending; and the first victim of measures destined to reestablish "financial health" is health itself, in other words, spending on public health services. The space then opens up for Western humanitarians to bemoan the catastrophic condition of the medical services in these countries and to offer help in the form of charity.

Thomas Merton on charity and justice

2011-01-08T09:42:00.000-08:00

Too often Christian charity is understood in an entirely superficial way, as though it were no more than gentleness, kindness, and affability. It certainly includes all these things, but it goes far beyond them. When charity is regarded as merely "being nice to" other people, this is generally because our outlook is narrow and takes in only our immediate neighbors, who share the same advantages and comforts as we. This conception tacitly excludes those who most need our love--those who are unfortunate, who suffer, who are poor, destitute, or who have nothing in this world and who therefore have a claim upon everyone else who has more than he himself strictly needs.

There is no charity without justice. Too often we think of charity as a kind of moral luxury, as something which we choose to practice, and which gives us merit in God's sight, and at the same time satisfying a certain interior need to "do good." Such charity is immature and even in some cases completely unreal. True charity is love, and love implies deep concern for the needs of another. It is not a matter of moral self-indulgence, but of strict obligation. I am obliged by the law of Christ and of the Spirit to be concerned with my brother's need, above all with his greatest need, the need for love. How many terrible problems in relations between classes, nations, and races in the modern world arise from the sad deficiency of love! Worst of all, this deficiency has manifested itself very clearly among those who claim to be Christians! Indeed Christianity has repeatedly been called upon to justify injustice and hate!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . Christian charity is meaningless without concrete and exterior acts of love. The Christian is not worthy of his name unless he gives from his possessions, his time, or at least his concern in order to help those less fortunate than himself. The sacrifice must be real, not just a gesture of lordly paternalism which inflates his own ego while patronizing "the poor." The sharing of material goods must also be a sharing of the heart, a recognition of common misery and poverty and of brotherhood in Christ. Such charity is impossible without an interior poverty of spirit which identifies us with the unfortunate, the underprivileged, the dispossessed. In some cases this can and should go to the extent of leaving all that we have in order to share the lot of the unfortunate.

Moreover, a shortsighted and perverse notion of charity leads Christians simply to perform token acts of mercy, merely symbolic acts expressing good will. This kind of charity has no real effect in helping the poor: all it does is tacitly to condone social injustice and to help to keep conditions as they are--to help to keep people poor. In our day, the problem of poverty and suffering has become everybody's concern. It is no longer possible to close our eyes to the misery that exists everywhere in the world, even in the richest nations. A Christian has to face the fact that this unutterable disgrace is by no means "the will of God," but the effect of incompetence, injustice, and the economic and social confusion of our rapidly developing world. It is not enough for us to ignore such things on the ground that we are helpless, and can do nothing constructive about the situation. It is a duty of charity and of justice for every Christian to take an active concern in trying to improve man's condition in the world. At the very least, this obligation consists in becoming aware of the situation and of forming one's own conscience in regard to the problems it offers. One is not expected to solve all the problems of the world; but one should know when one can do something to help alleviate suffering and poverty, and realize when one is implicitly cooperating in evils which prolong or intensify suffering and poverty. In other words, Christian charity is no longer real unless it is accompanied by a concern with social justice.

(Thomas Merton, Life and Holiness [Image Books, 1964], 88-90)

From Henry Nouwen:

2010-09-07T13:41:00.000-07:00

In the sixties we were concerned with social change; we learned change comes slowly at best, and it doesn't come at all without a spiritual grounding. The real protesters, the ones who are still protesting, receive their strength and inspiration not from social theorists but from the mystics. Jim Forrest, head of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation, came to see me last night. What did he talk about? He talked about Thomas Merton; he talked about prayer. We prayed more than we talked. Prayer gives him strength to continue to fight for a better world.

There is a Jewish story about a little boy who went to a prophet and said, "Prophet, don't you see? You have been prophesying now for fifteen years, and things are still the same. Why do you keep on?"

And the Prophet said, "Don't you know, little boy, I'm not prophesying to change the world, but to prevent the world from changing me?"

We must say no to war, killing, and poverty, not because people are going to listen, but because it belongs to an authentic witness of the living God. And you can do that only when your heart is rooted in the love of God. . . .

George Washington and the (inaccurately described) "Ground Zero Mosque"

2010-08-17T12:48:00.001-07:00

From today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081604681.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline

Please notice how so many of the "counter-arguments" (especially Newt's) follow this line of thought: since Muslims don't act "Christian," Christians don't have to act Christian. Gotta love it.

Can Muslims be good American citizens?

2010-08-06T17:11:00.000-07:00

I published a link to this article some time ago, but it seems appropriate again now in regard to the plans to build an Islamic Mosque and community center a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center.

Most of us know that there are many who oppose the plan, considering it an insult to those killed on 9/11. They also usually associate all Muslims with terrorism, and believe that all or at least most Muslims are bound by their religion to kill "Christian infidels," and that therefore Islam is an inherently violent religion. Therefore, the reasoning goes, Muslims cannot be good American citizens.

That reasoning is wrong at the level of its premises, and this article (Muhammad’s promise to Christians) demonstrates that fact quite well.

Muslims have historically treated Christians very well. The fact that some Muslims now have radicalized is due to other factors, not to the Quran, not to Muhammad.

Way to a Christian Virtue

2010-07-29T11:08:00.000-07:00

From Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims (his sequel to Human, All Too Human, quoted from The Portable Nietzsche, p. 66):

Way to a Christian virtue. Learning from one's enemies is the best way toward loving them; for it makes us grateful to them.

What a great comment not only on loving one's enemies, but on the Old Testament command to welcome the stranger (foreigner) -- and then, of course, on our current discussion on immigration and the recent Arizona law (which just yesterday was put on hold by a federal judge).

Jesus the Politician

2010-03-08T13:24:00.001-08:00

It's cute, quaint, and totally wrong -- but I hear it frequently when I get into political "discussions" with other Christians. At some point (I suspect it's usually when they sense they're losing the argument) they will tell me: "Well, we shouldn't be arguing about this stuff, because you didn't see Jesus making political speeches and campaigning or fighting for social causes. He was all about changing lives, one individual at a time. The important thing is getting to heaven, not politics or social justice."

Seven quick points:

There is no such thing as a human action that is not political. All human actions are political, because there is no human action that has no effect on fellow human beings. None. All of my actions, even if done in secret, have an effect on my identity, and unless I live in complete, total solitude somewhere, I will interact with other human beings at some later time, and I will do that on the basis of who I am, which includes every act I have ever committed. There is no such thing as a human action that is not political.
Jesus died as the result of a political execution. Crucifixion was reserved for enemies of the Empire. His calls for allegiance clearly were threatening to the powers that be.
The concept of the "kingdom of God" is not a call to have your mind drifting among the clouds. It is a call to live out the kingship or the reign of God in your life each day. "Kingdom of God" does NOT equal "church," though we would hope there would be a great deal of overlap. But, just as there are parts of my own life that are not fully under God's reign, so there are parts of his creation that are in rebellion against him. In fact, the whole creation is fallen, and "waits with eager longing" for the redemption promised to the children of God so that the whole "creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21). Ultimately, God's plan is to bring everything he created back under his reign. That is the kingdom of God.
When Paul the Apostle tells Christians that their "citizenship is in heaven," he is not telling them to abandon God's creation as if it were worthless. After all, when God created it, he pronounced it good. Yes, it is fallen, but that pronouncement was never reversed or taken back. Even the "burn it up" text of 2 Peter 3 includes a "new heavens and new earth" clause, equivalent (perhaps) to Paul's (2 Cor. 5) and John's (Revelation 22) "new creation" concept.
Jesus' ministry is a revival of part of the Jewish tradition that seems to have been neglected in his day -- the tradition of the Hebrew prophets. That's why he uses Isaiah's text in Luke 4 as a paradigm for his ministry. The prophets, of course, were staunch advocates of social justice. Just as all human acts are political, all human sin is social sin. The Hebrew prophets address societal and systemic sin = oppressive social systems. The "system" was rigged to advantage the rich over the poor and to oppress the widows, orphans and strangers. God's "justice" isn't to give a person what he or she deserves, it is to defend the defenseless, to show mercy to the people who are disadvantaged. "Give the king your justice, O God," begins Ps. 72. When the king has God's justice, it is shown in his acts of mercy: "For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight" (Ps. 72:12-14; cf. Isa. 1:17, et al.).
There is no concept in the Bible that is equivalent to the modern concept of the individual. Our modern concept is just that: modern, having been invented during the modern or Enlightenment era by such philosophers as Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant. This concept was unavailable to the ancient writers, for whom the human being is always a part of some community or communities. Even in the famous "the soul that sins shall die" text of Ezekiel 18 must be understood communally. The sins Ezekiel lists in that chapter are societal and communal sins (for some, you have to check their context in, for instance, the holiness code of Leviticus 18). Yes, the "individual" will be held responsible -- for sins against the covenant people and the covenant God. To break covenant with God is to mess up the people's covenant with God (the covenant context is explicitly set up in Ez. 17). So, even here it is a mistake to read into the ancient text a modern concept of the individual.
Jesus, therefore, also did not have our modern concept of the individual, and salvation in the New Testament is not individualistic. Nowhere do you find one of our favorite modernistic construals of salvation: "You must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." It's not a biblical phrase and not a biblical concept. Salvation is always corporate: it occurs "in Christ." Count the number of times in Ephesians 1 you find the phrase "in Christ" or its equivalent. All of God's blessings on Christians, including that of salvation, are said to occur "in Christ."

Summary: if you understand Jesus in the way proposed in the introductory paragraph above, you've misunderstood Jesus. That's not a judgment on your salvation, just on your scholarly preparation.

If someone were to want to do the scholarly preparation, here are three books you should start with -- all by John Howard Yoder, one of the foremost scholars of the New Testament in the last half of the 20th century.

John Howard Yoder, The Original Revolution (Herald Press, 1971).
John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Eerdmans, 1972).
John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: The Gospel as Social Ethics (Notre Dame, 1984).

Obama's Secret Prisons

2010-02-05T08:37:00.000-08:00

Here's one that should make all my Republican Anti-Obama friends happy:

Does the Obama administration have their own "Gitmo"? If this article is true, nothing has changed except the names and locations. We're still torturing people.

The creation of a "liberal"

2010-02-02T18:49:00.000-08:00

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11015

Point one: I'm not a "liberal," really. I'm philosophically and morally conservative.

Point two: I get called "liberal" because I don't accept the arguments about the alleged "good" of capitalism. Of course, even "liberal Democrats" in America accept those arguments. Strange world we live in.

The root issue, it seems to me, is that I really believe that we as a society have an obligation to take care of our weakest members -- those who cannot take care of themselves. And I believe that capitalism resembles the card game we used to play: "Poverty," a game in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The game is rigged to the advantage of those who are already winning. It is VERY difficult for a person who has been dealt a bad hand to EVER rise to the top of the heap.

And that's what capitalism seems to do: those of us who grew up in privilege -- in good, American middle class homes -- have lots of advantages. I'm grateful that I received a good education, that I had enough motivation (just barely!) to work hard enough in college to succeed; that my Christian parents and my church instilled in me not only a half-way decent work ethic, but the values that made me want to do "something meaningful" with my life.

But what about the people who didn't have those advantages? Unfortunately, I've seen people -- kids from areas of New York City and Philadelphia that didn't readily welcome white people -- who couldn't see college or a successful career as a real possibility for them. Of course, when working with those kids, we tried to tell them they could be and do anything they really wanted to be or do. Many times they just didn't believe us. We could not make the possibilities we took for granted seem like real options for them. All they could see, much of the time, was a future of poverty and welfare, or crime and an early death.

What made their vision so limited? I don't know all the factors, but it just seemed to them like going to college would be like, well, hitting the lottery. Sure, it could happen. But what are the odds? So, these kids needed help in reshaping their view of the world so that they might actually attempt something we would take for granted. The world they lived in had so conditioned their view of reality and of our society that they could not see my "obvious possibilities" as real for them. The "system" of our society disadvantaged them.

And then we could talk about racism. Most of the kids I'm thinking about were black. A few were Hispanic. They were certain that college was for rich white kids. So, even if we told them that racism didn't really exist in college admissions, they weren't likely to believe it. Even if we told them that racism wouldn't keep them from getting a good job after college, they would be very skeptical. They'd seen examples. Can't argue with history, right?

So, like it or not, I came to believe that some people just really do need a "boost" of some kind, and that some of those "boosts" would have to be in the form of social programs. Not just "giving a handout," but in really trying to help people better their lives, better themselves.

But, I believe it is necessary to do this because, as a Christian, I believe we have an obligation to the poor. We have an obligation to help them help themselves, and if necessary to see to it that they have sufficient food, shelter, and even health care. Does that make me a "liberal"? Whatever. What I'm talking about is conserving a long Christian tradition of taking care of the poor and helping them help themselves. I say that makes me a conservative.

Christianity and Islam -- peaceful coexistence?

2010-02-02T18:32:00.000-08:00

See this article in the Al Jazeera magazine:

Muhammad’s promise to Christians

President Obama and the Just War Argument

2009-12-18T08:47:00.000-08:00

Though President Obama's decision to "surge" in Afghanistan should not have been unexpected by the American public, I was grieved to finally hear the announcement. I was surprised -- and happily -- that he enunciated a defense of the military efforts there in terms of the classic "just war" theory because it seems to me that we Americans always assume our wars to be "just" simply because they always seem to be defending "our freedoms" or "our way of life." In other words, we rarely question our nation, and we do so only on the most selfish level. Even protests against the Viet Nam war for the most part only dwelt on the issue of whether or not America had some kind of national interest at stake, so that if we did NOT have a vested national interest, then we should NOT be fighting in Viet Nam.

Such an explanation flies in the face of classic "just war" arguments. One of the primary qualifications for "just war" in those arguments is that the war CANNOT be fought for selfish purposes.

So, again, it was good to hear our President articulate a logical defense of his decision to surge. In part, it was good to hear because it may become clearer to all of us that this war and the one we are fighting in Iraq are indeed NOT "just." We are invaders in foreign countries; we are attempting to spread our empire; we are not fighting by just means. Thus our wars are not just, according to "just war" theory.

For an insightful analysis of President Obama's speech on the surge, see this short piece by Professor Stanley Hauerwas:

http://hopeofalltheworld.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-do-you-know-war-is-war.html

"Peace on earth." (unidentified angels)

Death Panels

2009-12-11T20:51:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, yada yada yada -- people claiming that the proposed health care reforms include "death panels" have gotten some folks pretty upset, including some people pretty close and dear to me. They cannot understand how I could support the reform of our health care system when it includes death panels = the plan to kill of the elderly because their health care would cost the system too much.

Now, I have to admit I'm insulted that someone would think I was in favor of such a proposal, since I do love my parents and want them to live as long as possible, so long as THEY are happy with their quality of life!!!! To be honest, I want them to live longer than that, but they've talked to me over the years about not wanting to live out the end of their days hooked to machines in a hospital room. It's hard for me to talk to them about it, but they have "no heroic measures" clauses in their living will statements. I will be very hard to convince that we should "pull the plug" (even writing that makes me shudder) at any time when there is still breath in them. But they have already made some decisions, far ahead of time, about their desired quality of life. And they've forced me to think about those issues for my own life as well. And though I love my parents, my siblings and I may at some point have to make some very, very difficult decisions. But we will do that with full consideration of my parents' wishes.

That being said: it is insulting to me for someone to claim that I -- or in general people who favor the reform of the American health care system -- want to kill off our parents because we don't think their lives are worth paying to preserve. But that is how some of the hate-mongers in our country have portrayed this effort, including Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. They are lying and they need to repent.

Is it even logical to think that the people who are promoting this reform all want to kill off their parents? I mean -- they're not teenagers! It just makes no sense to think that they want to do that. And they don't.

On the other hand, maybe they just don't know what's in there! Maybe the wicked writers of the bill have hidden the "death panel" provision somewhere in there, and since the bill is so long (so they criticize), people who are promoting it haven't even read it! They're just ignorant, and the wicked Obama-wizard wants to keep them that way so he can kill old people.

Ok -- really? The bill is out there for public viewing. But it's so nice and easy to assume Palin and Beck are right (because, after all, they're conservatives, and they are Christians!!!), and to attribute horrid, horrible motives to the "liberals," so, well, it MUST be true.

So I decided to check into it myself. Here's what I found.

The bill that was passed by the house ("America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," available at http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf) has a provision in Section 1236 (pp. 438-443) for a "DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON USE OF PATIENT DECISIONS AIDS." This is the provision that has been construed as the attempt to establish "death panels."

A "patient decision aid" is defined as:

an educational tool (such as the Internet, a video, or a pamphlet) that helps patients (or, if appropriate, the family caregiver of the patient) understand and communicate their beliefs and preferences related to their treatment options, and to decide with their health care provider what treatments are best for them based on their treatment options, scientific evidence, circumstances, beliefs, and preferences.

So, what this program intends to do is to make sure patients fully understand their treatment options and have thought through them based on their OWN BELIEFS AND PREFERENCES. Now, having been a cancer patient over the last year, let me assure you of how important this is! I'm grateful for the treatment I received, but I admit I have been surprised a time or two during the process because I did NOT understand all the implications. I wish I had had better information, information I could understand, and had been able to think through it all better. But I was so overwhelmed by the thought of having cancer, and the treatment options were of a wide variety, and I just couldn't get my head around it -- and in part I didn't want to. I just wanted to get it over with. Thankfully my wife had her wits about her throughout the process, so I had good guidance even when I didn't have a clue what was going on. But I've wished I'd understood better, and this provision is trying to accomplish just that sort of thing.

And it wants to do so by establishing "a shared decision making demonstration program . . . under the Medicare program using patient decision aids to meet the objective of improving the understanding by Medicare beneficiaries of their medical treatment options."

The section says: "An eligible provider participating in the program shall routinely schedule Medicare beneficiaries for a counseling visit after the viewing of such a patient decision aid to answer any questions the beneficiary may have with respect to the medical care of the condition involved and to assist the beneficiary in thinking through how their preferences and concerns relate to their medical care." Death panel? Get real.

Now, I can see how the phrase "shared decision making" could spook someone. But here's how the bill defines it:

The term ‘‘shared decision making’’ means a collaborative process between patient and clinician that engages the patient in decision making, provides patients with information about trade-offs among treatment options, and facilitates the incorporation of patient preferences and values into the medical plan.

If the test program is established (i.e., if the bill is signed into law), it is ordered to create a final report within a year of its end. That report must "include an evaluation of the impact of the use of the program on health quality, utilization of health care services, and on improving the quality of life of such beneficiaries." In other words, the intent of the program is to make sure people understand their treatment options, make sure their own beliefs and wishes become part of the treatment plan (so that the doctors can't just push for their own preferred treatment), and in general to try to improve the quality of life of the patients.

It is NOT A DEATH PANEL. Its intent is not to counsel someone to end their life, or to tell someone that their life has become too expensive for the system to maintain. Anyone who tells you different either has not read the bill or is lying.

Some folks have insisted that this provision will result in the government sending out "little blue pills" (i.e., "suicide pills") with instructions to old folks that they have to take it because the government will no longer pay for their health care. People who make such outrageous claims are using scare tactics and lies to manipulate the elderly and the already "anti-liberal" into protesting against this reform effort. That's just plain wrong.

Observations on the Health Care Argument

2009-10-15T22:21:00.000-07:00

I posted a link on Facebook for people to petition the Democratic Congressional leaders on behalf of the Public Option as part of health care reform. (Yes, some are afraid they're going to abandon it.) So, though I just post these things for people who would want to follow up if they want or to ignore if they don't (I even said that in the post!), some people can't resist commenting/arguing. And the comments seemed to go on and on, and all while I wasn't looking. So, here's a few observations that are specific to comments already posted there on my Facebook wall. Feel free to read. Or ignore.

Jesus died in a political execution. To claim he had no interaction with the political systems of his day is not only to miss that fact, but also to miss the fact that he borrows not only the words but the program of the OT prophets. See his statements in the synagogue in Luke 4, for instance. A thorough study of the concept of the “kingdom of God” will also lead to the prophets and to concepts of justice and mercy.
“The poor you always have with you” was not a social program but an observation about the continual injustice of political (and perhaps economic) systems.
To observe that the present system can be abused, and to argue that a reformed system might or will also be abused, is not an argument against reform.
To argue that we can’t get a perfect system is also not an argument against reform, but better understood as a warning that the process will likely take a long time and go through several stages.
Since capitalism is a conscious effort to eliminate ethical input into the economic system, and Marxism is an effort to put ethics INTO the economic system, it can be argued that Marxism could (if truly employed – which it has never been) is more ethical than capitalism. So, to label a reformed system as “neo-marxist” isn’t an argument against reform of the health care system to make it more ethical. It plays well in Oklahoma as a scare tactic, of course.
As James pointed out, we’re already paying for health care of people who don’t have insurance. But putting some insurance regulations in place has the intention of keeping the costs down for everyone. It will not be free to anyone, except those who are verifiably unable to contribute. The intent of the program is to have everyone contribute and everyone benefit. Certainly good stewardship is important, but from a Biblical perspective no stewardship that excludes justice for the poor would be called “good.”
If we exclude WWJD from the argument, then, yes, we end in moral relativism. I think Harold is right about that. If we don’t have divine input into our ethics, then we’re just making it all up, and then the strong get their way and Mao was right: “truth is found at the end of a gun.” Oh – but that’s pretty close to what we have going right now!
Speaking of stewardship: Jesus statement about giving to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s needs to be understood as the best gag Jesus ever pulled, since Jesus knew, and his opponents there SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, that in reality none of this stuff belongs to Caesar, but it all belongs to God. So Jesus walks away unscathed -- no doubt scratching his head and wondering how his good Jewish opponents could have missed that one. Now, since it all belongs to God, we have to think pretty carefully about what we do with it. I don’t expect our government to be Christian in any way, shape or form, but I do want it to be more just.
Final comment on justice: while we tend to define it as “getting what one deserves,” in the OT prophets (and even in the Psalms) “justice” is equated with taking care of the helpless: the widows, the orphans, the aliens. So, in essence “justice” in the OT means “acts of mercy.” See Isaiah 1:17, for instance, or Psalm 71:1-4.

Beating up Jesus

2009-09-22T19:01:00.000-07:00

Pat Boone has recently written about several statements made by President Obama. (You should read his column on the Newsmax.com website [http://www.newsmax.com/boone/Obama_Muslims_Christians/2009/06/08/222718.html] before reading my comments.) At the top of Boone’s column you’ll find the following statements from Mr. Obama:
"We're no longer a Christian nation." - President Barack Obama, June 2007

"America has been arrogant." - President Barack Obama

"After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals."- President Barack Obama

"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Boone then states: “I keep wondering what country be believes he’s president of.”

Now, a political column by a 1950s pop star would not normally be worthy of comment, except that I have seen it passed around with great approval by Christians, and by some that might be considered prominent. Unfortunately, there are some real problems with Boone’s comments – both logical and historical.

First of all, Mr. Boone needs to pay attention to the context of President Obama’s comments. Meaning is derived from context, and Boone has excerpted these remarks out of their original context and placed them alone at the head of his column. If I were to do the same to Boone’s column, I might comment quite truly that Boone wrote, "Damn the United States ! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!"

Or further, it could be truly stated that Boone makes a case for the US being a Jewish nation. Yes, read his column and you’ll see it.

Boone also refers to the story by Edward Everett Hale, “A Man Without a Country,” but tells it as if it were really true. He begins by saying it is one of his favorite stories, but then recounts the movie version in which the main character, Philip Nolan, damns America. Boone remarks: “The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: ‘You have just pronounced your own sentence.’”

Um, Pat – it’s fiction! I’m glad it moves you to tears, but it has no bearing whatsoever on reality. And people who can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality . . . . Oh, nevermind.

But the fiction continues as Boone asks President Obama: “Just what country do you think you’re president of?” And this because, according to Pat, “America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception!”

Uh, really? You mean the nation that arrogantly committed genocide on the original residents of “our country,” many of whom continue to live in poverty on “reservations”? And the history of the “reservations” in my state of Oklahoma is more than enough to make you want a dictionary definition of the word “reservation,” or at least wonder if it has any concrete meaning at all!

Do you mean the nation that imported and enslaved Africans for a couple of centuries, and in which civil rights were only for white people until the 1960s, and in which those civil rights for black people had to be won through long and difficult battles? And the nation in which bigotry is still rampant?

And Pat – aren’t you a citizen of the nation that also invaded Viet Nam and fought an unjust war there? And secretly bombed Cambodia? And . . . . And . . . the list could go on for pages. Sorry, Pat, but I cannot accept your arrogant claim that America has not been arrogant. BTW: “imperialism” probably equals “arrogance.” For the record.

For which of these actions do we get to be called “Christian”? If I understand the Bible much at all, it seems clear that the nation of Israel was condemned by its God because of its injustices, especially toward the weakest members of its society (the orphans, widows and the foreigners). Can we hope that we have done better? I think not.

But Boone goes on to claim that 70% of Americans claim to be Christian. I suppose that could be true. It will, of course, depend greatly on which poll numbers you accept. At any rate, it’s interesting to note that Boone was once a member of the Churches of Christ but was essentially run out because of his beliefs in spiritual gifts. He can now be seen on some of the Christian cable channels from time to time. You might think he would be a little sensitive about Christians who refuse to accept the faith of others who call themselves Christians. Hmmmph. Nope – he questions the Christianity of Obama’s home church in Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ, and asked if that’s where he got the idea that America has been arrogant. So, let me get this straight: Boone is arrogantly asking if Obama’s church, which Boone (arrogantly?) has a difficult time calling “Christian,” is the place where Obama learned that America is arrogant. Got it.

So, does that mean that any church that believes that America has been arrogant is no longer really Christian? If so, Pat, you probably just severely cut into your percentage of Christians in America, since many American Christians are black. Given the American history of racism – and isn’t racism inherently arrogant? – and since most American political leaders in our 200 plus year history have been white – seems to me almost impossible to make the claim that America has NOT been arrogant! But in Pat’s view, that would make me not a Christian, so my view will no longer count.

I’m also pretty sure Boone would not accept the “Christianity” of Thomas Jefferson, nor of most of the other “founding fathers,” most of whom had Deist beliefs. Jefferson even published a version of the Christian Gospels that edited out everything that was in any way miraculous, believing all that to be mere superstition. So, for Jefferson, there was no virgin birth, no resurrection, no miracle of any kind. Jesus was just a really nice guy and pretty good moralist. Mr. Boone, would you call him and his Deist friends “Christian”? Highly doubtful.

Of course, those who want to claim that America has always been a Christian nation will tend to overlook the Deist doctrines of the Founding Fathers and point to their alleged “Christian morality” and the idea that the basic ideas of our republic are Christian ideas. An interesting concept, but not demonstrable. Tell me: where in the Bible do you find any talk of “rights”? There is only one passage – 1 Corinthians 9, where Paul the Apostle speaks of the rights he could claim based on his status as apostle, and then clearly states that he has given them up! So, if we Christians are to follow the Biblical pattern concerning rights, not only can we not fight for them, we must give them up! There is no talk anywhere in the Bible about “basic human rights,” or about any “rights” that are “unalienable.” So, while I would argue that Christians should indeed value human lives God has created, to think about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as “rights” is to go outside of Biblical language and concepts. Further, if you believe that “life” is a right, then you cannot justify killing someone to gain that right. To do so would be a self-contradiction. But that is precisely what our Founding Fathers did in the Revolutionary War. So, apparently “life” is only a “right” if you are not standing in the way of my pursuit of happiness. Can the concept of setting aside “life” in favor of “pursuit of happiness” be found anywhere in Christian scripture? No. So, the “Christian principles” of the Founders only guided them so far – to the extent that such “rights” might interfere with their economic pursuits. Not very Christian, I’d say.

Moving on: it is almost laughable – ok, it is COMPLETELY laughable – that Mr. Boone attempts to educate the former law professor about American legal precedent. Talk about arrogance.

Boone also asks President Obama: “Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark ‘Federalist Papers’: ‘Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers’?”
Fair enough. I’d bet my last dollar Obama has not only read, but dissected and taught about the Federalist papers. But we might ask of Mr. Boone: why does this particular opinion of one man continue to matter? If it does, we should do away with the Bill or Rights, because Federalist Paper no. 84 argues that we don’t need it. So, while the opinion of John Jay is important for constitutional law, it is indeed nothing but one man’s opinion. John Jay’s opinion that we are a Christian nation was his pipe dream, nothing more.

Further, since Mr. Boone is presumably speaking as a Christian, we might ask if he can provide any support for Mr. Jay’s statement from Christian scripture. For Christians scripture is supposed to matter more than any other document, even more than the Federalist Papers, so we ultimately have to ask whether Scripture supports the idea that we Christians have the duty to elect Christian rulers. Of course, the answer is no. The viewpoint of the authors of the New Testament, as a whole, is that governments are always pagan and evil, so Christians should have very little to do with them. Certainly the New Testament authors do not envision a “Christian government” or even a “Christian nation.” So, trying to tell us that Christians have a duty to elect Christians to public office, while perhaps now and then a good idea, is certainly an error.

Boone also quotes some statements from the Quran about killing infidels, jihad, etc. Mr. Boone, an opponent of Christianity could also point to passages in the Christian Bible that, for instance, tell the Jewish people to commit genocide on the inhabitants of Palestine (book of Joshua), and pronounce a blessing on those who slam babies of the Babylonians against rocks (Ps. 137). Of course, Mr. Boone might reply that those statements are in the Old Testament and are not directed to Christians. Fair enough. Consider, then, Galatians 5:12, where the Apostle Paul wishes that those who are trying to force Galatian Christian men to circumcise themselves would go a step further and emasculate themselves! So, wishing ill on one’s enemies is not just a Muslim concept.

Furthermore, historically Christians have been quite well treated in areas ruled by Muslims. Unfortunately, the reverse has not been true (does the word "Crusades" mean anything to you?). So, despite Boone’s citation of the Quran coupled with his reference to some contemporary nations which are ruled by “conservative” Muslims, his insinuation that all Muslims want to kill all Christians, or that Muslim nations always persecute their Christian citizens, cannot be upheld. It is simply more right-wing scare-tactics. I would be willing to bet that Boone has never consulted a contemporary Muslim scholar to hear how they interpret those passages in the Quran. I would advise him to do so before he starts throwing around charges of hate and violence.

It should also be noted that Boone’s citation of a Supreme Court decision of 1892 is a fabrication. It’s not Boone’s fabrication, but he has propagated an error that is commonly found in writings that seek to prove the United States is a Christian Nation. Information on the proper citation can be found by clicking on the following links:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2S2J7I203FDVC

As you’ll see, the statement quoted by Boone occurs in a State of Illinois Supreme Court case, so at best would only be binding in the State of Illinois. But, since it is making a statement about the nation as a whole, it is not really rendering a judgment even on Illinois. Again, it is just the opinion of some of the judges in Illinois in the year 1892. It is not binding on our nation as a whole, and is in fact irrelevant.

What Boone (and others) seem to want is something that never has really existed: a Christian United States. Mr. Boone, the America you imagine never existed. You are, therefore, a citizen of a non-nation. Please move back there immediately.

If you do wish to stay here in the real world, we would love to have you contribute to our conversation about how we can all get along in this nation and in this world – all of us, including the Dutch and the English, as well as the Native Americans, the Korean Americans, the Chinese Americans, the Japanese Americans, the African Americans, and the variety of our citizens and immigrants who happen to profess the Muslim faith. But Pat, if you wish to be part of the conversation, you will be required to do better research, think more logically, and speak more politely to other conversation partners. A “power play” by which you try to “take America back for Christians” not only has no historical foundation, it is simply one more episode of attempted coercion by Christians, one more example of hate by professed followers of the Son of the God of love, one more episode that gives Jesus a black eye. Jesus doesn't need to rely on Muslims to beat him up -- his own followers have done a pretty good job.

My dad baptizing my son, Aaron

2009-07-15T19:12:00.000-07:00

________________ New Year!

2009-01-01T09:40:00.000-08:00

I'm afraid to fill in that blank. Those of you who know me at all know I have a real tendency toward the morbid, or at least the cynical. But as I sat and watched the Rose Parade this morning -- go figure -- there I was greeted with a stark reminder that events like the Rose Parade are just the facade some of us use to cover up reality: watching the Sesame Street float waddle down the Pasadena Boulevard, while overhead a B2 bomber glided by and the crowd went wild with cheering at this "awesome sight," this awesome display of death-technology, empire and American military supremacy. The camera left the parade temporarily to focus on the plane, while the commentators praised our soldiers for their sacrifices in "defending our freedom."

Now, back to Sesame Street and Pasadena Boulevard.

I'd already been perusing the BBC headlines, noting that scores had died in a night-club fire in Thailand while celebrating the new year, that Israel had killed a Hamas leader in one of its airstrikes (along with several members of his family), that Israel was refusing to honor the French proposal for a cease fire that would allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, that Russia had shut off the natural gas pipeline into the Ukraine, that the Taleban killed 20 policemen in a raid in Afghanistan, and so on and so on.

I also remember an email I received just yesterday containing pictures gathered from soldiers serving in the fields of both Afghanistan and Iraq -- showing the conditions in which they're spending their "holidays" -- with a reminder that they're sacrificing to protect our freedoms.

How easily people forget that the wars we're fighting were based on lies (Iraq in particular), and that we are the invading, conquering force (well, "conquering" could be disputed) -- that we have disrupted and ended countless lives, many and perhaps most of them INNOCENT of enmity against us, and that in reality there were no real threats against our freedoms. Yes, Sadaam Hussein was an evil man, just as many other national leaders are throughout the world. Yes, Osama bin Laden struck at us and we lost about 5000 lives and two large buildings. The tragedy of those actions should not be minimized -- there were great personal losses; families were broken, lives were lost.

But at the same time, it takes a large and effective propaganda machine to turn those actions into "threats against our freedoms." I guess I could admit they were threats against our freedoms if we also classify mosquitoes as "threats against my blood supply." The American institution and economy are far too large to truly be threatened by those actions, tragic as they were. Our institution and economy, and indeed our freedom, were not really threatened by those actions. What those actions accomplished was this: we got ticked off. They triggered our revenge instinct, so we saddled up and headed out to (in the words of Wiley Miller) "shoot the gol-durned varmints." In other words, we felt that our collective manhood had been called into question, so we had to stand up tall, pound our national chest and launch the weapons. As the first president Bush had said: "As for the manhood question, I'll put mine up against his any day." (I have no idea what he really meant. :-o)

I do know that on an individual basis our soldiers really have given up a great deal to be where they are rather than being at home with their families, and that some of them end up sacrificing their lives. The tragedy there breaks my heart -- but more so because of the lies that underly these sacrifices. I grieve over those losses, just as I grieve over the losses in the Gaza strip this last week, and the losses suffered by both Iraqi and Afghan families. I pray for peace.

And I pray that truth and justice will prevail. Only through truth and justice will we ever approach peace. "Peace" without truth and justice isn't really peace -- it's just a temporary lull in the violence that will resurface at some point when the lies and injustice become too much for people to tolerate.

I also know that as a nation (generally speaking) we want peace. But we become convinced that war is necessary. We become convinced of that idea because we believe the lies, and because we become comfortable in our little corner of the world, and because we think that (generally speaking again) justice really does reign everywhere except for places so remote from us and our reality that they really don't count. In other words, part of the function of the propaganda machine is to convince us that we don't need to worry about those "odd places" where people feel oppressed -- or that we should worry about them only when our comfort seems to be directly threatened. Believing the lie is easier than going after the truth.

Truth is the first casualty of war -- so goes the adage. But further: war is the end result of lies. And one more: Satan is the father of lies.

May we seek truth. May we have a truthful New Year, and may it move us closer to peace.

Stephen, the first martyr

2008-12-26T05:31:00.000-08:00

Because I'm one of those "crazy pacifists," I am sometimes challenged to defend its apparent impracticality. In other words, challengers will say, it sounds great as an ideal, but we live in the "real world," and we all know what happens in the "real world" if you "turn the other cheek": your other cheek gets hit, and harder!

Of course, this objection is true. On the other hand, making peace was never offered to followers of Jesus as a recipe for "success," and in fact, if anyone portrays it as such, they're sadly mistaken. The truth is that, at least sometimes and perhaps often, it will not "work." But "success" and "work" are in quote marks here because their use in the objection employs definitions that Christians cannot accept: they are definitions of worldly power constructed by marketplace values. As Christians, "success" has to be defined by our faithfulness to the one we follow. This is why Christians have always esteemed martyrs: they have been successful.

Today is the feast day of Stephen, the first martyr. You can read his story in Acts 6:8-7:2,44-8:1. The following comment on Stephen's martyrdom is from a sermon of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe.

Yesterday we celebrated the birth in time of our eternal King. Today we celebrate the triumphant suffering of his soldier.

Yesterday our king, clothed in his robe of flesh, left his place in the virgin’s womb and graciously visited the world. Today his soldier leaves the tabernacle of his body and goes triumphantly to heaven.

Our king, despite his exalted majesty, came in humility for our sake; yet he did not come empty-handed. He brought his soldiers a great gift that not only enriched them but also made them unconquerable in battle, for it was the gift of love, which was to bring men to share in his divinity. He gave of his bounty, yet without any loss to himself. In a marvelous way he changed into wealth the poverty of his faithful followers while remaining in full possession of his own inexhaustible riches.

And so the love that brought Christ from heaven to earth raised Stephen from earth to heaven; shown first in the king, it later shone forth in his soldier. Love was Stephen’s weapon by which he gained every battle, and so won the crown signified by his name. His love of God kept him from yielding to the ferocious mob; his love for his neighbor made him pray for those who were stoning him. Love inspired him to reprove those who erred, to make them amend; love led him to pray for those who stoned him, to save them from punishment. Strengthened by the power of his love, he overcame the raging cruelty of Saul and won his persecutor on earth as his companion in heaven. In his holy and tireless love he longed to gain by prayer those whom he could not convert by admonition.

Now at last, Paul rejoices with Stephen, with Stephen he delights in the glory of Christ, with Stephen he exalts, with Stephen he reigns. Stephen went first, slain by the stones thrown by Paul, but Paul followed after, helped by the prayer of Stephen. This, surely, is the true life, my brothers, a life in which Paul feels no shame because of Stephen’s death, and Stephen delights in Paul’s companionship, for love fills them both with joy. It was Stephen’s love that prevailed over the cruelty of the mob, and it was Paul’s love that covered the multitude of his sins; it was love that won for both of them the kingdom of heaven.

Love, indeed, is the source of all good things; it is an impregnable defence,- and the way that leads to heaven. He who walks in love can neither go astray nor be afraid: love guides him, protects him, and brings him to his journey’s end.

My brothers, Christ made love the stairway that would enable all Christians to climb to heaven. Hold fast to it, therefore, in all sincerity, give one another practical proof of it, and by your progress in it, make your ascent together.

God, you wouldn’t do THAT, would you?

2008-12-18T18:52:00.000-08:00

I have prostate cancer. Actually, I can now officially say “had.” Yesterday’s robotic surgery removed the prostate and ALL of the cancer with it. I’ve been overwhelmed with the prayers and concern, and truly humbled by it. Many, many prayers have been offered and answered positively.
Many of you already know the story, and I’m sorry if this is repetitive (but you can stop reading, can’t you?), and I really do not want to be melodramatic. In fact, I made sure to make one old friend promise to NOT start a world-wide 24/7 prayer chain on my behalf. Not that I don’t want prayers or think they don’t mean anything, but I’m a firm believer in God’s gracious guidance over my life, and a firm believer that God will do what is best for the people who mean the most to me. God and I have had a continual 3½ month conversation about this thing, so he’s well aware of all the angles I can possibly conceive.
So, here’s the story. I had a routine blood screen a few weeks ago, on September 5, because my prescription for cholesterol medicine had run out and I didn’t have more refills without having my liver enzymes checked, i.e., a blood test. The routine blood test showed an elevated PSA level – about 7 – which raised a “yellow flag” for Dr. Geoff Hoover. Geoff sent me to a specialist, Dr. Stephen Archer, a urologist, for further investigation.
Dr. Archer, on September 26, examined me. (Now comes the gory details, so if you don’t want to know, skip a few paragraphs!) First, I had to give a urine sample, which turned up negative. Dr. Archer even asked if I’d been sick on the day they took the blood at Dr. Hoover’s office, to which I answered no. He then had to do the “DRE” (if you don’t know what that is, consider yourself very fortunate! Thank God for doctors with small hands.)
The DRE showed nothing, so he ordered another blood test, which again showed an elevated PSA, this time up to 11. When the results came back from that test the next week, he ordered a biopsy, which he did on October 10. The biopsy showed cancer in both sides of the prostate.
Next step was to try to determine whether or not the cancer was isolated in the prostate or had spread. On Monday of this week, October 20, I had a bone scan. The next day, Tuesday, October 21, I had a CAT scan.
Apparently, something turned up on the bone scan, so Dr. Archer ordered an Xray on the 8th and 9th ribs. That was done on October 24 in place of the consultation with the Dr. we’d had scheduled for that day. That was more than a little disconcerting, and we had to wait over the weekend – the consultation was pushed back to the 28th (the next Tuesday). But Dr. Archer got the results on Monday morning, and called immediately to tell me that the Xray was negative – which meant that the cancer had not spread outside of the prostate.
At that point, we began thinking about treatments. Because of my “young age” (at least for this kind of disease ;-) ), surgery was the recommended treatment. Radiation might allow the cancer to re-emerge in the prostate at a later date, or ro re-emerge somewhere else, and if I have radiation now it would no longer be a possibility in the future. Even the “proton therapy” is radiation – though with a newer and presumably better method of delivery. Despite potential problems, surgery is the cure here.
So, we decided to look into the robotic surgery method, which led us to go to Dr. Mays in Midwest City, who works out of Midwest Regional Medical Center where they have one of the robots (the “DaVinci” robot). Everything about this process seemed positive, so we elected to have the surgery on Dec. 17th. The robotic procedure is less radical than the “strip mining” old method, with less recovery time, less blood loss, and fewer side effects afterward. Sounds great, but waiting from early November until December 17th seemed like a bit of a risk, especially to Mendy, so Dr. Mays recommended a hormone shot to keep the cancer from spreading until the surgery. I had that shot back on November 7th. The side effects have been minimal.
At any rate, last Sunday was the feast day of St. John of the Cross, a 16th century Spanish mystic and poet and truly one of the great spiritual giants in the history of Christianity. I noticed Friday as I read about him that he had died at age 49. Rats. I’m 49. On the other hand, there are so few other parallels between my life and John of the Cross that. . . . Well, you get the picture.
Further, December 17 was the feast day of . . . Lazarus. Yeah, you know – they guy who Jesus let die and then resurrected him. That was NOT what I wanted to hear! I wanted something like Saint George who slew the dragon! Why couldn’t Wednesday have been HIS feast day?
And finally, those of you who know me well know how much I “love” Stamps-Baxter songs (just as much as I love reality shows and Barry Manilow and, well, cancer!), and last Sunday in church the last song we sang was one of those: “Victory in Jesus!” God, you wouldn’t make my last ever song sung in church one of those, would you? No way. Of course, I could have just refused to sing it, but the song just before it, though not of the Stamps-Baxter genre, was just as bad, and I’d sang along with it already. So I went ahead and sang along with “Victory in Jesus,” knowing I’ll be back in a couple of weeks.
On a serious note, some of my friends have wondered about my recent obsession (?) with the saints of the Roman Catholic calendar. Not really an obsession, but I admire holiness, and these folks were indeed (usually) incredibly holy. If the writer of the sermon we call “Hebrews” in the New Testament can call upon a “great cloud of witnesses” with the knowledge that these are God’s holy ones who apparently now dwell with God yet continue to witness to the gospel, well, maybe a few of these can also fill that role.

A Thanksgiving Meditation

2008-11-27T08:31:00.000-08:00

http://www.alternet.org/story/108876/

America's Role in World Politics

2008-09-27T08:48:00.001-07:00

Last week I heard a prayer offered on behalf of our upcoming election. The prayer asked for national guidance that we would select the man who would lead America in such a manner that "it would rise again to be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth."

Many people, including me, had a problem with that, especially a number of non-Americans in the congregation at that time! Personally, I'm thinking about petitioning the elders to supply barf bags in the song book racks.

I probably don't need to offer any comment on that prayer -- the blatant nationalism, the subjugation of God to our national agenda -- these are clear. On the other hand, why not?

A little more subtle assumption of this prayer is that America has LOST its prominence! How interesting. Darn it, W, how could you let that happen? You need a louder rattle on your sabre! Maybe you should take that $700,000,000,000 (gotta stop -- running out of zeros) and spend it on more military might! That'll show those turds who's boss! Obviously you've been spending way too much time at the negotiating table and not enough where it really counts! Obviously the last eight years have been a miserable failure. Go figure -- W dodged his military service (for the most part). What we need now is a seasoned war hero! Let's hit 'em with a little McPain! (Or would that violate the Geneva Convention's definition of torture? O, wait -- we don't care about that. Sorry, my bad.)

I could go on, but it's Saturday morning, and I've only had one cup of espresso (so far).

But, another assumption: God WANTS the U.S. to dominate! Well, aren't we the most righteous, most just, fairest nation of them all? Mirror, mirror, on the wall. . . . If we would just actually look into the mirror we would see that such claims are preposterous. In fact, I doubt that ANY nation should make ANY claim to "righteousness." Almost by definition, nations pursue self-interest, and national self-interest always comes at the expense of the self-interests of other nations. In fact, "self-interest" itself is nowhere near any Christian virtue! Events in the history of our westward expansion could be cited here to debunk the "righteous nation" claim, but let's not go there. Would God want us to dominate the world? I can't imagine why.

Third assumption: that God might actually answer the prayer! We just ASSUME God is on our side -- because of our righteousness, I guess. Let's see, going back to the thoughts of the previous paragraph: "No one is righteous, no not one." "All our righteousness is like 'filthy rags'" (if you don't know what the "filthy rags" refers to, look it up -- pretty gruesome analogy). So, we're just asking God to underwrite our national agenda. (Sarcasm begins here.) So, of COURSE he'll do that! I mean, clearly we're God's chosen nation -- the ones God wants to bless! We're such great people, and he wants us to spread the gospel of democracy to all the world, right? So, we have the mandate to spread democracy even to people who don't want it or don't understand it, and if they resist, well, we have the God-given right to cram it down their throats, wrapped around the barrel of our guns if necessary. (End sarcasm . . . for now.)

"But what about Romans 13?" I can hear someone asking. Doesn't that state that God puts all governments in place? Therefore if we win a battle or war, it's because God wills it. And since we indeed have been the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, that's God's tacit endorsement of our nation and its agenda of world domination.

I've written on this in a previous post, so now I'll briefly comment: no. It doesn't mean that. If anything, it shows that we are in the position of the nations in the OT that God moves around like chess pieces on a board in order to maintain relative peace in the world. Being utilized by God in that sense says absolutely NOTHING about our alleged "righteousness." In fact, since God uses all things to work for good, it means he can even turn evil into good. And it's not that God causes evil things to happen, but that he can take the evil that humans create and perform on each other to somehow work for general good. So God can take the evil inclinations of a nation and use them for his own purposes. I mean, if nations are going to do evil anyway, why not try to bring some good out of it?!

Finally, there is the assumption, built onto the previous assumptions, that helping the US attain world domination is inherently Christian -- something Christians should endorse (because it is clearly God's purpose and work) and in which they should participate.

On the other hand, if it is truly an inherently evil and selfish goal, and merely one more example of God using selfish national interests to somehow keep relative peace in the world, then Romans 13 cannot be used to validate Christian participation in such enterprises.

Funny how "freedom of religion," as one of our "basic rights," can turn us into warriors for the Prince of Peace. Ok, not so funny.

Photo Essay by Phillip Toledano

2008-09-20T15:49:00.000-07:00

Photo essay called "America: The Gift Shop," Toledano's commentary on the Bush administration. Thanks to Michael O'Keefe, Professor of Art and Design at Oklahoma Christian University, for pointing me to this work.

Perhaps you may want to start with this introduction/commentary on the display from the Word Press blogs.

The direct link to the display is:

http://www.americathegiftshop.com/#/start

I would love to be proud of my country. Right now, I'm not.

9-11

2008-09-11T15:41:00.000-07:00

I've noticed lots of Facebook status notes about people remembering where they were on the morning of 9/11/2001 when the planes hit the WTC in New York and the Pentagon, and crashed in Pennsylvania. Personally, I was jarred. It was heart-rending. I have a difficult time watching even fictional television shows that depict horrendous violence -- especially on children -- because of grief over the amount of hate in the world. Events like this make me apologize to God on behalf of the human race. We're a sorry lot. Period.

Unfortunately, such events happen in our world on almost a daily basis. We here in the U. S. just aren't used to such things -- they usually only happen in distant countries we can barely pronounce, let alone find on a map. But they are there, every day. Every day there are people somewhere whose lives are torn apart by horrendous and unnecessary evil. But in the U.S., we're more or less insulated from those stories, and this insulation has led us to believe that we're somehow exempt -- or should be -- from such violence. Well, EVERYONE should be, not just Americans.

Christians long ago gave a name to such horrendous, pervasive evil: original sin. Yes, I believe in original sin -- though not the Augustinian version that focuses on a (more or less) "genetic defect" handed down through the sex-act by which a person is conceived. I believe in what I think is Thomas Aquinas's version of the doctrine: that "original sin" names what is essentially a sociological phenomenon. In other words, "original sin" names the pervasiveness of evil -- the ubiquitous nature of evil that so deeply inhabits our world that no individual can escape it, save Jesus.

Read Ephesians 2.1-2 and think about what it means for one to be "dead in trespasses." What does it mean to be dead? "Dead" in verse 1 is the same as verse 3's "we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else." In other words, there is something here about who we are at our deepest level.

Now, Ephesians 4.17-22: notice the effects of sin on the human person. It goes to the very depths of the person, to the point that one's thinking itself becomes corrupt: what is right seems wrong, and what is wrong seems right.

In other words, for me it is a mistake to think about 9-11 as something "those evil people did to us," "us" meaning "the good guys." We're not any less evil, on the whole, than those who hijacked the planes. This "war" we're fighting is not a "good vs. evil" war -- President Bush's claims notwithstanding.

Now, I know some people have just quit reading because they will think what I just said is completely ridiculous. Fair enough -- some minds can't be changed (another characteristic of the power of evil!). On the other hand, there is evidence. Let's think about it from the point of view of those who are at war with us.

Why are they at war with us? I mean -- doesn't everyone want to be American? They must be jealous -- right? Jealous of our freedoms -- that's why President Bush repeatedly says that "they hate our freedoms."

Well, I suspect they do hate our freedoms, because they value certain moral injunctions more than they value American-style freedoms. They don't WANT their young women to dress the way many young women dress in America -- nor do they want their young men to dress like American young men! They don't WANT to go to the movies and see the things common in American movies. They don't WANT to be able to download porn on the internet. And the list, I'm sure, could go on much further. (Yes, I know there are political issues as well.) If it is true that "they hate our freedom," then perhaps we can see why.

So, in their understanding (the understanding of the radical Muslims who declare themselves at war with us = only a small minority of Muslims) they are fighting against evil. It is an evil so dark that it, in their minds, is worth killing or being killed over. And many American Christians would agree with the idea that our society as a whole is sex-obsessed, violent and corrupt.

A second issue, however, is also important to note at this point -- and here's what got me thinking in this direction. Because the anniversary of 9/11 has just came and went, some attention was drawn to the event itself and to the U.S.'s response to it -- i.e., the "war on terror." Sorrow over loss was mingled with calls for patriotism and revenge. I ran across this video. Take a look. I'll wait here.

Now, I know the person who put it together has really good intentions. I don't know his/her religious affilation (if any), but putting the bagpipe rendition of "Amazing Grace" behind some of the pics at least puts it in the "Christian Ballpark" (if there is such a thing). And the person who sent it to me (with approval) is a Christian. As I watched it, I found myself asking: "Where's the grace?" as the bagpipes rang out. Indeed -- where is the grace? Where is the forgiveness? Where is the love for our enemies? Aren't we told that vengeance belongs to God alone?

No, we shouldn't forget what happened seven years ago on September 11. Those who were killed were killed unjustly and even criminally. Real families suffered real loss of people of tremendous importance in their lives -- people who can never be replaced. You don't "get over" that kind of loss. You merely learn to live with it, if you're lucky.

I wish Christians in the United States would learn to love our enemies. Loving them wouldn't mean saying that they were right in attacking us, or in the continuation of suicide bombings in Bahgdad and other cities in Iraq. But it does mean letting go of the vengeance motive. It means recognizing real hurt, but foregoing the hate rather than contributing to the amount of hate already in the world.

I believe the power to do this comes through Jesus -- the one who saw the complete picture of evil in the world, felt it come down on his shoulders, and willingly succumbed to it. And he died with forgiveness on his lips.

Getting the News

2008-08-22T15:56:00.001-07:00

There is a lot of talk out there about how biased the news agencies are in the US. "Conservatives" talk about "liberal bias," and "liberals" talk about "conservative bias."

First, I think the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are completely useless and misleading -- except that they tell more about the one using them than about those they're labeling! The only thing "conservative" means is "that person is somewhere to my right" on the ideological or theological scale, and "liberal" means only "that person is somewhere to my left" on one (or both) of those scales. So, if you really want people to know where YOU are, go around labeling others! Let me know how that works out.

Second, in the historical sense the word "liberal" has functioned as the opposite of "conservative." So, what is a "conservative"? Well, it's someone who wants to conserve something -- some tradition he or she thinks is important. "Liberals," on the other hand, are those who want "tradition" to go away and want everyone to "think for themselves." This is what the philosophical movement known as "The Enlightenment" preached: "think for yourself," which Kant said meant to think independently of tradition, community, church, political authorities, religious authorities and even the Bible (witness his famous book, Religion Within The Bounds of Reason Alone). This "Enlightenment" itself became a tradition, of course (see the works of Alasdair MacIntyre to see this history laid out clearly) -- to the point that the very concept "think for yourself" became completely unquestionable.

But, what it meant was "think without tradition." Those who consciously and conscientiously thought within the tradition were the "conservatives" who wanted to conserve the tradition. Those who purported to "think for themselves" were the liberals.

So, since in our culture the concept of thinking for oneself has become part of our intellectual and cognitive furniture, we by definition are liberals. Now, in our country there are indeed a variety of types of liberals: there are "right-wing" liberals like Rush Limbaugh, and "left-wing" liberals like Al Gore, but they're all still liberals because they all claim to be thinking for themselves without the benefit of tradition. In our country we think everyone has to figure it all out for themselves.

The truth is that no one really can do that. We all rely on the thoughts of others, whether it's great minds of the past (like Kant, or Thomas Aquinas or Einstein), or just the books we've read. We all think within communities, and communities have histories that are called "traditions." The Enlightenment itself became a tradition! We learn what it means to be "rational" because of traditions of thought, and we learn what counts as evidence. In essence, we learn what is a "good thought" and what is not a good thought. These things are just handed on to us as "the way things work." They are part of our intellectual and rational furniture.

So, OF COURSE the news agencies have biases! Though they want to claim they are completely unbiased, to be unbiased is impossible. And in the United States, even the "liberal" news agencies (if such there are) are still very much slanted toward providing the news that seems relevant to people in the US, and that is generally pro-American. It's the same with the "liberals" as with the "conservatives." They all provide news that is biased toward the viewers -- toward citizens of the United States. Even NPR ("National Public Radio"), which I like very much and listen to almost daily, and may be the best news agency in the US, is biased.

So, since I don't trust ANY news agency to give me all the relevant news or all of the details of any one story that may be important, I make it a point to read news written by non-Americans. I have three RSS feeds on my web browser: NPR, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), and the Arab news service Al Jazeera (yes, the one that publishes Osama bin Laden's videos every now and then).

In addition, I pay attention to "Alternet," an organization that is decidedly liberal in its politics and ethics, but frequently gives a side to stories that you won't typically get on major US news programs. Frankly, it's often refreshing, though very much biased against religious views.

So: get the news. Don't believe everything you hear on the US news outlets -- they're owned by major corporations and they serve their owners' interests, not the interests of the American people. By the same token, don't believe everything you hear on NPR, BBC, Alternet or Al Jazeera! But at least give yourself a chance to hear different points of view so you can make an informed decision. One thing traditionally valued by Christians is good information, and loving our enemies by hearing their voices.

Glibity

2008-08-10T09:35:00.000-07:00

Glibity. Probably not a real word. On the other hand, it certainly seems to be a leading characteristic for worship leaders. It seems that the primary quality for a worship leader is glibity = the ability to get up in front of an audience and not put people to sleep within ten minutes.

Not a bad quality, of course. But when it becomes primary, or even solitary, we gots problems. And oh, do we gots problems!

We want our worship NOT to lead us into contact with God, but to be "worship lite": we want to praise God from a great, great distance. We want to maintain our dignity! True worship might rob us of dignity because we might be forced to do something, well, UNDIGNIFIED!

I can just hear the protests: "God wouldn't ask us to do anything undignified!" Which is, essentially, to believe that God is a good American who wants and requires a good American response to him -- a good American encounter that is superficial and ends with "lets do lunch!"

But I see Abraham, asked to sacrifice that which was most precious to him. I see David dancing around the Ark of the Covenant. I see Isaiah falling on his face, sure that God should kill him. I see Peter bowing down in the bottom of his fishing boat and asking Jesus to go away. I see the apostle John even bowing before an angel -- not even GOD! -- and having to be told not to do that (so: even being in the near vicinity of holiness ought to cause us fear!).

But instead, we prefer glibity -- because we don't want to encounter the living God. We do "worship lite," then do lunch.

It means we don't take God seriously. First, we probably don't even really believe God will show up. Does anything really happen when the church gathers for worship? Or are we just meeting together because God told us to do it and we have to get our card punched each week? I don't think God is about that. God wants us to worship, not because he has an ego problem and needs our praise once a week or so in order to maintain his fragile ego, but because he wants to be with us -- and not with us in the usual manner (along the lines of "lo, I am with you always"), but in some kind of special -- in fact UNusual -- way. But most Protestants stopped believing that long, long ago (in the bid to reject the RC doctrine of transubstantiation, most of us decided that Jesus doesn't really show up in the Lord's Supper at all; did the baby go out with the bathwater?).

Second, we probably don't believe that God's grace and love are large enough to allow him to show up and pay any attention at all to us. I mean, after all, we're a pretty stinky people, right? And God should probably kill us all because of our sin, right?

Right. He should. We deserve it. On the other hand, his grace and love ARE big enough to allow him to forgive and to pay attention to our feeble, paltry efforts to praise him. It is WE who have the ego problem, then: we think this whole thing depends on us! We've made OURSELVES the centerpiece of the whole operation, and Luther's dictum is true again: homo incurvatus in se (roughly, we "curve" everything back on ourselves, again and again making ourselves the center of the universe).

I love how Annie Dillard put it: if we really believed God, we'd come to church wearing crash helmets. We are, she says, like children playing on the floor with our chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. Do we really have any idea of who God is -- the God we ask to be present with us?

But we don't wear crash helmets. We want our worship to be lighthearted and glib, with just a faint whiff or goldleaf thin layer of holiness in order to make us think we've done something right.

Please do away with glibity and begin to employ the reverence due to the Creator! I'm so tired of going to church and coming away feeling like I've been to a Rotary business meeting (with apologies to Rotary Club members!) or to a group hug and/or group therapy program. Those things can be ok, but the only healing for what really ails us is the encounter with God. And that will force us to our knees or flat on our faces. It won't be pretty, and it won't be glib.

Christian Diversity and Taize

2008-07-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

Traveling the world is a special privilege. I'm so blessed to be able to do a little travel now and then. This summer has been especially blessed -- 6 weeks in Europe and 2 weeks in Singapore. One of the greatest blessings is seeing Christian faith in people so diverse!

Do you know about Taize? Read their email bulletin I'm pasting below. This is a world-wide youth movement that has a powerful witness. I love reading this, and maybe a few others will as well. Their URL is near the bottom of the bulletin.

News from Taizé by email
Taizé, Monday 21 July 2008
--------------------------------------------
* The summer meetings in Taizé
* Sydney: prayers at Saint James'
* From Dar-es-Salaam to Nairobi
* The brothers in Bangladesh
* Prayer

The summer meetings in Taizé
--------------------------------------------
At mid July the meetings are at their height. For the brothers, the
summer means being astonished again every year: why do so many young
adults keep coming back to the hill? This week, those from Europe have
come from over thirty different countries, from the Atlantic to the
Urals. Others, less numerous, have travelled much further, from thirty
countries of America, Africa and Asia.

This week, among those who have travelled farthest are volunteers who
will stay for three months, from India, Guatemala, and Uganda and from
Indonesia, Laos and Colombia.

What brings everyone together, brothers and young people from all over
is certainly the prayer. The multiple facets of the summer meetings give
a place more and more central to these times together, morning, noon and
evening, in the Church of Reconciliation. In the great diversity of
languages and cultures, in the very broad denominational palette that
brings together Christians of many backgrounds, in the variety of the
themes proposed each day for reflection, the one who gathers all
together is the Risen Christ.

He brings us together, and he calls as well: during the Saturday evening
prayer, a young man from the Netherlands responded to that call when he
received from Brother Alois the prayer garment of the brothers. It was a
beautiful witness, for everyone present, of a practical commitment in
the footsteps of Christ.

* "Remaining faithful to the end"
During the summer, some of the young people choose as their daily Bible
introduction a deeper study of the first three chapters of Revelation
(Theme: "Remaining faithful to the end"). Amandine, from Geneva, chose
this group. She underlines the importance of the times of sharing that
follow the explanation of the day's passage by one of the brothers. "In
the discussion groups, we tried to respond to the - sometimes complex -
questions with the help of our Bibles and our personal experience. Even
if our knowledge was limited, as the week progressed we were able to
acquire new knowledge and to familiarise ourselves with the text." This
Bible introduction enables many people to discover a book that at first
sight seems difficult to approach, but which in fact gives a profound
witness to the love of God.

* "The silk road"
The young people from Asia arriving in Taizé at the beginning of the
summer quickly began their experience of prayer and meeting with young
people from other countries and continents. With some other Asians,
Ajeng, a theology student from Singapore, was asked to prepare two
workshops which they entitled "The Silk Road". She writes:
"All the Asian volunteers were very excited, knowing that we had to
present our countries and cultures. In fact, this has been a means of
bonding for us, for we have got to know each another better, personally
as well as culturally. The theme proposed made us do some "small
preliminary research" and trace back our backgrounds. It is surprising
to discover that Asian people share many things now because of the Silk
Road period! Just as the traders travelled a long distance to exchange
something precious like silk, we too have travelled all the way here to
Taizé, to seek God, who is so precious for us. Yet we realize that we
can not become mere "consumers" of faith. We were invited to tell our
stories and to listen to other people's stories as well. With
discernment, this exchange can be a positive way of building up our faith."

* "Difficult to say goodbye!"
Two young people from Madagascar, Ravaka and Victorien, arrived to be
volunteers in Taizé a few weeks ago. They have just finished leading a
week at Olinda, the house for young families. For the young adults from
other continents who come to spend several months in Taizé, this is a
quite new experience, which Ravaka sums up like this: "The real
challenge is to create a good atmosphere in the group. For not only do
you have a group of thirty children to care for, but in addition they
speak several languages and their cultures are sometimes very different
from ours!" Every week the children are split up into different groups
according to age. For example, for the oldest – between 12 and 14 – two
activities are proposed: sharing on a Bible text and discovering the
different countries represented in the group. Victorien adds, "In the
afternoons, it was the leaders' turn to present a play. The last day, we
received a card expressing the thanks of the parents... it was difficult
for the children and the leaders to say goodbye!"
"Echoes of the young adults meetings":
http://www.taize.fr/en_article7052.html

Sydney: prayers at Saint James's
--------------------------------------------
For a whole week Sydney's streets and railways stations echoed to the
sounds of animated young people from all the continents of the world.
World Youth Day had attracted a quarter of a million pilgrims who came
together to celebrate their faith and their hopes. Where the massive
buildings of the commercial district meet the large park opposite St
Mary's Cathedral is the lovely, warm sand stone church building of the
Anglican Church of St James. And it was in this church that people came
to join some of the brothers of Taizé in prayer each day. As the week
progressed, more and more young people began crowding into the church
until by the end of the week not everyone who wanted to get in were able
to – even with up to four prayers in an afternoon and evening...
There were always people of different denominations present. Young
people read the Scriptures in up to six different languages. They also
helped lead the intercessions. On three of the evenings, Brother Alois
spoke to the young pilgrims.
At the close of the final evening prayer each day the cross was laid on
the floor and people waited patiently in a long line for an opportunity
to entrust to Christ some of their anxieties and fears and hopes. At the
final prayer, the Prime Minister of Australia who had earlier in the
week spoken to the young pilgrims at the opening event, attended with
his family, staying for two hours to pray with the young people.
http://www.taize.fr/en_article7190.html

From Dar-es-Salaam to Nairobi
--------------------------------------------
I am a Tanzanian aged 25 years old. I am from Dar es Salaam, and I am a
laboratory technician by profession. I was in Taizé, France during the
summer months of 2006. Currently I am on my annual leave so I decided to
spend some days as a volunteer, to help with the preparation of the
meeting in Nairobi.... The way I see the preparation for the November
meeting is that things are moving at quite a good pace. It seems to be
well organised. This meeting will be a golden opportunity for the youth
to discover themselves and spend quality time for their spiritual life
and growth in the Church and stop, listen and reflect to what our rapid
changing societies are offering us today. On a very personal note, I
thank God for giving us this opportunity to be part of this pilgrimage
of trust in East Africa and Africa as a Continent. It will be a time for
us to discover and learn something from other youth coming from several
African countries. And for the youth coming from outside Africa it will
be a memorable time to know more about our peoples, lives, culture and
give Africa a new face. ... Keep the spirit high up "Kwa pamoja tutafuta
njia ya matumaini" Together seeking paths of Hope. Karibuni Sana!!
Kwenye mkutano wa vijana tarehe 26-30 Novemba 2008. Ahsante! Makolo
Christopher Ludosha. http://www.taize.fr/en_article7168.html

The meeting in Nairobi will take place from 26 to 30 November 2008:
http://www.taize.fr/en_article6670.html
Practical information and registration:
http://www.taize.fr/en_article6671.html
To Nairobi from South Africa: http://www.taize.fr/en_article7114.html

The brothers in Bangladesh
--------------------------------------------
I have just come back from visiting some families in the region of
Dinajpur. There were marriages in the families of young people we know
and who work with us in Mymensingh. It was raining and everything took
place in the mud.... But it was really good to see many people again.
Dipok, who is in Taizé at present, comes from this region.
After many attempts that did not succeed, we finally had a pilgrimage of
trust with disabled people in Khulna. There were 200 disabled
Christians, with their families, a large group of young volunteers (many
of whom took part in the meeting in Kolkata) and on the Saturday over
fifty disabled Muslims and their families came as well. There was a big
gathering for the inter-religious prayer at noon: beautiful Muslim songs
sung by a young blind man and some very poor mothers – of families where
there is no father – shared their stories. Mgr Theo was present, and the
local bishop came for the end. I went with several young people to help
– the journey lasted ten hours by bus! Much gratitude on all sides. The
prayer with the candles on the Saturday evening was a feast! ...
http://www.taize.fr/en_article7032.html

Prayer
--------------------------------------------
God of peace, your presence is often a mystery for us; to welcome you we
need a heart that is simple, and filled with trust.


---

News from Taizé by email is available in English, Croatian, French, German,
Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish.
Subscription is free.

New subscribers: To receive News from Taizé regularly, go to
http://www.taize.fr/taizenews.php

To stop receiving News from Taizé by email, send a message to: LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
with a single line in the message body:  UNSUBSCRIBE TAIZE-L

or go to:
http://www.taize.fr/taizenews.php

Send your comments, suggestions and ideas on the contents of the mailings to:
mailnews@taize.fr

Send any technical questions to taizelist.admin@taize.fr

To subscribe to The Letter from Taizé (printed):
http://www.taize.fr/en_article330.html or email: letter@taize.fr

Taizé website: http://www.taize.fr

"America is Drowning in Pretend Patriotism"

2008-07-05T11:23:00.000-07:00

Click Here.

This is a link to an insightful article by Robert Scheer of Truthdig.

Jimmy Carter on the Palestinian Humanitarian Crisis

2008-05-09T07:19:00.000-07:00

Click here for a quick summary by the Ekklesia Project.

Click here for the full article by Jimmy Carter in The Guardian.

Former President Carter has recently visited the Gaza Strip and has seen first hand the suffering of the Palestinians. Our nation is largely responsible for this situation, and we need to change our national policy. Send these articles to your senators and state reps!

More from Human Smoke

2008-04-23T19:52:00.000-07:00

Someone asked Mohandas Gandhi about English pacifists. It was May 1938.

The problem with the English pacifists, Gandhi said, was that they made moral calculations: "When they speak of pacifism they do so with the mental reservation that when pacifism fails, arms might be used." A true pacifist never calculated. "Someone has to arise in England with the living faith to say that England, whatever happens, shall not use arms," said Gandhi. "They are a nation fully armed, and if they having the power deliberately refuse to use arms, theirs will be the first example of Christianity in active practice on a mass scale. That will be a real miracle."

No miracle occurred.

Oswald Garrison Villard, an editor of The Nation, wrote that great armaments were the road to fascism. "They bring with them increased worship of the State, increased nationalism, increased State service, and therefore play into the hands of those like Hitler and Mussolini who declare that the citizen is made for the State and not the State for the citizen," he said. It was July 2, 1938.

Happy Birthday, Israel: 60 years of. . . .

2008-04-17T07:07:00.000-07:00

I wanted to say "screwing the Palestinians," but that would be rude. God forbid we be rude and say a word like "screw." Someone might get upset.

But we don't get upset over 60 years of oppression of the Palestinian peoples. Go to www.palestineremembered.com for a good account of the history of this oppression.

Church leaders around the world are signing on to a document that states clearly the oppression of the Palestinians, and Christian complicity in that oppression. Click here to read about it.

Part of the story recounted in Human Smoke (the history of the beginnings of WWII I'm currently reading) is that the Jews were sent to Palestine because no one else would take them. Great Britain refused. The United States refused. No one would let the Jews from Germany emigrate because everyone hated Jews. Everyone else in the Western world shared the antisemitism of Hitler and Goebbels and Goering. So we refused to let them emigrate to our countries, largely leaving them in Germany to be slaughtered, then afterward sending them to Palestine and thus giving away the land that had belonged to the Palestinians for centuries. Yes, the western nations gave away land that wasn't theirs. Why? Because we could. We had the military might to make it stick. The Palestinians couldn't resist against it.

So, Jews were slaughtered in Germany because of German/European antisemitism; Jews were banished to Palestine because of British and American antisemitism. We continue to suffer from terrorism today because of an antisemitic past. And here's the really neat trick: we disguise it by creating a Jewish state! So, it LOOKS like we are "Pro-Jewish"!!! Ingenious!

We owe both sides a deep apology.

Human Smoke

2008-04-10T19:54:00.000-07:00

From Human Smoke, the book I'm currently reading:

Captain Philip S. Mumford, a former British officer in Iraq, joined the Peace Pledge Union. He gave a speech about why. "What is the difference between throwing 500 babies into a fire and throwing fire from aeroplanes on 500 babies?" he asked. "There is none."

Good question. Good point.

Another:

The church bells in Guernica begain ringing. It was market day, Monday, at 4:30 P.M., on April 28, 1937. German pilots were in the air. They wore the badge of the Kondor Legion: a condor plunging earthward with a bomb held in its claws.
They were over the town for three hours. The curate of the Church of Santa Maria de Guernica wrote: "Before God and my country I bear witness that the airplanes threw incendiary bombs." The Times of London wrote: "The whole town of 7,000 inhabitants, plus 3,000 refugees, was slowly and systematically pounded to pieces." A reporter for the Daily Mail wrote: "A sight that haunted me for weeks was the charred bodies of several women and children huddled together in what had been the cellar of a house. It had been a refugio."
Later Hermann Goering said that Guernica had been a testing ground for the Luftwaffe. "It was a pity," he said, "but we could not do otherwise, as we had nowhere else to try out our machines."

Read this book.

On Being Alien

2008-04-02T22:12:00.000-07:00

A good friend currently wonders if he "fits here anymore." Here is my late-night response.

I suppose that depends in part on what you mean by "here." Abilene? Church of Christ? Earth? You probably don't fit any of them very well, especially given the fallenness of them all. But the last two (!) are what God is working on redeeming (certainly he's abandoned Abilene??? :-) ), and I think that's where we "fit" into the world -- with the memory that it is God's, that God isn't happy with it in its present state because God doesn't "fit" here anymore, either. I mean -- when's the last time you saw God walking around in the garden? The world has done its best to kick God out. No wonder that we who are imago dei also feel like it's a bad fit (when we're aware, at least). The only way we can "fit" is to join forces with God, which means to be fighting against the way the world is, which means NOT to "fit." A paradox. May God have mercy.

How Would Jesus Vote?

2008-02-25T16:21:00.000-08:00

A good article on Evangelical Christian democrats by Amy Sullivan in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/24/ST2008022402257.html?sid=ST2008022402257

Be sure to read the discussion with Amy about the topic and about her book here.

In the discussion she points out that about 1/3 of Democrats are pro-life. Hurray! But that's not as high as the percentage of Republicans that are pro-choice! Weird.

Pacifism and Romans 13

2008-02-03T11:45:00.000-08:00

I'm a pacifist. I think all Christians should be peaceful people = non-violent. I think being a disciple of Jesus means that we should not resort to violence to protect our material interests -- which means that Christians should not serve in the military or on police forces where they are obligated to take other human lives. Period.

There is more to the position than that, but that's pretty much as far as I get with some folks before they toss Romans 13 into the conversation as a rebuttal. After all, the claim goes, governments are all appointed by God to keep the peace. Therefore, our armed forces are just doing God's work, which means Christians obviously can and perhaps even SHOULD participate.

Here is the relevant part of Romans 13 (from the New Revised Standard Version, found on www.crosswalk.com):

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing.
7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Now, we can ask ourselves what this text actually does say, and then also what it does NOT say. First of all, historical context. The writer is Paul the Apostle, a Jewish Rabbi who has come to believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Both Paul and his readers (who are Christians in Rome) live in and under the authority of the Roman Empire. Nero was likely the emperor at the time -- not a big fan of Christians, to say the least. The Christians in Rome seem to be a group made up of Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Jesus.

Paul's theology of government seems to me based in the Jewish scriptures, particularly in the stories of the later history of the Jewish kingdoms (north and south) found in Kings and Chronicles and in the prophetic works that correspond to those events. To summarize, God is in charge of all of these kingdoms and/or governments. He moves them around like pieces on a chess board to accomplish his own purposes, of which humans are not necessarily aware.

Though there had been a short period of time, during the reign of King David, in which Israel had truly been a theocracy, this was not the norm. In fact, even during David's son's reign (Solomon), it seems clear that God was not being relied on for the security of the kingdom. Ask yourself this: how many wives and/or concubines did Solomon have? Answer: 1 Kings 11:3 -- "Among his wives were seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines." Wow! This guy had at least (!) 1k women at his disposal! "At least," because the text says "among his wives"! We don't know how many more there were, but the 1k women were "among" the total number! I'm impressed!

Now, as yourself this question: how many children did Solomon have?

Go ahead, ask. Search it out in Kings and Chronicles. I'm waiting. Ok, times' up. Answer: 1 (ONE, as in A WHOLE NUMBER THAT IS LESS THAN TWO AND MORE THAN ZERO). Yes, only one.

How in the world did that happen? Well, it seems to me there are a couple of possibilities. One, there was something physically wrong with the man. After all, that one son, Rehoboam, was advised to prove to the people that his little finger was thicker than his father's loins! But as Freud is purported to have said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar -- and a metaphor is just a metaphor.

A second possibility is that Solomon had more children that weren't mentioned in the text -- perhaps because Solomon had them killed. At least one of the "foreign gods" Solomon worshiped with his wives ("Molech": see 1 Kings 11 and 2 Kings 23:10) demanded child sacrifice. It could be that Solomon had had other children that he sacrificed. On the other hand, if that were the case, why wouldn't the text mention this in the process of listing Solomon's sins at the end of his life? It doesn't appear that the text is trying to put a positive spin on Solomon and sweep his sins out of sight under the rug (Chronicles is guilty of this, but not Kings).

The third possibility is this: Solomon was not a hedonist, and these marriages were all political alliances. The security of the nation under Solomon was not in the protection of God, but in the marriage-alliances Solomon had made with all the nations around them. Because of Solomon's marriage-alliances, he had also worshiped the gods of all of his wives, and he actually built shrines for them all. (Trivia question: how many temples did Solomon build? Answer: more than one, and perhaps as many as 1000 -- for each of the gods of each of his wives and concubines.) Because he worshiped all those other gods, the kingdom was split after his death and divided between his own son, Rehoboam, and a rival, Jeroboam. This was God's action.

Further, later in the story God actually turns against the Israelite kingdoms and brings the armies of foreign nations against them to defeat them. Pieces on the chessboard.

The point is that for Paul the Apostle, though there had been that brief moment in Israelite history in which God had ruled through David, that was long past and irrelevant to his own situation under the Romans. It hadn't worked out well anyway! And that Maccabean period? Well, again, it had ended badly, and besides that, Jesus had said things like "My kingdom is not of this world."

So, in Romans 13, Paul is affirming the truth that God is ultimately in charge, and that he uses world governments to keep relative peace in the world. Romans 13 is NOT a call for Christians to get involved! In fact, Christian involvement in the Roman government could not even be on Paul's radar screen (had he had one)! For Paul and the early Christians, God has put Rome in charge, and this is NOT an indication that God is on the side of the Roman gods, nor that the Roman government is in any sense "Christian." It is merely an indication that God is using the Romans as he has always used human governments, and Christians have nothing to fear so long as they avoid committing crimes.

On the other hand, we Christians do generally recognize that there is a time when we would be forced to invoke Peter's statement that "We must obey God rather than any human authority." But here's how I sometimes hear this one used: Christians MUST be willing to kill on behalf of our government if the government says kill.

So, if someone had been drafted and sent to Viet Nam back in the 60s or 70s, that person would have been obligated to kill, and it would have been godly to do so.

But, by the same logic, Nazi soldiers in WWII were just "obeying God" because they were "obeying orders." Those in charge of the extermination camps tried to use the "Nuremberg Defense": "we were just obeying orders." It didn't work -- they were held to have been morally responsible. By that logic Iraqi soldiers are on God's side now, and American soldiers are fighting against God because we deposed a ruler who had been set up by God. Etc., etc. Oh -- and that "American Revolution"? Uh oh. Now we're in trouble. We opposed a government set up by God. Shoot. I hate it when that happens.

You see, in Paul's situation under the Roman Empire, his words are certainly true: in essence, Christians are to stay out of the way of what God is doing with the Empire and it's power. That's it. But our situation is different, and perhaps more complicated, since we do have some element of voice in our government. Paul and the early church didn't.

Final note: Paul says "give honor to whom honor is due." I wonder if that's a blanket statement for us always to honor those in power, or if it means we have to discern who is, actually, due "honor." Of course, this statement echoes Jesus' statement about giving "to Caesar that which is Caesar's." A quick note about that story: it's one of the really great jokes of the New Testament. Jesus is talking to a bunch of Jewish scholars who are trying to entrap him, and they get trapped in their own false logic. Any Jew worthy of that title should have known that God is creator and that it all really belongs to him. Jesus threw a feint -- a "false punch" -- by pointing to the face on the coin. They went for it, and Jesus walks away without a scratch. THAT'S FUNNY!

To summarize: I don't think anyone can legitimately use Romans 13 to justify Christian participation in any kind of killing. It simply says "God will do what God will do with governments, so stay out of their way." We must always remember that we live by a different standard than the world, and that sometimes "We must obey God rather than any human authority."

Monty Python theology

2008-01-02T14:05:00.000-08:00

Ok, here's a good exercise for you if you're feeling like you're (to quote Karen Carpenter, that famous optimist) "On Top of the World," or if you have begun to think that the world is really a quite happy place (you are disqualified if your "office" has padded walls) and/or that humanity is making progress -- every day, in every way, we're getting better and better!!!

Go to the Barnes & Noble website, browse the "Religion and Spirituality" section, specifically the "Books under $10" section. You will likely find some of the following.

First, The Joke's on Ewe: Jokes, Riddles and Funny Stories Little David Told his Sheep. Now, I'm aware that solitude can have strange affects on people, and some people believe that their pets answer when they talk to them, but this scares me. On the other hand, now the story of David "feigning" madness in front of the Philistine kings makes much more sense. And it's obvious that David was called to be in Saul's court not just because he could pluck a harp -- he was doing standup. Maybe Henny Youngman was a direct descendant.

Then, there are various books containing "church jokes" (mostly written by Nietzsche?), and "Fun Facts About the Bible," not to mention God Plays Golf.

You see here how hard some people will work to try to make following Jesus seem palatable -- or even fun. I mean, if God plays golf, maybe I can get into the Heavenly Country Club!!! (Hmmm -- I wonder what the girl on the beverage cart sells there? Or would it be free? O -- wait -- we couldn't be thirsty in heaven!!! Ha!!! On the other hand, what fun would golf be if. . . . Nevermind.).

Ok, here's another: Sinners in the Hands of God Made Easier to Read. Is this what it means?

I can almost hear Jonathan Edwards proclaiming boldly: "Those who are morally challenged need to maximize their opportunities to create a positive trend in their self-talk, creating a behavior-change that will result in better relationships, greater contentment and less guilt and negativity. If those people do NOT do that, God will, quite possibly, create a situation in which the negative self-talk and negative choices may bring about further negative consequences that will encourage deeper self-examination that will motivate one to relinquish the guilt and negativity and trend toward behaviors that bring positive self-talk and positive relationships, toward the goal of full acceptance of oneself as a beloved creature of God with whom God wishes full fellowship, intimate communion and communication." Jonathan Edwards meets Joel Osteen.

A friend of mine who no longer professes Christian faith has this gripe against church: churches lie. They're not truthful about the gospel, grace, sin and/or judgment, not to mention about who God is (assuming that churches actually do know who God is!). He says that if churches told the truth about those things, our songs would essentially tell us that we suck and deserve to go to hell. In other words, we would stop sugar-coating the gospel and our own very human need for redemption and grace. Some more contemporary churches are discovering the same thing. It's one thing to go to church to get a good free show, complete with rock and roll and laser lights. It's quite another thing to go to church and have an Isaiah 6 experience -- where face to face with the Holy God, we are compelled to hit the deck and cover the backs of our heads. I mean, this is bigger than any tornado drill -- or the real tornado, come to think of it.

A few years back the acting troupe Monty Python made a movie called The Life of Brian. According to a documentary on the group, they started out to satirize Jesus. But after reading the gospels, they decided there was no content there to be made fun of, so they trained their sights on how churches present Jesus. I've still not seen the whole movie straight through (though I own a copy), but one scene I've caught a number of times is the crucifixion scene which features the song "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life," a quite cheery tune with bright and carefree whistling -- sung by those being crucified, and joined in by the gathered crowds. In other words, this is what Monty Python apparently thought was what churches presented as the message of Jesus (best if spoken with a fake British accent): "just keep your chin up; things will get better! Always look on the bright side!" As if that was what Jesus' life and death were all about. Bull.

I told my teenage son about this scene one time, and for years we had our own little private gag (!) going on in church. Whenever one of us would hear some part of a sermon that aligned with the "look on the bright side" message, we would (very quietly) whistle a bit of that tune, and then stifle our laughter.

Annie Dillard has said that no one really takes seriously what we profess to be doing in church -- that if we did, we'd go to church wearing crash helmets -- and that we're like children mixing up a batch of TNT in our new chemistry sets to kill a Sunday morning. She's right. We're killing ourselves with kindness, not to mention laughter.

We do this because we think people need to hear something nice about themselves -- for instance, that God loves them unconditionally. Certainly this is true. But all heresy is a matter of overemphasis. To emphasize God's love and grace in such a way that it excludes or hides from us God's holiness becomes heresy, not to mention falsehood. It's shallow.

I recently heard a sermon series on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, in which the essence of Jesus sermon was presented as a message of self-esteem and lowering one's stress level. I could have whistled through the whole thing.

So, if you hear me whistling in church, you'll know why. Pay attention. And if I miss one, you have my permission to whistle.

The Defeat of Cynicism

2007-12-24T22:40:00.000-08:00

Pope Leo the Great, Christmas Sermon

Dearly beloved, today our Saviour is born; let us rejoice. Sadness should have no place on the birthday of life. The fear of death has been swallowed up; life brings us joy with the promise of eternal happiness. No one is shut out from this joy; all share the same reason for rejoicing. Our Lord, victor over sin and death, finding no man free from sin, came to free us all. Let the saint rejoice as he sees the palm of victory at hand. Let the sinner be glad as he receives the offer of forgiveness. Let the pagan take courage as he is summoned to life. In the fullness of time, chosen in the unfathomable depths of God’s wisdom, the Son of God took for himself our common humanity in order to reconcile it with its creator. He came to overthrow the devil, the origin of death, in that very nature by which he had overthrown mankind. And so at the birth of our Lord the angels sing in joy: Glory to God in the highest, and they proclaim peace to men of good will as they see the heavenly Jerusalem being built from all the nations of the world. When the angels on high are so exultant at this marvellous work of God’s goodness, what joy should it not bring to the lowly hearts of men? Beloved, let us give thanks to God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit, because in his great love for us he took pity on us, and when we were dead in our sins he brought us to life with Christ, so that in him we might be a new creation.

Pope Leo the Great, Christmas Sermon

Dearly beloved, today our Saviour is born; let us rejoice. Sadness should have no place on the birthday of life. The fear of death has been swallowed up; life brings us joy with the promise of eternal happiness.

No one is shut out from this joy; all share the same reason for rejoicing. Our Lord, victor over sin and death, finding no man free from sin, came to free us all. Let the saint rejoice as he sees the palm of victory at hand. Let the sinner be glad as he receives the offer of forgiveness. Let the pagan take courage as he is summoned to life.

In the fullness of time, chosen in the unfathomable depths of God’s wisdom, the Son of God took for himself our common humanity in order to reconcile it with its creator. He came to overthrow the devil, the origin of death, in that very nature by which he had overthrown mankind.
And so at the birth of our Lord the angels sing in joy: Glory to God in the highest, and they proclaim peace to men of good will as they see the heavenly Jerusalem being built from all the nations of the world. When the angels on high are so exultant at this marvellous work of God’s goodness, what joy should it not bring to the lowly hearts of men?

Beloved, let us give thanks to God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit, because in his great love for us he took pity on us, and when we were dead in our sins he brought us to life with Christ, so that in him we might be a new creation.

"'Christmas! Christmas!' when there is no Christmas."

2007-12-24T12:23:00.000-08:00

"'Peace! Peace!' when there is no peace." One of the Jewish prophets cried out against the false prophets who declared peace when there was violence all around. You have to wonder how the false prophets could have gotten away with it -- could have gotten any kind of a hearing that would arouse a response. I mean -- when there is violence all around, isn't it obvious? How could someone declare peace and have anyone take the message seriously? It's a mystery.

On the other hand, one of my favorite little malaprop is: There's a seeker born every minute. In other words, people will hear what they want to hear, believe what they want to believe.

Channel surfing late last night I ran across a travel channel show about tribal life. I didn't catch the name of the island, but it was some island that had been occupied by US forces during WWII. After they left, the natives started up a cult of expectation of their return. The cult is called "John Frum," as in "John from America," and it raises the American flag each day, has Friday worship in which the hope and expectation is expressed that John Frum will return to bless them. No, I'm not making this up. Google it.

People will believe what they want to believe. Perhaps I'm just feeling extra cynical this Christmas. Lets see: this year I've just heard from a friend whose wife left him last week, though he's been trying hard to keep the marriage together. I have other friends whose marriages are on the rocks, or completely gone. Another friend's son has just been diagnosed with cancer. Etc., etc. I talked to the first one mentioned just a bit ago, and he wished me a Merry Christmas. He meant it, too, even though his heart is breaking and mine aches with him. I don't know what to do with that.

So, chalk it up to a bad mood if you want, but when I see our government trying to convince us that we're all about peace, I'm juuuust a tad skeptical. When I see materialistic churches trying to "put the Christ back in Christmas," my skepticism turns black. Can we be that blind?

Ok, sorry -- dumb question.

But what bugs me most is my own ability to affect any of it. "Cosmic Therapy" indeed. The truth is that I can't even fix myself, so certainly I can't expect to be able to fix the world. I know, of course, that only God can fix the world. But I continually despair of our human attempts to have any impact at all.

In a few minutes my family will attend a Christmas Eve service that will proclaim the entry of God into his creation with the hope that creation itself will ultimately be redeemed. Marana tha.

Christmas in Fallujah

2007-12-10T08:34:00.000-08:00

Check out this song/video by Billy Joel.

Chills. Brace yourself.

HB 1804 must die!

2007-12-05T17:08:00.000-08:00

Mr. Shane Jett, the Republican Representative from Oklahoma's District 27, has considered proposing legislation that would help to curtail the effects of our recent immigration law, HB 1804, on the Oklahoma economy. You can read about it here.

Though his legislation does not go far enough, it's a start. It doesn't address the moral issues, but only the economic issues. I suspect that's the best that can be done immediately -- address people's wallets. HB 1804 itself was enacted out of fear that "they" (meaning the undocumented immigrants) were taking money out of "our" (meaning those of us whose families got here earlier, whether legally or illegally) pockets. In other words, it was pure selfishness.

But, I support what Mr. Jett is trying to do. Hopefully, this will be only a first step toward getting HB 1804 off of the books. Here is most of the text of a letter I have sent to Mr. Jett. It explains my feelings about HB 1804 as clearly as I know how.

Dear Mr. Jett:

I appreciate very much your effort to compose a bill that will enable a guest worker program, and I want to encourage you to do so as quickly as possible. For a variety of reasons I see HB 1804 as immoral, bigoted and racist. It is an embarrassment to the state of Oklahoma. Thank you for your compassion to our neighbors who are less fortunate than many of us and who are doing their best to make a better life for their families.

Let me tell you about a Hispanic young lady who was in one of my classes this semester. This young lady is very intelligent, and aspires to go to law school. I have no doubt she has the ability to do so. She certainly has the drive, and was an outstanding student. But in mid-October, she didn’t show up in class for 2 weeks. I knew she had been planning on doing a mission trip with her church to Peru, so at first I didn’t think much about it. But absence was very atypical for her, so in the second week I began to be concerned. I emailed her, but she didn’t answer. Finally, at the end of the month, she appeared in my office nearly in tears because she had to drop most of her classes. She told me the whole story: her father had been arrested for having hired undocumented immigrants in his business. Though she and her family are all citizens, they tried to help others move here and establish themselves. The INS had been going door to door in her neighborhood checking for undocumented immigrants. Some of her father’s employees had been arrested; others had been forced into hiding. This young lady had had to take over her father’s business and try to keep it running (her family’s only income) while her father was in jail, and she had to keep it running with a skeleton staff. Quite a task for a 19 year old!

Mr. Jett, this is a Christian family. These are solid citizens. Yet this young lady had to see her father treated like a common criminal because he had extended Christian charity to people less fortunate than himself as they tried to improve their own lives. She also had to drop out of school in order to run her family’s business. So her own career is in jeopardy at this point!

You are right that HB 1804 makes no sense economically. It also makes no sense morally, and I believe we need to have it overturned as quickly as possible. The way it has been implemented, with the INS going door to door in south Oklahoma City, is reminiscent of how the Nazis treated the Jews in the WWII era! It seems to me that those who pushed for it and who support it have forgotten why it was their own families immigrated to this nation. They have also neglected to ask themselves to what length they might go to establish a decent life for their own families. I know that I would be willing to break an immigration law if it would mean a better life for my children and grandchildren. Those who try to argue that these undocumented immigrants are simply criminals because they have broken a law have failed in their moral reasoning to understand the situation. The vast majority of these folks are not people who are simply living as outlaws in order to avoid working for a living! Their “crimes” cannot be understood on the same level as, for instance, drug dealers, murderers or thieves. A more parallel case might be breaking speed laws in order to get your child to a hospital in an emergency!

I don't know that we can get that law thrown out, but I want our legislature to know how I feel about it. And I believe this is an unjust law, and that means it is a good candidate for civil disobedience.

Fasting

2007-11-06T08:26:00.000-08:00

Comments at OC Outreach, 11/05/07. These are mostly quotes from other sources (mostly documented, but perhaps not adequately for academic standards), with a few notes of my own interspersed.

Fasting

Abbot Palladius: “the first step away from God is a distaste for learning, and lack of appetite for those things for which the soul hungers when it seeks God.”

David Hume: “And as every quality, which is useful or agreeable to ourselves or others, is, in common life, allowed to be a part of personal merit; so no other will ever be received, where men judge of things by their natural, unprejudiced reason, without the delusive glosses of superstition and false religion. Celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude, and the whole train of monkish virtues; for what reason are they every where rejected by men of sense, but because they serve to no manner of purpose; neither advance a man's fortune in the world, nor render him a more valuable member of society; neither qualify him for the entertainment of company, nor increase his power of self-enjoyment? We observe, on the contrary, that they cross all these desirable ends; stupify the understanding and harden the heart, obscure the fancy and sour the temper. We justly, therefore, transfer them to the opposite column, and place them in the catalogue of vices; nor has any superstition force sufficient among men of the world, to pervert entirely these natural sentiments. A gloomy, hair-brained enthusiast, after his death, may have a place in the calendar; but will scarcely ever be admitted, when alive, into intimacy and society, except by those who are as delirious and dismal as himself.” (David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. 1898 ed. Quoted from http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/Hume-Enquiry%20Concerning%20Morals.htm; accessed 11-04-07).

"Is not the neglect of this plain duty (I mean fasting, ranked by our Lord with almsgiving and prayer) one general occasion of deadness among Christians?"
--- John Wesley, *The Journal of John Wesley*

No “Precious Moments”: Jesus’ method of evangelism

“Peacemaking, he said repeatedly, is hardly possible without a well-formed spiritual life, with the usual elements of prayer and fasting, quiet reflection, and sacramental life. Prayer was at very top of the list. How can one love a person one will not pray for? Or, without prayer, find the strength to overcome despair?” (Jim Forest, “Meeting Thomas Merton.”)

The early church expected those who fast to give away what they would have eaten, either in money-value or in food, to those in need. (Shepherd of Hermas 3.5.3; Augustine's Sermon 208). Origen (Homilies on Leviticus, 10) even praised those who fasted in order to give to the poor.

Fasting = solitude, silence and humility = repentance.

Abbot Moses of Scete: “Go, sit in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything.”

“It was said of Abbot Agatho that for three years he carried a stone in his mouth until he learned to be silent.”

Abbot Pastor said: A man must breathe humility and the fear of God just as ceaselessly as he inhales and exhales the air.”

One of the elders was asked what was humility, and he said: If you forgive a brother who has injured you before he himself asks pardon.”

Thomas Merton observed, "It is in deep solitude that I find the gentleness with which I can truly love others. The more solitary I am the more affection I have for them; it is pure affection and filled with reverence for the solitude of others. Solitude and silence teach me to love others for who they are, not for what they say."

Merton, The Way of Chuang Tzu. Translator/Editor Thomas Merton. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1965. ISBN 0877736766

Yen Hui:
What is fasting of the heart?
Confucius:
The goal of fasting is inner unity.
This means hearing, but not with the ear;
hearing, but not with the understanding;
hearing with the spirit, with your whole being...
The hearing of the spirit is not limited to any one faculty, to the ear, or to the mind.
Hence it demands the emptiness of all the faculties.
And when the faculties are empty, then the whole being listens.
There is then a direct grasp of what is right there before you
that can never be heard with the ear or understood with the mind.
Fasting of the heart empties the faculties, frees you from limitation and from preoccupation.
Fasting of the heart begets unity and freedom.
Yen Hui:
I see. What was standing in my way was my own self-awareness. If I can begin this fasting of the heart, self awareness will vanish.
(4:1, pp. 75-76)

Enemy = you/ego.

“Yet another elder said: If you see a young monk by his own will climbing up into heaven, take him by the foot and throw him to the ground, because what he is doing is not good for him.”

To one of the brethren appeared a devil, transformed into an angel of light, who said to him: I am the Angel Gabriel, and I have been sent to thee. But the brother said: Think again – you must have been sent to somebody else. I haven’t done anything to deserve an angel. Immediately the devil ceased to appear.”

“The next step in the process is for you to see that your own thinking about what you are doing is crucially important. You are probably striving to build yourself an identity in your work, out of your work and your witness. You are using it, so to speak, to protect yourself against nothingness, annihilation. That is not the right use of your work. All the good that you will do will come not from you but from the fact that you have allowed yourself, in the obedience of faith, to be used by God’s love. Think of this more, and gradually you will be free from the need to prove yourself, and you can be more open to the power that will work through you without your knowing it.” (Thomas Merton, in a letter to Jim Forest. Quoted in “Meeting Thomas Merton,” lecture given by Jim Forest at the meeting of the Thomas Merton Society of Great Britain and Ireland at St Lawrence Church in Winchester, England, 29 November 2003; http://www.incommunion.org/forest-flier/jimsessays/meeting-thomas-merton/; accessed 11-04-2007).

Meister Eckhart:

“Man never desires anything so earnestly as God desires to bring a man to Himself, that he may know Him.

God is always ready, but we are very unready; God is near to us, but we are far from Him; God is within, but we are without; God is at home, but we are strangers...

“If it is the case that man is emptied of all things, creatures, himself and god, and if god could still find a place in him to act . . . this man is not poor with the most intimate poverty. For God does not intend that man should have a place reserved for him to work in since true poverty of spirit requires that man shall be emptied of god and all his works so that if God wants to act in the soul he himself must be the place in which he acts. . . . (God takes then) responsibility for his own action and (is) himself the scene of the action, for God is one who acts within himself.” (Meister Eckhart, “Blessed are the Poor” [sermon], in R. B. Blakney, Meister Eckhart, a Modern Translation, NY: 1941, p. 231; quoted from Thomas Merton, Zen and the Birds of Appetite [NY: New Directions, 1968], 9.).

Merton, Zen and the Birds of Appetite, “Author’s Note”:

Where there is carrion lying, meat-eating birds circle and descend. Life and death are two. The living attack the dead, to their own profit. The dead lose nothing by it. They gain too, by being disposed of. Or they seem to, if you must think in terms of gain and loss. Do you then approach the study of Zen with the idea that there is something to be gained by it? This question is not intended as an implicit accusation. But it is, nevertheless, a serious question. Where there is a lot of fuss about “spirituality,” “enlightenment” or just “turning on,” it is often because there are buzzards hovering around a corpse. This hovering, this circling, this descending, this celebration of victory, are not what is meant by the Study of Zen—even though they may be a highly useful exercise in other contexts. And they enrich the birds of appetite.

Zen enriches no one. There is no body to be found. The birds may come and circle for a while in the place where it is thought to be. But they soon go elsewhere. When they are gone, the “nothing,” the “no-body” that was there, suddenly appears. That is Zen. It was there all the time but the scavengers missed it, because it was not their kind of prey.

“Abbot Lot came to Abbot Joseph and said: Father, according as I am able, I keep my little rule, and my little fast, my prayer, meditation and contemplative silence; and according as I am able I strive to cleanse my heart of thoughts: now what more should I do? The elder rose up in reply and stretched out his hands to heaven, and his fingers became like ten lamps of fire. He said: Why not be totally changed into fire”?

"How would YOU Feel if. . . .?"

2007-10-28T11:28:00.000-07:00

In a NY Times article today (October 28, 2007), the story is told of a church that has stood against the death penalty but now struggles with what to do in the wake of murders of three of its members, three of the Petit family. Click here to read it.

The question posed by this incident is worthy of consideration. But it is NOT worthy of being reduced to either a political issue or an ethical "case study." Not, at least, now.

I'm posting it here because the question is sometimes put to me in the classroom when I tell students I'm against the death penalty: "But how would YOU feel if . . . .?" followed by some scenario more or less parallel to the story in the article.

I sometimes characterize myself as a pacifist with violent tendencies. It's true. And if my family were killed the way Dr. Petit's family was, I'm sure I would want horrible things to happen to the killers. That's what I would feel.

But it's not what I WANT to feel, nor is it how I want to act. I would want my friends and family to help me hold to my convictions against revenge and against violence. Here I'm taking a page from Stanley Hauerwas, who says he frequently tells people he's non-violent so they'll hold him to it. That's what I need. Convictions like this can't stand in solitude. "It takes a village," someone once said. I prefer "it takes a church." I need a church to hold me up and hold me to my convictions.

But I'd also need compassion . . . true COM-passion, or people around me who would weep with me and feel my pain. That's what Dr. Petit needs from his church right now. I pray he's getting it.

Comments and prayer in OC chapel, Oct. 2, 2007

2007-10-21T14:05:00.000-07:00

We are in a time of national strife. We are a nation sorely divided on significant issues surrounding the morality of the war in Iraq. It is all too easy to be on one side of that argument and to vilify the other side: to call those who protest the war cowards or accuse them of not being patriotic; or conversely to label as “war mongers” those who support it.

I am not here to tell you which side of that issue you should take. But I do want us to take a moment to reflect on the enormous destruction that is taking place in Iraq.

Every day there are wives who hold the dead bodies of their husbands – bodies with the life dripping out of them onto the street, onto the hands and into the clothing of the one who holds them. Every day there are abductions, and the families of the victims will never hear from them again. Every day there are children who are killed by car bombs, and their mothers, if they have survived, weep over their corpses. Every day there are children who witness the murder of their mother or their father. Every day there are people maimed by the violence around them – people who are innocent bystanders. Every day there are people driven from their homes, leaving everything behind they hold dear.

We, as Americans, have had our own share of weeping and loss. And we frequently pray for the safety of our troops. But nowhere in Scripture are we told to pray for our troops. We are, however, told to pray for our enemies, and I have rarely heard such a prayer. May we offer it now.

Holy, loving Father: may we be instruments of peace, not of hate or violence. May we remember that we are your children, but that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are also your children, and that you love them just as much as you love Americans. May we know how much you grieve over the injustices done to them or that they do to themselves; that you weep with those who weep. May we know that you are in and with those we find it most difficult to love, but that you love them and that we are also called to love them as you do. Lord, give us hearts to see them as you see them, to also weep with those mothers who weep over their dead children, with those wives, mothers, fathers, children, who weep over their dead loved ones, and who this very day are burying them.

Lord, we pray for those who still live with war and murder around them every day. We pray for their safety. We pray for their quality of life – that they will have food, water, shelter, and most of all that peace will come to them. We pray for the nation of Iraq and the nation of Afghanistan. May their leaders be people of peace.

Lord, we pray for our enemies, for those who hate us and would persecute or kill us. Help us not to stoop to their level – to the level of hate. Help us to heed the command of Jesus to not only not kill, but also to not hate them. Help us even to LOVE our enemies, just as you loved us when we were your enemies. We pray that our enemies will come to see and know your love for them, and to see and know that they should also love rather than hate. Lord, that is a tall order, but we ask it in hope and with faith in your ultimate power.

Lord, forgive our pride, even and especially the pride we Americans sometimes feel because we are Americans. We pray for peace. We pray these things in the name of Jesus who died to bring peace. Amen.

I have a new hero

2007-09-22T17:24:00.000-07:00

Read his story here.

Another Guarantee of Continued Violence in the Middle East

2007-08-16T00:03:00.000-07:00

Guaranteed. Place your bets now, before the rush. We have just guaranteed more years of violence and mayhem in the Middle East -- and probably in many places around the world. How? It's easy.

You just give thirty billion (that's 30 with 9 zeros after it) dollars worth of military aid to the nation of Israel so they can maintain their military advantage over everyone else in the Middle East. See the story here. Oh, and at the same time, DO NOT ask them to treat the Palestinians with any kind of justice!

The Israelis have unjustly occupied Palestinian territory since -- 1948? No doubt there has been injustice on the part of the Palestinians over the years, but their oppression at the hands of the Israelis is just as -- at least! -- horrendous. Many web sites recount the history of this conflict, but one I've found useful is called "Palestine Remembered."

My point here is not to place blame (there is more than enough to go around, and it doesn't stop with the Israelis or the Palestinians), but to point out the obvious: the US is continuing to feed the fires of conflict in the Middle East. If we were serious about peace, we would work hard to resolve the Palestinian conflict. When we side with Israel (as we have always done), we provoke all of the allies of the Palestinians. We're not trying to solve this conflict -- I suspect it is way too profitable for the US oil and military interests. This is big business!

I want my country, the United States of America, to live up to its claims of being a peace-loving nation. We can only do that by bringing peace in Palestine. The "War on Terror" (a stupid name for it, just for starters) is only throwing gasoline on brush fires. The root of the issue is in Palestine. When we can stop the oppression of the Palestinian people and bring a resolution there, we will have made great strides toward reducing the terroristic threat world-wide. Period. The US can do this -- we have the political and economic (as if they're different!) clout with Israel to get it accomplished. But it will require that we give up some of our own economic interests. Hmmm. Fat chance.

"'Scores die' in Iraq bomb attacks"

2007-08-14T15:43:00.000-07:00

That's the headline over this story on the BBC website, posted just today (August 14, 2007). Over 175 members of a religious sect known as Yazidi were killed by suicide bomb attacks, apparently by fellow-Kurds.

This is the kind of violence the US presence has provoked in Iraq. Now, in a vacuum of power caused by the end of the Hussein regime, the ethnic groups in Iraq and the religious sects are vying for power.

Of course, the ethnic and sectarian tensions were present before, but were checked by the power of Hussein's central government. And of course, there was the threat of Hussein's next whimsical ethnic cleansing. Or so the story goes.

Is Iraq a safer place now? Is it a better place to live? Is the quality of life better now than it was before? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding "NO!" We have opened Pandora's Box, and now we don't know how to shut it.

I want us Americans to know the truth about what we have caused, and continue to cause. I want us to remember to grieve for the thousands and thousands of dead Iraqis, not just the dead Americans. The website "Iraq Body Count" reports that a minimum of 69, 334 Iraqi civilians have been killed, and a maximum of 75,775. On October 11, 2006 CNN reported that over 655,000 Iraqis had been killed in the war. The director of a 2003 door to door survey in Baghdad and southern Iraq has published his findings on this site, "Iraqi Civilian War Casualties. He includes names, ages and causes of death. This is the Iraq war made personal rather than letting it remain a remote conflict in an obscure part of the world, easily overlooked or forgotten.

Every day there are human beings dying -- being killed -- by both US forces and Iraqi militia or "death squads." Each one of these people has a family -- a husband or wife, a parent or grandparent, a child or children -- who now grieve. These are not just body count numbers, but people -- individuals. Each one is a life ended. Each one was a child of God, no matter what we think of their politics or religious beliefs.

When we think about what to do next in Iraq, we can't think only of US national interests. We cannot think only of the deaths of American soldiers and civilians (because so much of the war effort has been contracted out to private enterprises, some estimate that there are more American civilians in Iraq than American soldiers!). We have to remember also that the Iraqi people have suffered incredible loss -- tantamount to genocide. Many times more Iraqis have died than Americans.

Is it any wonder that the Iraqis want us out?

It has been argued that if we leave now, we will leave the Iraqis to their own self-destruction -- that the civil war that would ensue would be worse than our continued presence. That's an excuse, I think, to keep our armed forces there and to continue to pursue our national interests there. Let's get it out of our heads that we're just there to do the Iraqis a favor. If that were the case, our troops would also be in Dafur, and in many, many other places around the world where there is civil strife. The only way a war effort can be sold to the American people is by claiming national interests. Face it, we're not altruistic in the use of our troops. We send them out where it will ultimately help our economy. If it were mere altruism, we wouldn't risk American lives.

So, would the situation in Iraq be worse if the US troops leave? Or would the Iraqis find a way to police themselves and end the civil war presently going on?

I believe they would. It certainly wouldn't be easy or quick, but it seems clear to me that this conflict will NEVER end so long as US troops are there. We're their enemy, and they won't give up until we're gone -- just as many Americans would resent, for instance, a Chinese occupying force, and would never give up until they were forced out. So long as the enemy (us!) is present, there will be war in Iraq. Period. Oh -- unless every last Iraqi is killed. But that would be genocide, and we're against that -- aren't we?

Are we doing the Iraqis a favor by forcing democracy on them? I doubt it. Democracy is dependent on a number of ideas that existed in the Western world as a result of the enlightenment -- ideas like individualism and egalitarianism -- and that DO NOT exist in the middle east, and these ideas are not necessarily Biblical or the best ideas of humanity. (More on that another time, perhaps.) But without those concepts and practices having become a part of a culture, democracy will make no sense. And that's Iraq -- an inherently communal society that values societal roles and traditional hierarchies.

So, we're doing them no favors, but merely creating more strife and killing. Staying won't solve it, and leaving won't end it, at least not immediately. However, leaving will allow it to end eventually. Staying will have the opposite effect, and ultimately will result in more destruction of life than leaving.

Go to the Iraqi Civilian War Casualties and read the names. Look at the pictures. See the faces of those killed and injured. Love your enemies.

Why I Retired From Baseball

2007-08-11T09:01:00.000-07:00

Basically, at about age 20 I realized I would NOT have a career in the big leagues. Why? Hmmm. Somewhat long story, but here goes.

For spring break my sophomore year in college (1979) some friends and I (all on the Michigan Christian College baseball team) went to Florida. Now, first of all, back then spring break in Florida did NOT resemble anything now broadcast on MTV. Not that I've watched much of that. Seriously. I'm not kidding. Anyway, to prove that point: we did go to the beach, and we did meet some girls there -- all from David Lipscomb University. No kidding. No partying.

Anyway, we also went to a couple of major league spring training games. We went to the Yankees spring training facility to watch them play against the Orioles. I was impressed by the athleticism and sheer strength of the players, especially compared to my own! It appeared that both of my shoulders would fit on any one side of theirs. (I was so thin back then, believe it or not, that when I graduated from high school I was "willed" by fellow graduates a pair of snow shoes so I wouldn't fall through the cracks in the gym floor!) But they didn't look like football players -- absolutely no excess weight. Just sheer, natural strength. So far, though, I was undeterred from my career choice of being a major league baseball player.

But, as we watched the game, a player strode to the plate and hit a line drive. I promise -- it never got more than six feet off the ground, and it slammed into the outfield fence in left-center. I'd never seen a ball hit that hard, and I remember realizing in an instant that I could never do anything like that. I just didn't have the talent, and the whole situation was just too intimidating. I knew I would have to quit.

What I didn't know at that moment -- and only realized later -- was that the player who had hit that line drive was (then little known) Eddie Murray, who would finish his career with 504 home runs and would be elected to the baseball Hall of Fame. In 1979 he was entering his third year in the majors, and had hit only 37 home runs. Wimp. See his career stats here. All I knew at that time was his name.

So, I got intimidated out of a sure-fire career in the major leagues by a future Hall-of-Famer. Ok -- maybe not "sure-fire" (except for the part about NEVER making it). I blame it all on Eddie Murray.

Sometimes I wonder (still!) what might have happened in my life if a few little things had gone differently -- if I'd had better coaching, or hadn't injured my thumb on my throwing hand by playing basketball that year, or hadn't been over-awed by Eddie Murray. The answer is: we'll never know. It's fun to wonder, especially when I hear baseball announcers lamenting the dearth of good pitching in the majors. The dream is probably better than the reality would ever have been.

Some people would claim divine providence -- that God had other plans for me to become a minister or a theologian. Of course, there are others who attribute my present career to Satan! So, did God arrange for me to see Eddie Murray so I would give up on the pipe-dream of playing major league baseball and turn to theology? Did God arrange it so that I would sprain my thumb and be unable to pitch for part of a season? Or was it all "chance"? Or, was it Satan?

Only a few things seem clear in this issue. One is that God does NOT micromanage the entire universe. Not everything that happens is according to God's plan. If it were, there would be no sin. Since sin and evil certainly exist (I know this can be debated, but one issue at a a time, please!), and since (Biblically speaking) we can't blame God directly for them, there must be another cause of sin and evil that is NOT God. Therefore God does not control every event in the universe. Some things are, then, OUTSIDE of his control. (Note: I am not arguing that God CANNOT control all events, only that he DOES NOT.)

Could we say that God controls all events that are NOT sin? In other words, since seeing Eddie Murray and the Orioles play the Yankees that day is (most probably) not sin, is it possible that God arranged the whole thing?

I suppose it is possible, but it doesn't seem likely to me. Think of all (or at least some) of the arrangements that would have to be made for such an event to come about. Eddie Murray would have to be healthy: no spring training injuries, no flu bugs, no spring training fatigue, etc. (And don't think that "etc." is insignificant -- it probably stands for millions of other possibilities!) He had to be "swinging away" and not trying to bunt for a base hit or sacrifice bunt -- so in part this situation depended on what players who batted just before him had done! His manager would have to be in agreement: he needs the at-bats, the opposing pitcher isn't some young kid who throws wildly at 98 MPH and might hurt the young star (Murray), there is no one else who needs work more than Murray or that management needs to evaluate, he doesn't need time off, he won't be assigned to a different game, he won't be traded, etc. And we might try to consider the broader possibilities: Murray's family had no crises, no big events, and the weather had to cooperate. Etc. What about the possibilities in the game? Murray would have to be "seeing the ball" really well to get that kind of hit (unless we assume direct divine intervention, i.e., that God swung the bat FOR him), the pitch would have to be just right, bat speed just right. ETC. The catcher would have to call for the pitch (and he is obviously trying to call a pitch that would NOT allow such a hit!!!), and the pitcher would have to agree. Obviously the pitch wasn't a "pitcher's pitch," i.e., it didn't do exactly what the pitcher intended, so Murray was able to lace it into the outfield. Or perhaps it WAS the "pitcher's pitch," but the scouting report on Murray was wrong, or he had learned to hit a particular type of pitch that he hadn't been able to hit the year before -- so that the scouting report was RIGHT, but outdated. And he had to hit it precisely on the right part of the bat -- no broken bat blooper would do, no ground out, no lazy fly ball or measly single. ETC.

What about me? I had to be watching intently rather than being distracted by my friends around me. My ego had to be in just the right state for the hit to have the effect it had on me -- not too confident or cocky, but yet not so un-confident that I wouldn't have a dream of playing major league baseball. I had to have the cooperation of my friends -- we all had to agree to make the trip to Florida, we all had to come up with the money, convince our parents we could do it without killing ourselves (a dicey proposition if ever there was one) or becoming completely corrupted. We had to agree to go to major league spring training camps rather than the beach or Disney World. We all had to be healthy enough, we all had to get up on time, be willing to pay the gas there, ETC. ETC.

Did I, my friends, the manager, the pitcher, the catcher, and/or Murray himself have any free will in these decisions? For God to have orchestrated the entire situation, wouldn't free will have to have been suspended almost completely for all those involved? Does God DO THAT?

I suppose he could. We do have Biblical examples (such as Jeremiah) where the text says that God chose a person's path before he/she was ever born. But even then, human beings seem to be able to choose a different path -- would we argue, for instance, that Jesus was coerced by God -- that he had no free will to choose to follow God's will for him? I doubt it. And consider Jonah -- he chose a different path, literally. And then God DOES get coercive. Could he still have chosen differently? It appears so, though that might have had dire consequences (I mean, what would it take to follow up on spending three days/nights in the belly of a large fish? I don't even want to imagine what would be worse!)

So, God CAN get rather coercive at times. But, coercion is different than the removal of freedom. Under coercion one can still defy. One merely has to be willing to pay the consequences.

In other words, it seems unlikely that God set up a coercive situation for me to see Eddie Murray hit a line drive that would make me think about becoming a theologian rather than a baseball player.

I think that also answers the question about Satan's involvement. If God himself will not suspend free will, would he allow Satan to do so? Doesn't seem logical.

Maybe God just wanted to see the Yankees get beat again. That sounds like the God I worship.

Praying Over My Head

2007-07-13T23:22:00.000-07:00

I love baseball. I played the game from the age of seven or eight until I turned fortyfive a few years ago -- when I finally faced up to the truth that I would never make it to the bigs. :-) Actually, I had faced up to THAT truth years before. But at about age 45, the truth faced was that continuing to play was getting both progressively futile and embarrassing and progressively painful!! I knew my days were numbered when I was forty, still playing in summer league softball, and I made a dash from first to third on a ball hit to left field -- a dash I'd always been able to make with ease; but now "dash" had to be qualified, I discovered. I discovered that fact when I was still twenty feet from third base and saw that the third baseman already had the ball! Where had my lightning speed gone? Oh -- it had stayed in the 80s, but this was the 90s. Anyway, my only hope was to attempt a diving, headfirst slide. Putting my life on the line, I went for it. As I dove for the bag, I felt something in my left shoulder pop. But not to worry, I also felt my feet fly up over my head, and one foot hit the third baseman's glove and knocked the ball loose, so I was safe at third. I stood up -- my left shoulder felt a little weird, but didn't seem hurt. I played the rest of the game and all my body parts seemed to function ok.

But, we had a double-header that night, with an hour off between games. When I started to warm up for the next game, I realized that I couldn't get my upper left arm to move over the level of my shoulder. I had torn my rotator cuff (I found out weeks later when I finally went to the doctor). It took two years to heal fully.

Now, I'm not claiming that Curt Shilling took a page out of my book with his "bloody sock" stunt, but I played that second game that night and did pretty well. Thankfully I didn't have to catch any balls over the level of my shoulder -- all grounders (I played shortstop). The adrenalin got me through, and the pain only set in later. (Advil is my BFF!)

Everyone does things at some times that we look back on and wonder how we did it. I was never a great athlete, but every now and then I could make a play that might fool someone into thinking I was (if they didn't watch too long and see me boot the next four ground balls or something). Any time that happened, I was really "playing over my head." Sorta like the Milwaukee Brewers for the first half of this season. (Watch them fade in July! Go Cubs!)

I'm lousy at prayer. My prayers are usually just long complaints to God about my pet peeves and unfulfilled selfish desires. I wish I could do better -- and on occasion, by God's grace I have -- but most of the time I feel like God ought to tee me up and whack me down the fairway -- or into the water bunker (would that be an allusion to baptism? Hmmm.).

When I see this tendency in my prayers -- when I make an effort to do better -- I frequently turn to the prayers of people who are better than me. Yes, I know, that's a long list. But it makes the research easier.

Anyway, here's one that I have bookmarked on my browser so that I can click to it when the world and my own selfishness threaten to keep me from sleeping. It's an ancient prayer called the Aidan Compline. You can see the prayer with a short history and instructions by clicking here. But, here are the words. See if these don't help you "pray over your head." They are particularly moving when used (as originally intended) in a group with various leaders (see the instructions for that).

* O Christ, Son of the living God,
may Your holy angels guard our sleep,
may they watch over us as we rest
and hover around our beds.

* Let them reveal to us in our dreams
visions of Your glorious truth,
O High Prince of the universe,
O High Priest of the mysteries.

* May no dreams disturb our rest
and no nightmares darken our dreams.
May no fears or worries delay
our willing, prompt repose.

* May the virtue of our daily work
hallow our nightly prayers.
May our sleep be deep and soft
so our work be fresh and hard.

I will lie down and sleep in peace
for You alone, Lord, make me dwell in safety.

My dear ones, O God, bless Thou and keep,
in every place where they are.

* Into Your hands I commit my spirit;
I give it to You with all the love of my heart.

* How precious to me are Your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake, I am still with You.

I make the cross of Christ upon my breast,
+ over the tablet of my hard heart,
and I beseech the Living God of the universe -
may the Light of Lights come
to my dark heart from Thy place;
may the Spirit's wisdom come to my heart's tablet
from my Saviour.

* Christ without sin, Christ of wounds,
I am placing my soul and my body
under Thy guarding this night,
Christ of the poor, Christ of tears.
Thy cross be my shielding this night,
O Thou Son of tears, of the wounds, of the piercing.

I am going now into the sleep:
O be it in Thy dear arm's keep,
O God of grace, that I shall awake.

* My Christ! my Christ!
my shield, my encircler,
each day, each night,
each light, each dark.

* My Christ! my Christ!
my shield, my encircler,
each day, each night,
each light, each dark.
Be near me, uphold me,
my treasure, my triumph.

Circle me, Lord,
keep protection near
and danger afar.

* Circle me, Lord,
keep light near
and darkness afar.

* Circle me, Lord,
keep peace within;
keep evil out.

The peace of all peace
be mine this night
+ in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.

"Save Dafur" video

2007-07-10T13:12:00.000-07:00

Click here to watch. Then act.

The Patriot's Dream by Gordon Lightfoot

2007-07-04T21:07:00.000-07:00

Granted -- Gordon Lightfoot is a Canadian. We probably shouldn't hold that against him. But these lyrics, from his 1972 album Don Quixote, may speak powerfully to Americans (with apologies to Canadians, who for some strange reason like to insist that THEY are Americans, too). I've wondered sometimes why more US citizens weren't protesting the war in Iraq, and why the anti-war movement took so long to gain momentum. Perhaps it's because we didn't have good songs to move us like we did in the 1960s and 1970s during the Viet Nam war. Maybe we need some good new anti-war songs. In the meantime, try this one out. You can listen to it on Ruckus here (http://www.ruckus.com/ruckus/music/track.do?trackId=482768). But, here's the lyrics.

The songs of the wars are as old as the hills.
They cling like the rust on the cold steel that kills.
They tell of the boys who went down to the tracks
In a patriotic manner with the cold steel on their backs.

The patriot's dream is as old as the sky.
It lives in the lust of a cold calloused lie.
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills.

The train pulled away on that glorious night.
The drummer got drunk and the bugler got tight
While the boys in the back sang a song of good cheer
While riding off to glory in the spring of their years.

The patriot's dream still lives on today.
It makes mothers weep and it makes lovers pray.
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills.

Well there was a sad, sad lady
Weeping all night long.
She received a sad, sad message
From a voice on the telephone.
Her children were all sleeping
As she waited out the dawn.
How could she tell those children
That their father was shot down.
So she took them to her side that day
And she told them one by one,
Your father was a good man ten thousand miles from home.
He tried to do his duty and it took him straight to hell.
He might be in some prison, I hope he's treated well.

Well there was a young girl watching in the early afternoon
When she heard the name of someone who said he'd be home soon.
She wondered how they got him, but the papers did not tell.
There would be no sweet reunion, there would be no wedding bells.
So she took herself into her room and she turned the bed sheets down,
And she cried into the silken folds of her new wedding gown.
He tried to do his duty; it took him straight to hell.
He might be in some prison, I hope he's treated well.

Well there was an old man sitting in his mansion on the hill.
And he thought of his good fortune and the time he'd yet to kill.
He called to his wife one day, "Come sit with me awhile."
Turning toward the sunset, he smiled a wicked smile
"Well I'd like to say I'm sorry for the sinful deeds I've done,
But let me first remind you, I'm a patriotic son."
They tried to do their duty and it took 'em straight to hell.
They might be in some prison, I hope they're treated well

The songs of the wars are as old as the hills,
They cling like the rust on the cold steel that kills.
They tell of the boys who went down to the tracks
In a patriotic manner with the cold steel on their backs.

The train pulled away on that glorious night,
The drummer got drunk and the bugler got tight
While the boys in the back sang a song of good cheer
While riding off to glory in the spring of their years.

The patriot's dream still lives on today
It makes mothers weep and it makes lovers pray.
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills.

I heard an NPR piece a couple of months ago about a new Neil Young album that was wholly a protest against the war in Iraq. I haven't yet heard it. Hope to soon.

GOD'S WHEEL by Shel Silverstein

2007-06-16T09:58:00.000-07:00

God says to me with kind of a smile,
"Hey how would you like to be God awhile
and steer the world?"
"Ok," says I, "I'll give it a try.
Where do I set?
How much do I get?
What time is lunch?
When can I quit?"
"Gimme back that wheel," says God,
"I don't think you're quite ready yet."

that's what I'M talking about

2007-06-15T21:39:00.000-07:00

A couple of posts ago I wrote about being consistently pro-life. That post actually got a few comments (proof that other minds exist -- unless I just imagined the comments! -- darn). Anyway, here's a link to a recent post on Jim Wallis's "God's Politics" blog that is along the same lines: http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/06/bob-francis-the-new-prolife.html

So, waddya think?

THE GENERALS by Shel Silverstein

2007-06-13T09:24:00.000-07:00

Said General Clay to General Gore,
"Oh must we fight this silly war?
To kill and die is such a bore."
"I quite agree," said General Gore.

Said General Gore to General Clay,
"We could go to the beach today
And have some ice cream on the way."
"A grand idea," said General Clay.

Said General Clay to General Gore,
"We'll build sand castles on the shore."
Said General Gore, "We'll splash and play."
"Let's leave right now," said General Clay.

Said General Gore to General Clay,
"But what if the sea is closed today?
And what if the sand's been blown away?"
"A dreadful thought," said General Clay.

Said General Gore to General Clay,
"I've always feared the ocean's spray,
And we may drown!" "It's true, we may.
It chills my blood," said General Clay.

Said General Clay to General Gore,
"My bathing suit is slightly tore.
We'd better go on with our war."
"I quite agree," said General Gore.

Then General Clay charged General Gore
As bullets flew and cannons roared.
And now, alas! there is no more
Of General Clay or General Gore.

The War Prayer

2007-06-09T15:21:00.000-07:00

Recently, Mike Cope made a blog post about saying the Pledge of Allegiance in a worship service. You can read it (and all the comments if you have 2 hours to kill!) by clicking here and finding the post for May 30, "Pledging Allegiance in the Assembly?"

One of the comments linked to this video -- a graphic rendering of Mark Twain's "The War Prayer."

Perhaps we can yet learn to pray for our enemies.

One argument sometimes used to justify killing our enemies is that it is indeed the loving thing to do. After all, since we know that our cause is just and that their cause is UNjust, how loving would it be to allow them to sin by killing US? It is much more just to kill them than to allow them to sin.

This one can make you shake your head like a dog who just got fooled into eating onion. But, it may be the best argument in favor of Christians serving in the military, so it bears some consideration.

The first problem with it is that it assumes that "our" cause is, indeed, just -- i.e., that we're NOT after their oil, that we are NOT all about imperialism, and that OUR lifestyle really represents human good. Uh, I think there are many people who would disagree with all of these assumptions. If our cause is NOT really just, then we should allow them to kill us and assume THAT is righteous or just. In fact, if we prevent them from killing us (and defeating our unjust cause), then WE are sinning.

Second, the argument necessitates the killing of ANYONE who is "unjust." Christians get to become the world's police force to keep everyone from sinning. If this argument holds true, then I am OBLIGATED to keep people from sinning, and if I do NOT keep them from sinning, I have forsaken my obligation and I AM SINNING! Therefore, I am obligated to take up a position outside the strip clubs and kill whoever tries to enter. Oh -- and it licenses me to kill abortion doctors, not to mention tax evaders and jaywalkers. I'm starting to like this! Not.

Need I point out that not even God prevents people from sinning? Why do some people think they have such an obligation? When they argue in this way, and when they act on its basis, they aren't "playing God," they're putting themselves ABOVE God -- doing the "Bruce Almighty" thing by telling God they can run the world better than he can.

One of the things we Christians have always said about Jesus was that he was "perfect," by which we mean he was sinless. I believe this is true, but I wonder if he KNEW this about himself. Could he have told anyone about it? Or would thinking this about himself and/or telling someone about it have been boasting -- therefore sin? Of course, we've all heard someone say: "It ain't braggin' if you can back it up!" Oh, really? I'm pretty sure that "verse" isn't in the Bible, for starters. But then I'm also sure that I've heard people talk about their accomplishments until I'm pretty much ready for the barf bag. And it doesn't matter if they're real or imagined accomplishments. It's still bragging.

In the move The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus is portrayed as saying "I feel so sinful!" It wasn't quite a confession of sin, as I understood it, but a statement of identity with the rest of us sinful human beings -- a statement of how being a part of a sinful humanity made him feel. It is the cinemagraphic statement of the Biblical virtue of humility. If Jesus was truly perfect (again, as I believe he was!), he would also have been perfectly humble, which would have necessitated feelings of unworthiness, perhaps even feelings of sinfulness. To believe otherwise about himself would be arrogant and unloving -- he would be placing himself above the very people he came to reach, inspire, and with whom he claims to identify fully! To do this would have been to place himself outside of God's purposes for his life -- and to fail to "fulfill all righteousness"!

In other words, for any person or group of people to claim that they are righteous and get to judge and execute that judgment on the "unjust" or "unrighteous" is equivalent to being arrogant and unloving -- and therefore placing oneself in the category of "judged." So, the argument collapses of its own weight. No one can take the role of "judge" without simultaneously sinning and placing oneself in the role of "convicted sinner."

And then there is Jesus, who in John 12:31 said "Now is the judgment of this world." What "shape" would that judgment take? He continued by saying: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." John then comments: "He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die."

I'm not quite sure what all to make of that except to say that if I am to judge like Jesus judged. . . . I would like this to be true in all of my life: "I pledge allegiance to the cross."

Micro-vision

2007-06-03T17:38:00.000-07:00

My wife has a cousin who lives in Texas, 14 miles south of the Oklahoma border. She's 28 or 29 years old, and she has never been out of the state of Texas in her life. Seriously. I'm not kidding. Not even by accident. I mean, you might figure that one day she might have accidentally taken a wrong turn and just ended up in Oklahoma for a few minutes! But, no, never happened (that she'll admit). And she has no intentions of ever venturing out of her "Texcoon." (In case my attempt at a derisive pun isn't clear, I'm trying to combine "Texas" and "cocoon.") And I'm not worried about the (im)possibility that she'll read this, either. Sadly.

I read in the newspaper this morning that one of our senators from Oklahoma, Senator Inhoffe, has a bill before the US Congress to limit federal agencies' use of languages other than English. There is debate about just what his bill will accomplish, but it seems clear that at least it will require a level of competency in English from immigrants in order to navigate federal agencies that will make it difficult for many of them. Many organizations that advocate for immigrants are opposed to the bill and consider it discriminatory.

I have to wonder if Senator Inhoffe has ever travelled much outside of the "good 'ol US of A." Well, I'll bet as a US Senator he has -- and carried an entourage with him. Yes, carrying a little (or large) slice of America with you is the perfect way to keep yourself insulated from all those foreigners . . . and keep yourself from possibly feeling awkward because of customs you don't know or understand.

So I'm betting he's never had a real experience of another culture -- the experience of being immersed in it, of being the only American for miles around, or the only English speaker -- the experience of trying to figure out street signs in a language (or perhaps even an alphabet!) of which you can recognize nothing -- an experience of receiving the hospitality of people who don't know you, have no obligation to you, shouldn't like you (because you're an American!), but who help you because they are just good people and they want you to like their country and culture -- of which they are very proud -- and an experience of trying to fit into something you just don't quite understand.

Some of you who read this will have had such experiences. I've had my share (and I'm always looking for more!). Budapest, where we arrived late (with my wife and 3 sons, youngest one age 6 at the time) on a Sunday, managed to find the right bus toward our hotel in the suburbs, but didn't realize that it would skip some stops because it was Sunday. There was no way we could have figured that out from the bus map. We couldn't even pronounce the street names we were passing (to do so would have required sitting and staring at the sign and trying to sound out, one syllable at a time, combinations of consonants that do not occur in English and vowels with odd marks on top that were meaningless to us). So, we ended up in the wrong place, late on a Sunday evening, trying to find a location we couldn't even pronounce, out in the suburbs where there were no cabs to flag down and where no one spoke English. Thankfully, we had a cell phone and the number of the hotel. We called, but no one could speak English! Phone conversations don't work well this way -- we couldn't even use sign language. They hung up, we called again, and this time it was the voice of the hotel owner, and he spoke English! All we knew to tell him was that we had gone too far on the bus. He figured out what had happened (and explained it to us), tried to figure out from our halting pronunciation of street names where we were, and came to get us in his own car. Oh -- and it was bitterly cold. We were on the verge of desperation, frankly. But he was incredibly helpful to us -- really a "second mile" person! He went far beyond what was required, and we ended up having a marvelous time in the city over two days. Budapest is still one of my favorite places on earth!

We also spent 3 months in the city of Vienna, trying our best not to look like Americans. It was certainly a feeble attempt, but the Viennese were gracious and patient with our mistakes. For instance, in a restaurant I tried to order (in German) a grilled chicken ("huhner") but instead asked for a grilled "hunt" -- that is, a dog. She gave me a chicken. I was grateful.

We have a lot of immigrants in Oklahoma, and many don't speak English well. I wonder if we "natives" (a real misnomer for us if not an outright lie) treat them as well. I wonder how much more difficult our country will be for them if we pass that bill.

I suspect that the bill comes from a narrow, narrow perspective -- a perspective that believes that the US is the best nation on earth, and everyone else would love to be an "American" (sorry Canadians, you don't qualify!), and if they don't, well, they're just dumb. And if they don't speak English, well, they're just dumb. Oh -- and certainly they CAN understand it if we just speak it slowly and loudly enough!

I've noticed that other people are just as proud of their county and heritage as any Americans -- and sometimes more so -- and that their heritage is much longer and richer than ours! -- and all that without claiming that their country is "the best nation on earth," or anything like that. Imagine! Being proud of your heritage, loving and valuing it, without claiming it's better than every other heritage on earth! Tough concept for some, apparently.

Add this: they're love of their heritage has nothing to do with their economy or military strength. So often our claims of being the "greatest nation on earth" are really only claims that we spend a greater percentage of our national budget on weapons and military than most -- because we CAN! Because our economy allows us to do that, and our military strength allows us to defend our economy in order to keep it running smoothly and profitably. Militarism and capitalism are in bed together. Go figure. But anyway, other cultures are proud without having that pride being focused on their ability to beat up everyone else. (Maybe this says a lot about our LACK of cultural heritage!)

The same narrowness that keeps my wife's cousin in Texas when she's only fourteen miles away from Oklahoma drives Senator Inhoffe's bill. Senator, please get out of your "Oklacoon." It's a big, wonderful world -- and there's plenty of your Oklacoon to share without being threatened. Let's learn to "welcome the stranger." They'll learn English soon enough. There's no reason to make it harder for them.

One more. Why is it that American Christians combine nationalism with their Christian faith? On the Sunday night before Memorial Day, the church where I'm a member had what I can only consider an idolatrous service of worship to the American God. One underlying assumption is that WE are "God's Chosen Nation," because WE are indeed BETTER than all other nations because WE are MORE RIGHTEOUS than all other nations. How many ways is this logic bad? How much evidence does it ignore? Answers: many, all. What feeds that perspective? The same narrowness that keeps my wife's cousin in Texas and Senator Inhoffe in his Oklacoon. Sad.

On Being (Pro-Life)

2007-04-29T21:18:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow the sports pages of newspapers all across the country will carry articles announcing the death of Josh Hancock, a 29 year old St. Louis Cardinals' pitcher.

Two days ago, on Friday, April 27th, we buried my wife's uncle, George Rektenwald. He was 60 years old, and died of complications related to his pancreas. We thought he was getting better.

Eleven years ago, my wife and I buried our stillborn daughter, Hannah. She died before she ever saw the light of day; before we ever knew her. Our hearts still ache every March 31st, her day of both birth and death.

People will mourn Hancock, just as those who loved George are mourning him and as we still grieve for the loss of our daughter.

People all over the world are grieving over the shootings at Virginia Tech just over a week ago.

I didn't grieve much over the VT shootings, nor will I spend much time grieving over Josh Hancock. Those losses were tragic, but they were not mine. I do hurt for and with the families who are grieving -- knowing a little of what they're going through.

I grieve a little (!) for the babies that are aborted in the US (et al.) each day, week and year, and I grieve a little also for the US soldiers that are being killed each day in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I grieve a little for the Iraqis who are killed each day -- and the Afghans and the Palestinians, etc., etc.

But one person can only do so much grieving. There are only so many tears one can cry. Tears and grief have to be saved for those we are closer to, and it's much easier to ignore all the others.

Perhaps this partly explains an inconsistency in the way most people think about what it means to be "pro-life." In the US, to be "pro-life" generally means to be "anti-abortion" or "against choice" in regard to abortion.

However, I've never met a "pro-choice" person who was also "PRO-abortion," i.e., who was in favor of killing babies. (I'm ignoring the issue here of whether a fetus is a baby.) The "pro-choice" people I know are folks who see that abortions should be a last resort, and that they should be rare, but who believe that there are occasions when it should be a woman's right to choose to abort a fetus. So, in some sense they are also "pro-life" -- abortion isn't usually seen as a casual or cavalier "choice" that one can make, on the level of deciding which soft drink button to punch at a vending machine.

On the other hand, most of the "pro-life" folks I know are only "pro-life" when it comes to babies, and American babies at that. Most "pro-life" folks also happen to be in favor of a large national defense. This is consistent with the politics labelled "conservative" in the US -- we're all about protecting what's ours! And if protecting it means bombing the crap out of Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Afghanistan and North Korea -- and killing lots of non-American babies in the process -- well, them's the breaks.

For several years I kept track of the voting records of members of congress on issues that affected life and quality living. Actually, I did this by taking advantage of the research done by Sojourners. There was precisely 1 (ONE) member of congress who was consistently pro-life: Senator Mark Hatfield from Oregon. Hatfield was against abortion, but also against a large national defense and the exhorbitant spending necessary to maintain it; he was for health care for everyone, also (if memory serves).

All other Senators and Representatives were inconsistent. If they were against abortion, they were in favor of dropping bombs on innocents (or would at least allow for it in national interest) and against most social-welfare programs. If they were pro-life in regard to war and social-welfare issues, they were pro-choice on abortion.

I am decidedly pro-life. I hope to be that consistently. That means that I treasure ALL human lives -- including the Iraqis and the Afghans and their babies, and including American babies. I think being pro-life means we have to be against war, against capital punishment, and in favor of issues that raise the quality of life for those who are disadvantaged in our society.

In other words, being "pro-life" means much, much more than simply being "against abortion." That's way too easy and frequently way too self-centered.

There is a Jewish Midrash (commentary) on the text in Exodus where the Israelites have passed through the sea on dry ground, then turned around to see the Egyptian army in hot pursuit only to have the walls of water crash in on them, drowning every last soldier. The Midrash tells of the angels in heaven breaking into loud shouts of praise to God for this great victory he had wrought over the enemies of his people. God hears the shouts, and asks the angels what they are doing. They reply (I'm paraphrasing from memory here): "We're praising you for your great victory! You are a great God! You have utterly defeated your enemy! We rejoice and praise you for your great power and might!" To which God responds, "How can you rejoice when my children are drowning?"

You see, I can't be "pro-life" only for American babies. To be truly PRO-LIFE means that I must be against the forces of death wherever they are to be found. I must be against ALL powers of death and of hate that leads to death. I am in favor of life -- for American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, Afghans, Palestinians -- and the list goes on and on. "Pro-life" isn't just about abortion. It's about LIFE!

Maybe if I really valued life -- ALL lives -- I would grieve a little more for those we kill (or cause to be killed) so that Americans can continue to burn fossil fuels. Maybe it means . . . loving my enemies?

Comments?

Mock Violence and Violence

2007-03-31T13:08:00.000-07:00

My youngest son turned 9 yesterday. We had a party for him with 10 or so of his friends from school and church – 2 hours in a room full of 8-10 year olds! Aaarrrrgggghhhhh. It was torture -- sort of. Some of those kids are NOT well-behaved! Some of them clearly lack respect for adults and a sense of propriety, and you have to wonder about their up-bringing. But, we lived through it, and the kids all had fun.

One of the gifts my son received was a “dart gun” that shoots foam darts. It has the look of an Uzzi (or so it seems to my non-trained eyes), and can hold eight darts at a time. You can shoot them off rapid-fire – about one per second if you’re fast. It has a rotating loading mechanism sort of like a Gatling Gun. Oh, and the darts glow in the dark! My son is thrilled with this toy. I have to admit it -- it's fun. We'll have fun shooting at characters on the TV screen (the darts will stick to the glass).

I played with guns growing up – played with toy guns, had a BB gun and a pellet gun (CO2 powered) – and later hunted. I bought my own .20 gauge shotgun and received an heirloom .22 caliber rifle from my grandpa. It had the name of one of my uncles carved into the stock, and I carved my own name into it as well. That .22 is the only one I still have – the shotgun was stolen years ago (I still fear a knock on the door late at night by police officers there to arrest me for a shooting with a gun registered to me! I reported the theft, but still. . . .).

I loved hunting, but mostly for the outdoors – tramping in the woods. I stopped hunting when I got married – my wife couldn’t stand the thought that I might shoot Bambi. (But, ask her about her attempts to shoot Mickey!)

So, I’m not anti-weapon. Neither is my wife, who grew up in Texas playing “Cowboys and Indians,” etc., complete with mock gun battles. Neither of us has turned out to be a mass murderer or a child abuser. But we’re both a little concerned with our youngest son’s fascination with weapons.

I wonder what role mock violence plays in the violence of our society – and in the violence of individual lives. I’m sure there are no clear answers to that question. But clearly, lives of people surrounded by violence tend toward violence.

Here’s an example. Tony Lagouranis’ duties in Iraq included the interrogation of prisoners at various locations, including the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. The article found here describes his experiences and his fears about how what he did and witnessed being done to prisoners will affect him.

Human beings are creatures of habit. Even those of us who abhor “ruts” for our lives have habits of daily activity. We wake up each morning and know where to find our toothbrushes, combs, underwear, shampoo, and countless other things – most of which we could and perhaps to) find with our eyes shut. We go through these daily functions without thinking – to the point that we may not notice we’ve done them: have you ever forgotten while in the shower whether you’ve washed your hair? You think about it, and you just really can’t remember whether or not you’ve done it. Then you do it again, and perhaps the action itself reminds you that you’d just done it. We just do these things by sheer habit, without thinking.

What about how we respond to annoyances around us each day? Do we build up habits of action that we perform without even thinking? Habits of anger, retribution and revenge? What if my “small” habits shape how I would respond to a real crisis situation?

The good news is that I am not enslaved to my habits. Habits of action can be changed and even conquered, but not without doing some deliberate thinking about them and conscious planning of how we will respond to specific situations. The cycle of child abuse can be brought to a halt – we are not enslaved by the pattern of behavior we learned from our parents (though certainly it can be an incredibly strong influence). Mr. Lagouranis may have difficulty overcoming in his personal interactions the abuse he committed and witnessed in Iraq, but it is still possible.

What about my 9-year old’s fascination with weapons? We’ve explained to him that as Christians we believe killing is wrong, and so he is not to point his dart gun at any person for any reason. And he can’t shoot the dog, either. He is, however, allowed to shoot at Oprah when she’s on TV. Oh, and Precious Moments figurines are always "in season."

Gettin' Gospelled

2007-03-03T10:36:00.000-08:00

There have been a few times in my life when someone has tried to evangelize me. I dated a girl once who was raised in a church that thought they were the only true church and the only ones going to heaven. (No, she wasn't a Church of Christer.) After we dated a month or so, she told me we had to have a serious talk. I was nineteen, maybe twenty years old at the time, and the words "serious talk" scared the living crap out of me, just for starters. I was certain that, since things had been going rather well between us, this was going to be a "lets get serious" kind of talk, and in a way, it was. It was also a "come to Jesus" talk. Her pastor had heard that she was dating a heathen (me -- "heathen" because I wasn't a member of their church) and had demanded that she put an end to it if I wouldn't convert. So, she had a tract or two that she wanted to work through: the first explained, from her church's point of view, all the errors of MY church, and the second one explained "the truth" (i.e., her church's position on all important things to know in order to get into heaven).

Now, being a good "Church of Christer," I did know a thing or two about the Bible, and I really had it over her in terms of Bible knowledge. Her church's reconnaissance on the Church of Christ wasn't very good, and her tract out of which she read to me accused us of believing a number of things we generally don't believe. Suffice it to say that she was rather unsuccessful in converting me. When it became clear that I wasn't going to be converted, at least in one easy step, she played her trump card: she told me that her pastor had demanded she break up with me if I didn't convert because they were not allowed to date non-Christians. The last time I saw her she was shouting at me from her front porch as I got into my car, telling me it was my own fault I was going to hell. After reflection, I had to laugh at the veritable role-reversal: it was usually us C2ers who. . . . Well, you get the picture.

Last fall, at a conference for religion scholars, I took a break from the sessions, bought a Venti bold coffee from the Starbucks in the conference center, and sat down at a table to relax and read for a few minutes. The table, which I was sharing with other conference-goers, was approached by a man who was handing out leaflets of some sort. I was curious, so held my hand out for one. He informed me that it was for the American Communist Party; I told him I thought capitalism was from Satan. He was suddenly my best friend. It turns out he is an ex-pastor, now an atheist, but still trying to change the world. He pulled a chair up close to mine facing me, leaned forward and tried earnestly to convince me that there is no God and that the only hope of the world is communism. I tried to convince him that certain communist principles aligned pretty well with the gospel of Jesus. I think in the end we were both unconvinced, but I bought some CDs of lectures from him, and I think we both enjoyed the forty-five minute conversation about the ways capitalism corrupts the human soul. I sipped my Starbucks throughout, relishing the irony.

In both of these situations there were a variety of ideas flying around, shot by one party toward the other, almost always missing their target for one reason or another. Or, at least I can say that the ideas had little effect on their intended targets, compelling as they may have been to their adherents. They simply didn't penetrate the other party.

I do have to admit, though, that I'm a little jealous of the communist. In some ways he's living the gospel better than I am. He's committed to a cause for which he has given up everything, a cause which consumes him as well as animates his life and every conversation (I watched as he made the rounds in the sitting area, talking to as many people as he could).

I wonder if I'm committed to the gospel of Jesus as much as he's committed to the gospel of Marx. There are times when it does consume me -- usually when I'm teaching or preaching, or trying to find a way to help someone negotiate life-obstacles. But there are other times when . . . well, when I'm quite the opposite.

In other words, there are times or "places" in my life in which the gospel has no or little effect. But for Christians, all of our life is supposed to be conformed to the gospel -- to the pattern of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. This is what we re-enact in our baptism, and what we re-member each time we take the Lord's Supper. Jesus said that whoever wanted to be one of his followers had to "take up his cross daily and follow him" (Luke 9:23): a daily, hourly, even minute by minute death to self.

The word in the New Testament for "gospel" is the Greek word "euangellion." In the list of spiritual gifts in Ephesians 4, one of the gifts is to be an "evangelist," that is, one who evangelizes. What is it to "evangelize" but to "gospelize"? If I teach the gospel to someone who hasn't accepted Jesus, I am trying to bring that person's life more into conformity with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus -- precisely what I need in my own life.

The reason the communist so impressed me was the way his life conformed to the gospel he had rejected. "When I am lifted up from the earth," Jesus said, "I will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32). The "lifting up," of course, is Jesus on the cross. In other words, according to Jesus there is something quite compelling about the cross -- about the life lived by "taking up the cross daily," always putting others before ourselves. That is a life conformed to the death and resurrection -- the gospel -- of Jesus.

Like it or not, the communist brought me a little closer to Jesus. Thanks, comrade.

Thoughts Over Hiroshima

2007-02-05T15:04:00.000-08:00

Noverim te, noverim me – “May I know you, may I know myself” – said Thomas Merton, quoting Augustine. This is the proper summation of our prayers, but so often they are quite otherwise—I choose ignorance over knowing because deep down I know what it is about me that I do not want brought up to the surface where I will have to face God with it. I . . WE have a stupendous capacity to lie and then to believe our own lie. We tell ourselves that our lives are meaningful, and that we have attained fellowship with God rather than facing the reality that we are mere nothings, bloated full of pride, blown up like a blowfish – and it is all a facade. The only self we know is a false self, and therefore we do not really know God. Even the idea of “imitation of Christ,” Merton says, becomes for us mere “impersonation” [Thomas Merton, Contemplative Prayer (New York: Image Books, 1971), 67-69].

I read these thoughts of Merton’s while flying from Los Angeles to Hong Kong on July 3, 2006. In particular, it was during the part of the flight in which we were over Japan, flying from north to south. As I read, I kept one eye on the navigational map on the screen in front of me, and I noticed that we were approaching Hiroshima. Indeed, we flew directly over it. I wondered if one might still experience the affect of the radiation set off there sixty years ago while flying overhead. What is the half-life of a nuclear holocaust? I felt the eeriness of confluence – of two unrelated but corresponding things that come together coincidentally: there I was, reading about our deep capacity for self-deception and selfjustification, while coincidentally passing 36,000 feet above the site of an event that, like THE Holocaust, ought to cause us to shudder and to resolve: “Never Again.”

I didn’t weep. I actually moaned – moaned out an apology to God on behalf of the human race, myself included. Thinking in cliches: “Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man?” God does, not The Shadow. And we do, if we’re willing to look inside ourselves.

How is it that we can hate other human beings to the extent that we are willing to incinerate them? I know the answer, because I know how I have hated – how I have contributed to the total conglomerate of hate and violence in the world. I’ve never physically killed, but: a butterfly flaps its wings in Australia. . . . What “domino affect” has my hate had on others? Have I despised another who, after being despised by others again, has escalated the level of hate to the point of killing? How many degrees of separation from my hate are necessary before I am no longer implicated?

Of course, I can justify my actions: those I have treated rudely have (well, for the most part) deserved it. They had to be taught a lesson. Did I teach it? Was it the right lesson? Or did I teach them that the right way to respond to others’ rudeness, mistakes, unthoughtfulness or even hate, is to hate or be rude in return? If I have returned an eye for an eye, what did I teach?

We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan because, so it has been argued, it had to be done to save American lives – as if saving American lives is worth killing Japanese lives. Of course, that argument has been questioned: were fewer people killed by incineration than would have been killed in battle on South Pacific islands? Maybe, maybe not. But a more fundamental question is, which lives are worth more, American or Japanese? Can I really argue that killing Japanese people is morally good if it saves Americans? Did it also save Japanese lives? Again, the utilitarian argument could go either way. What is clear is that in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (especially the latter) the mass killing of noncombatants was thought worth the price. Nagasaki has been described as a “sleepy little fishing village.” Unsuspecting innocents, beginning their day, going about their daily, mundane tasks, preparing for work, school, the opening of the shop, perhaps taking their breakfast after feeding the livestock, and then . . . the unspeakable. For some, just a flash and an instant death; for others, a deafening concussion, the building falling in, pinned beneath rubble, perforated by flying debris, wonder of what had happened, wonder of where the children are, or the wife or husband or mother or father, and then perhaps a slower death – but yet more merciful than the deaths that followed from radiation poisoning – the agonizing pain of burns from the radiation, the passing of strength to weakness to death. I dare not attempt to imagine.

Of course, we want clean consciences, and so we have conjured up our best defenses to justify such torture of fellow human beings – and each defense reduces them to something less than human – something it is ok to kill, as we kill a bug that has wandered into our path. We do this to protect our human (and humane) status. But this reduction of humans to less-than-human has another affect: it reduces ME, the defender, as well. When we degrade, we are also degraded. It is not just the degrading of enemies, it is the degradation of the human, and so I am included.

The attempt to rescue my humanity from the specter of insane cruelty is void because I am still degraded. I am still brought down, still reduced to less-than-human, and as a result I will find it easier and easier to disregard the value of human life: as less-than-human, my life is not so valuable after all, and neither are the lives of those around me. And as less-than-human, I cannot be held responsible to the “lofty” standards of humanity. Those standards seem idealistic, unreal, outdated, antique and irrelevant. They just no longer matter. We are no longer human.

What happened on those two days in August of 1945 was not just the killing of a million or so Japanese, it was the killing of humanity. Certainly there had been previous calamitous cruelties – THE Holocaust, for instance – but was this event the final nail in the coffin? We used to think that humanity was rising out of the swamp, climbing higher and higher, becoming more and more dignified. At least that is what the nineteenth and early twentieth century philosophers and theologians believed. There were no heights we would not reach, no mysteries of the universe we would not fathom, no worlds we would not conquer. We were becoming, in Nietzsche’s terms, ubermenschen, “supermen” who could and should set our own ethical codes. World War II shattered that vision of humanity. It revealed that the “new man” we thought we had become, the result of centuries of progress, was still mired in the swamp of sin and evil. Our technological conquests had only made us capable of greater evil on greater numbers of our fellow human beings, all at once.

This weapon of mass destruction was decisive, perhaps, in human history, because we now knew that we possessed the power of absolute self-destruction. While abject cruelty had obviously existed before 1944, never before had such self-hate been set loose in the world. More than just tribal warfare, more than nation against nation, this was the power to do away with the entire human race. “Suicide” is not a big enough word; neither is “genocide." Would “humanicide” do? We didn’t completely destroy ourselves; we tried to cut a cancer out of humanity, but left ourselves crippled as a result of the radical self-surgery. More than simply blowing up a few hundred thousand human beings, we blew out our collective brains – the very soul of humanity as a whole. Humanity, true humanity, was destroyed. It was burned beyond recognition, transmuted at the sub-atomic level. Evolution was replaced by devolution. Was it the apex of sin? Dare we hope?

Can we ever recover? If so, how? How can we recover a lost humanity? The answer is one we all know, but do not want to hear or say. The answer is: we cannot. Humanity is more than chemicals in a test tube. We may, in time, be able to align the chromosomes and DNA correctly to produce a human body that lives. But doing so will not restore humanity. The body thus produced will still find itself part of a less-than-human humanity, a sub-humanity that continues to wallow in self-hate and take morbid pleasure in self-degradation and self-destruction. Recovery is beyond our power. How can we stop hating ourselves? Our self-hate leads to more and more self-degradation, leading to more and more self-hate, thus more self-degradation. . . . The vicious cycle to end all vicious cycles. Perhaps.

Though recovery is beyond our power, it is not impossible. Do we believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Do we believe that he conquered the powers of death and sin? Do we believe that God the Father “made him to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21)? What does this mean? Is it “just a metaphor”? Or did something on the level of creation (God “made” so we could “become”) occur on the cross? Perhaps even something “beneath” the subatomic llevel, at the place where humanity meets human bodies. And even deeper – at the place where God’s identity resides: Jesus, the Son of God and God himself, was made (though not forced) to “be” sin. He did not, it appears, simply “deal with” sin; nor did he merely “pay the price” or take sin “on” himself, though these things are also true. In the person of God the Son, God took sin into himself. This was no external transaction or business operation. This was God himself becoming me, becoming every human being who ever lived, every human being who deserved to be on that cross. The “deal” struck was not between God and some other being; it was internal to God. Sin was “dealt with” by God not as something impersonal to him, but as something which he felt, by which God himself was scarred and pained.

Did God become sinful? The text does not go so far. The only result it states of God’s action is that we can become God’s righteousness. There is no explanation of how that occurs. However, scripture does give us some hints, in other places, of how the “deal” went within God. If we follow for a moment the metaphor of light in scripture: Jesus, the light of the world, is the Son of God who is himself light (John 8:12; 1 John 1:5). Psalm 139:11-12 says: “If I say, ‘Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me become night,’ even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day, for darkness is as light to you.” What happens, then, if the darkness of sin meets up with the light of the world – with the God who is light? To paraphrase John 1:5, the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it. Light dispels darkness. God’s presence dispels darkness and sin.

This is the only hope sub-humanity has. Only God can restore our lost humanity that we so willingly threw away. To know this about ourselves is to begin to know God.

Dr. M. L. King on Viet Nam -- and Iraq?

2007-01-15T10:12:00.000-08:00

No, Dr. King was not speaking about Iraq, but about our nation's propensity toward solving problems violently. However, his predictions about future generations are uncanny -- here we are, forty years later, faced with an almost identical situation. Why? Because we have not solved the moral problems to which he refers. You can listen to the speech and read the entire text here (American Rhetoric.com). Thanks to Sojourners' "Daily Verse and Voice" for the information.

Martin Luther King, Jr.:
Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence

[April 4, 1967 at a meeting of "Clergy and Laity Concerned"]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
. . . . it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
. . . . As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their qestions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be [i.e., will live up to its commitment that all people are created equal] are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.
This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality . . . we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.
And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
. . . . the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken. . . . we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin . . . the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Peacemaking as Typhoon relief

2007-01-11T20:21:00.000-08:00

My old college friend, Salvador Cariaga, sends this report after one month of helping people whose lives were devastated by two typhoons in 10 days in the Mayon district of the Philippines.

A typhoon or hurricane is the strongest storm on earth. The last two typhoons that hit the Bicol Region in less than a week showed how powerful and damaging this force can be. Over 700 villages, five provinces, half a dozen cities, and a million people were affected by this recent double destruction. This was multiplied by the lahar and mudslides coming down from the Mayon volcano just fresh from its recent eruptions.

Though the loss of lives was 'minimal' at over 1,000, the damage is extensive and widespread. What was once lush agricultural fields of cocunut trees have turned into a war zone-like scenario. From the airplane, the abundant coconut trees looked like tooth picks sticking up from the ground, if not bent or fallen in all directions. Miles and miles of houses were damaged or completely destroyed, many roads and bridges were almost impassable or closed, electric posts dangerously leaning everywhere.

Our one month of disaster relief involving over 100 volunteers from around the country did a lot for two small communities, but we barely scratched the surface. However, after one month of sleeping in tents, I am glad to be home and take a short break. We did just about everything, including medical mission, provide roofing for over 500 families, our volunteers cleaned up and helped fix a dozen houses, rebuilt a community basketball court, fed thousands, gave away hundreds of bags and school supplies to kids, conducted two VBS, gave away 131,000 shampoo packs donated by Proctor and Gamble, etc.

My partners and I have personally met mayors, a governor, congresman, and local community leaders and tried to work with them and through them. In the process, a new congregation is forming and another house church is expected to start. Last Sunday, 62 visitors attended our worship service. Yesterday in his brief visit around Mayon Volcano, Dr. John Bailey saw some of the places and people we have served.

We will be back there again with a new team and a new round of relief effort. We plan to do medical mission with half a dozen doctors and help provide roofing for 1000 more homes. We need to raise the following:

1. Medicine to treat 1000 or more people
2. 100 rolls of tarp to provide temporary roofing for 1000 more homes
3. 1000 Bibles. Most people's Bibles were water-damaged, if not swept away. 1000 Bibles is nothing compared to the need, but we plan to hand deliver them to the homes with personal prayer and encouragement.

4. Feed 10,000 people
5. Supply the food and needs of 60-80 volunteers for two weeks.
6. Generator
7. Chain saw
8. 20 more tents and beddings for the volunteer workers.

Note: Salvador had a ruptured apendix and was operated. He is currently recovering in the hospital.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you wish to help with material things like seeds, food and clothes, please send them to:

(Manila Area)
Makati Church of Christ
1598 Archimedes St
Brg Lapaz Makati, (near brgh hall)
Metro Manila,
Philippines

(Visayas Area)
Mactan Church of Christ
Tumulak Street,
Gun-ob
Lapu-Lapu City Cebu 6015
Philippines
(Mindanao Area)
Sunrise Christian College
Bon-Bon, Butuan City 8100
Philippines

For cash donations, please send it to the bank account of
Mactan Church of Christ
Metro Bank, Pusok, Lapu-Lapu City
00718550805-2
Swift number MBTCTHMM

Foreign donors can send their checks through their churches or mail it to:

BandS Ministries (Body and Soul)
P.O. Box 1926
Colleyville, Texas 76034
You may contact Dr. Bailey at jcb2of3@sbcglobal.net http://www.bandsministries.org/

If you have questions concerning Salvador's work, or the BandS organization of Dr. John Bailey, please feel free to email me.

Philippine typhoon relief work

2006-12-29T10:07:00.000-08:00

I have just received the following message from Salvador Cariaga who has been in the disaster area near the Mayon Volcano in the Philippines for about the last month (since the 2 typhoons struck).

Relief Mission Update
I have witnessed the destruction caused by the tsunami in Sri Lanka and my brother, Dr. Sam have been there and to Indonesia as well. Although more people died in that aweful tragedy both of us think that the structural damage done by the two recent successive typhoons in Bicol region (around the active Mayon Volcano) is more wide spread and devastating. Sunday, I drove 100 miles towards Manila, and the damage reached all the way there. Another island province called Catanduanes is also hit as hard if not harder than where I am. I have been here in the disaster site for almost a month now, and I still can not get used to seeing the extensive damage of properties and crops.

Early this morning, I have personally visitied two homes owned by elderly widows (we are prioritizing our assistance on the elderly and widows). The first one is located just accross our new Disaster Camp in Bacacay, Albay. An electric post dangerously leans on their house while half of their roof is torn off and a couple of walls are missing. Their small "sari-sari (house store) was wiped out. Another widow lost everything in the typhoons. Not a single post was left standing. She rebuilt her house with twig-like materials and plastic trash for her roof.

Over 50 volunteers are now helping poor elderly folks like them. Some have already left and more are still coming. We are also getting local cash and kind donations from all over the country, including 31,000 packs of shampoo from proctor and gamble. Our volunteers are having fun distributing them around as freely as they do our WBS materials. Our main donors are members of the Churches of Christ, Bands (Body and Soul Ministry), and Caris Foundation.
Our first big batch of workers are getting tired and homesick. Most will go home this weekend. We have fresh new group on site now preparing to take over until after the new year. After that, I will take a break for a few weeks and be with my family. Unless new funds and workers take over, I might close the camp for good and just help the new church planting mission take over. We discovered three members of the Lord's church in Bacacay (who did not know each other). They committed to start a house church if we provide them a preacher until they can stand on their own.

Please continue to pray for this new ministry. I do not know what will happen and where this will lead to. I have gone as far as I could with this. Perhaps I too am a bit tired and homesick. I have been living in tents for weeks now. Maybe a break from here next month will help.

In His Service,

Salvador Cariaga

If you wish to help with material things like seeds, food and clothes, please send them to:

(Manila Area)
Makati Church of Christ
1598 Archimedes St
Brg Lapaz Makati, (near brgh hall)
Metro Manila,
Philippines
(Visayas Area)
Mactan Church of Christ
Tumulak Street, Gun-ob
Lapu-Lapu City Cebu 6015
Philippines
(Mindanao Area)
SunriseChristian College
Bon-Bon, Butuan City 8100
Philippines

For cash donations, please send it to the bank account of Mactan Church of Christ Metro Bank, Pusok, Lapu-Lapu City 00718550805-2

Foreign donors can send their check to through their churches or mail it to:

BandS Ministries (Body and Soul)
P.O. Box 1926
Colleyville, Texas 76034

You may contact Dr. Bailey at jcb2of3@sbcglobal.net, www.bandsministries.org <http://www.bandsministries.org>

_____

If you need further information, please email me at Cariaga@yahoo.com or call or text me at +63 917 624 3719

View recent pictures of the calamity by clicking below....
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/philippinemission/album?.dir=d820scd
Last weeks' report....
Forty one church volunteers have already arrived in our Disaster Base Camp overlooking the mighty Mayon Volcano spewing out ash and smoke. Ten more are expected tomorrow and ten more the next day and more after that. All will be staying in the school grounds (classroom or tent) without electricity or running water.

Today, our group will have conducted five different church services before the day is over. We hope that this will lead to at least one new congregation. Tomorrow, we will resume our planned schedule:

1. Repair the public school building. Classrooms, comfort rooms, cut broken tree branches, move felled trees, cut grass, fix rock walls,etc.
2. Cook for and serve 300 kids and youth.
3. Have Bible classes for most of the 300.
4. Visit homes most severely damaged or those owned by widows.
5. Bible studies and devotional.
6. Organizational meeting.

We will also distribute roofing materials, nails, cement and seeds. We have a partial delivery of 65 boxes of shampoo (31,00 sachet pieces or one truckload) to distribute also. We are negotiating with other companies to use us as a conduit for their donated products. Most of our volunteers are giving up their Christmas and New Year holidays with their families to serve in
the name of Christ.

In Him,

Salvador

On Being Peacemakers

2006-12-24T20:49:00.000-08:00

See this statement from Sojourners called "Confessing Christ in a Violent World." Good stuff. Let us pray for the grace to live it.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.election&item=confession_signers

True Peace

2006-12-24T08:31:00.000-08:00

A sermon I recently heard (ok, it ended only half an hour ago) affirmed for the congregation that even though the angels announced "Peace on Earth" at the birth of Jesus, that peace isn't really to be found on earth. It's only in heaven after you die, and "in your heart."

I like that -- it makes Christian faith easier. No more working for peace on earth, no more having to put up with violent people who want to hurt me or injure me in some way. I can just kill them, so long as I have peace in my heart. Ain't life grand? Pass the ammunition.

Further, God isn't really trying to do anything in his creation: creation doesn't matter because, well, it's MATTER, and we all know that heaven means shedding this flesh and bone and becoming pure spirit so we can go to a "place" (why "spirits" need a "place" I'll never understand) called "the kingdom of God" that is also "purely spiritual" because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50), and "this world is not my home," yada, yada, yada.

Uh, no. That is the gnostic heresy all over again -- the importation of Greek dualism into Christian doctrine. Here's what I mean.

You can find one source of these ideas in Plato's separation of "appearance" from "reality" in "The Myth of the Cave." Briefly, all we see around us is "mere appearance," which is NOT the way things "really are." The "real" is in the "realm of the ideals," and the stuff we see around us is "mere shadow" of those "realities" that exist in that "other place," the "realm of the ideals."

Now, this concept is probably valuable as a hermeneutical caveat against taking things around us at "face value." However, when it is taken in the ontological sense, i.e., as a description of "the way things really are," it becomes problematic. Taken into Christianity, it becomes heresy.

Gnosticism rose up out of Christianity in the second century. It took Christian language about "flesh" and "spirit" and interpreted it in terms of Greek dualism. For the Gnostics, "flesh" was always evil, and "spirit" was always good. The two could not be mixed, and any contact with "flesh" would render "spirit" evil. This concept had a number of implications for these "Christian Gnostics."

First, it meant that the true God could not have created this world -- that would be to blame this evil place on him and taint his character. So, Gnostics imagined an extended hierarchy of deities, one emanating from the other, each one "less divine" than the other, until they found a deity far enough removed from the original (and "true") Deity that they could blame creation on him (the lesser deity) without casting blame on the TRUE Deity.

Second, it meant that God's Son, the Redeemer, could not really have "become flesh." That would be to mix spirit with matter and to taint the character of the "True Deity."

Third, since this cosmic dualism extended into the personal realm, the "true you" (or "true me") is not this "shell" we call "the body," but is the "divine spark" within each one of us. So, "salvation" came to be seen as a liberation from this "evil body." The "divine spark" was understood to be the "soul," which is, more or less, a ghost that haunts one's body [credit to novelist Walker Percy for that phrase]. One is liberated from the body by knowing this "truth" about oneself. Salvation, then, is not so much from sin, but from ignorance. Thus, the name of this heresy, "gnosticism," is derived from the Greek work gnosko, which means "to know."

Fourth (and this is the best part!), it has ethical implications. Gnostics went one of two ways here. One way was to denigrate the body, to chastise it and essentially starve it to death because it is flesh and therefore evil. It is the other path that I like best: since the body didn't mean anything, and it isn't even the "real me," my body can do whatever it wants! It's not the "real me" anyway! Is this a great religion or what?

What I heard in the sermon today was that bodies and creation don't matter. If that is true, then my body can do whatever it wants! I'm lovin' it!

But, doesn't the Bible clearly indicate a division between "flesh and blood"? Let's see. Paul certainly uses that language, but we have to remember that Paul was highly trained in the Jewish faith and Rabbinic theology. Therefore we have to understand it as having grown out of that background. Though Paul made use of common ideas and phrases out of the Greek culture, the theology (and therefore the content or meaning of the terms) is out of the Old Testament. Here are a few relevant concepts.

First, God loves this creation, including the "matter" out of which he made it. The creation story in Genesis has God affirming the goodness of all that he made over and over, and even after "The Fall," there is no statement that indicates that it stopped being good or that God stopped loving it. The closest thing to such a statement is in Genesis 6, just before the flood, where the text says that "Yahweh repented that he had made human beings" (my trans.). Certainly human beings had brought sin into the world and had become utterly sinful (see Gen. 6:5), but the "plan of salvation" that God put into motion in Genesis 12 with the calling of Abraham was NOT a negation of what he had made, but a redemption. God is NOT sorry he created (in general), but sorry he had created human beings. When he destroyed them by the flood, he didn't destroy them all and start over with a different kind of being. He left a few humans alive and began the same project all over again! The point of the story is that sin will be a reality so long as there are humans: if you have human beings, you will also have sin and evil. You don't get rid of evil by killing off all the people you think are evil because the evil is right within each one of us. Yet it does not negate the goodness in which we were created, nor does it negate the imago Dei, the "image of God" in which we were created.

Now, take a look at Romans 8:18-25, a passage I like to call "God's Plan of Salvation." What are God's intentions for his creation stated here? Apparently, God intends to redeem it ALL -- ALL of it is "groaning as in labor," waiting for the "birth" of the children of God -- waiting for the FINAL CONSUMMATION of our redemption, in which the entire creation is to share! Salvation here includes (!) bodies ("the redemption of our bodies," v. 23; cf. also 1 Cor. 15 on the resurrection of bodies, and 1 Cor. 6 on our bodies being "members of Christ"). There is no thought here of a "ghost that haunts the body," nor of a "spirituality" that excludes and/or denigrates the body! "Spirituality" actually involves one's body -- or it's not truly "spiritual"!

In fact, the word "soul" as it is used in both Old and New Testaments (Hebrew nephesh; Greek psyche) is a reference not to some "ghost that haunts the body," but to the whole person. Ask yourself this question: Can souls swim? Sounds nonsensical if the "soul" is equivalent to a "personal ghost" or some such notion. But note this: in the story of the flood, the Hebrew text reads that there were "eight souls" (nepheshim) saved in the ark. The New Testament reference says the same thing, but uses the Greek psyche. So: saved from what? Well, didn't the ark save them from drowning? Why? Can't souls swim? Well, if they're "personal ghosts" then they don't have to swim, it would seem (not needing oxygen to survive, etc.). But, since here souls were saved from drowning, it may be that the word "soul" has a different reference, and indeed it does. If you consult the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, a very scholarly source edited by Colin Brown, you will find that "soul" essentially refers to "the whole person." Therefore, most contemporary translations of the Bible will tell you that "eight persons were saved" by the ark.

In other words, there is no "personal dualism" to be found in the New Testament, and no "cosmic dualism." "Salvation" is, therefore, not just a "pie in the sky by and by" kind of thing, and the "peace of God which surpasses all understanding" isn't something we get when we enter the pearly gates, but it is something we both enjoy in the here and now and must live out in the present time!

The "peace" offered by Jesus is also a "here and now" peace -- though it is true that we live in a world of strife and violence. What, then, does it mean for the angels to announce "Peace on earth" to the shepherds -- and to us?

It means, of course, that Jesus is indeed the "prince of peace," and that we, as those who believe it, are called to live that peace in our world. It is not just a "feeling of calmness" in the midst of chaos, though it may be that. But we are also called to BE something: "peacemakers." We are to live as if God is really in charge -- to live out of control because God is in control! We are to live the peace of God's kingdom as lights in a dark world. That is what Jesus did, and we are his disciples. We live our salvation so that others will see it. Some will love it and respond positively. Others will see us as weak and take advantage of us. But that doesn't change our call from God. When the angels announced "Peace on earth," they were speaking a word from God, and God wasn't kidding. Peace.

On Being Nice

2006-12-23T18:07:00.000-08:00

More on Hauerwas. I recently commented that I love his abrasiveness. However, I’ve never seen him be unkind. Quite the opposite: he is a very gracious, grace-filled man. I know this both from personal experience and from hearing the “Hauerwas Lore.”

At any rate, the “abrasiveness” comes from the gospel. Yes, that’s right – the good news of Jesus Christ. There. You heard me say it, right here on my blog in front of God and everybody (not that I assume God is a reader of my blog!).

I wonder sometimes where Christians ever got the notion that we’re all about “being nice.” Does it come from the gospels? Let’s see, hmmm. Maybe it’s the preaching of Jesus recorded there – the preaching to and about (at the same time!) the “scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites”? Uh, no, that’s probably not it. Well, what about, hmm, the stories of Jesus healing people? Yeah, that could do it – except that every time he healed someone, it turned out to be the WRONG “someone,” and it made him enemies.

Well, was Jesus ever kind to anyone? Yes – to all the “wrong people.” To the lepers, the children, the women with “a past,” the tax collectors, the Samaritan women, etc., etc. He was nice to the people who “didn’t count” in his society – the people who couldn’t help him when he got arrested by calling up their powerful friends and working a deal. He was kind to those who couldn’t return the favor even if they wanted to.

It was to the powerful that he spoke his harshest words and called his most provocative names – “bunch of snakes,” and “whitewashed tombs full of dead bodies,” etc. These are the kinds of words he spoke to those who could have helped him when he got in trouble. But those were the very people who worked against him, who wanted him arrested. These were the people of power and influence to whom he spoke harshly. He wasn’t nice to them. (One exception: the Pharisee Nicodemus in John 3 – who came to Jesus seeking the truth.)

These days we judge churches by how “nice” they are – by how many people greet us (or not) as we enter and find a place to sit and as we leave. Church growth experts tell us that only “nice” churches grow. And it’s a “given” that Christians are supposed to be “nice” because that’s how we will be able to share the gospel of this . . . not-so-nice-Jesus?

There are limits to our “niceness,” of course, and typically those limits are also the borders of our nation, or more precisely, of our nationalism. We’ll be nice to just about anyone unless they happen to be an enemy of our nation. Then, we typically reason, it’s ok to kill them and their children, or at least make life miserable for them through “economic sanctions” (the modern form of the siege). Not so nice. Not so much like Jesus.

But we do share the gospel, and we’re “nice,” and sometimes people get mad at us anyway. I think it would be great if that anger toward Christians was for the same reasons religious leaders in the first century got mad at Jesus, but it’s not. In America, the non-religious folks sometimes get mad at Christians because, well, we’re arrogant and we want power. They see the hypocrisy of many Christians who proclaim a gospel of “niceness” and then believe it is just fine to kill enemies and abandon the poor to their own resources. But when they hate us for these reasons, frequently the Christian response has been to cry “Persecution! Persecution!” And so the battle rages.

Of course, this is a somewhat more difficult problem than my description here, and not all Christians fall under this description. But enough of “us” DO fall under the description that I believe it’s safe to offer it as a generalization.

In other words, “we” are sometimes abrasive for the wrong reasons – for really bad reasons, reasons that are decidedly NOT the gospel of Jesus the Messiah.

So, though Hauerwas has sometimes been criticized for his abrasiveness, could one say that in this characteristic he is very much like Jesus? I’ve heard him say (and he may have written this somewhere, too) that if he goes somewhere to preach and doesn’t make someone mad, he feels like he’s been unfaithful to the gospel. And THAT is why I would like to be as abrasive as Stanley Hauerwas.

Precisely what is it about the gospel that is “abrasive”? And to whom? I’ll consider those questions in a subsequent post.

A Better Hope

2006-12-21T10:26:00.000-08:00

I am in the process of reading A Better Hope, a collection of essays by Stanley Hauerwas (Brazos Press, 2000). Stanley has long been a favorite of mine, in part because I dearly love his abrasiveness (and wish very much to be just as abrasive!), and in part because he has such clear focus on our Lord, and he strives to let that focus determine everything he thinks, says, does and/or writes.

This book, though, is his attempt to state the positive rather than the negative. He says this book will not, however, present "a kinder, gentler Hauerwas." Thank God! We don't need a "Hauerwoos." ;-) Listen:

I do not deny that I love a good fight, but I also know that it is a mistake, at least if you are a Christian, to have your life or theology determined by who you think are your enemies. Christians know we will have enemies because we are told we must love our enemies. That we are commanded to love our enemies is not a strategy to guarantee that all enmity can be overcome, but a reminder that for Christians our lives must be determined by our loves, not our hates. That is why Christians cannot afford to let ourselves be defined by what we are against. Whatever or whomever we are against, we are so only because God has given us so much to be for.

Certainly this statement (and others similar to it) will make Hauerwas new enemies, or at the least renew the enmity of old ones. Why?

Because people don't want policies that won't "work," that won't guarantee that "all enmity [will] be overcome." We human beings are not very comfortable with physical uncertainties. Refusing to conquer our enemies means letting them be who they are -- our enemies, some of whom want to kill us. It seems then that to love them is to give them tacit permission to kill us. So, loving them means we may have to give up our comfort and way of life, or the comfort and way of life we would like our children and grandchildren to have. We may get killed. That doesn't see fair -- here we are, working for justice, and we get killed for it? Some would simply refuse to pay that price. And since we know Jesus was rational, we "know" he could not have really meant that. Or so this line of reasoning goes.

But, if we realize, as Hauerwas has said, that we don't love our enemies because we believe it will "work" in some strategic way, that it will suddenly convert our enemies into puppy dogs so the world will become a "Precious Moments" scene, but rather we love them because God does and because we were baptized into the Lord who died for them, that line of reasoning is shown to be irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not the "strategy" (and it becomes at this point something other than a "strategy") "works": what matters is who we are -- we ARE a people defined not by our enemies but by our Lord.

I'm grateful for Stanley Hauerwas for showing this to me.

Devastation in the Philippines

2006-12-20T21:22:00.000-08:00

The area surrounding the Mayon volcano was the hardest hit area by the typhoons Durian and Utor over the last two weeks. Here are a few photos. See previous posts for more information.

God is Not an American

2006-12-13T19:51:00.000-08:00

There is a wonderful group on Facebook, "God is Not an American." I love it because I so often see evidence that many, many of the people around me think that he/she IS American, and that s/he loves to underwrite the American "foreign policy" agenda and can't wait to sign onto the next Republican party platform. Admittedly, I do see Democrats that have a parallel attitude, but generally speaking, it seems to be more prevalent on the Republican side of the aisle. Of course, some Republicans might say it's because Republicans believe in God and Democrats don't, or some other such silliness. I won't even dignify that with a response.

Now, if you believe as I do that God is a lover of all human beings equally, then grab your barf bag and click on this link. Watch the video. Do you see what I see?

I see people who cannot tell the difference between their Christianity and their patriotism -- they think they are one and the same. I see people who assume that God is indeed an American, and that God always supports America, and that the gospel of Jesus Christ supports the work of our military when it kills our enemies.

Is there not a tension here between the words of Jesus, "Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you," and the idea that we sometimes have to kill our enemies? "Tension" is certainly too soft a term. There is no "tension," there is conflict. However, this video demonstrates how easily the gospel of Jesus can be perverted to the extent that many feel absolutely tension, let alone sense a conflict here.

Now, I don't object to the existence of a group of Christians who might lobby representatives of our government on certain issues. I don't object to government employees praying or studying the Bible. What I object to in this video (and in American "Christian" culture in general) is the assumption that the gospel aligns perfectly with our American agenda. Here's an example.

Manifest Destiny. America was "meant" to extend "from sea to shining sea," and anything or anyone that stood in its way was opposing divine intention and was therefore subject to divine wrath, which "we" were more than willing to execute (pun intended, but not intended to be funny!) on God's behalf. It was genocide, and the first peoples to reside in this place barely survived. It was an atrocity -- to the point that I have to put the quote marks around "we" when I talk about it. Whether or not my ancestors participated, as a white male I have reaped the benefits of what was done. It was done because "we" were Christian and the native peoples were "pagan savages" who were worthy of slaughter. (For a more complete exposition of how "Manifest Destiny" worked in American history, see the book by Richard Hughes, Myths America Lives By. Bibliographical information and a review by yours truly can be found by clicking here. Review originally appeared in The Christian Chronicle.)

I'm not sure what to do about this issue except to keep talking about it. Anybody got a flak jacket I can borrow?

Philippines typhoon disaster: update

2006-12-12T22:27:00.000-08:00

My friend Salvador Cariaga sent the following text message from the disaster site on the Philippine island of Luzon, near the Mayon Volcano:

Toured around the volcano. Devastation and damage everywhere. Most houses, crops and schools destroyed. Stench of death still lingering. Images of despair all over. Lava flow, typhoon, mudslides, floodin; another typhoon would bring more mudslides and flooding. Too much for people to bear. Food shortage and widespread disease feared.

A good news account can be found here:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/222031/116585446739.htm

If you wish to donate, see information in the previous posts (below).

Typhoon Utor

2006-12-12T08:29:00.000-08:00

The second typhoon to hit the Philippines in ten days, Typhoon Utor, killed "only" five people. The damage from the first one, Typhoon Durian, is still largely unassessed. Some areas are still unaccessible because of mud slides that have blocked roads. See the story here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/12/asia/AS_WEA_Asia_Storm.php

My friend Salvador is on his way to the disaster area -- he's probably already there as of this writing (10:45 AM CT, Tuesday, December 12). Here is his last message before leaving:

Typhoon Disaster Update (12/12/06)
In a few hours, I will be leaving for the disaster site where Jun Arcilla, Elmer Palacio and several other colleages have been scouting for several days now. Elmer's sister and cousin lived in separate communities. Both their houses were destroyed by mudslide. His cousin had to evacuate his whole family to Manila. They lost everything. Jun Arcilla has also been networking with his contacts in Albay and Sorsogon. Aside from scouting how we could be of help, he has also been zealously evangelizing and teaching people the word of God. He found a Christian family in Pilar and they have been working with him and taking him around.

Wednesday, we will meet with MARCH for Christ workers in Legaspi. My brother, Dr. Sam and several others in our contingent will join forces with MARCH and conduct a medical and dental mission on December 13-15. MARCH have been doing feeding mission and helping thousands of people. Gigie Caranza and a dozen other workers have been there since last week. Based on the information I have gleaned from our brothers in the field and news network, they need the three basic necessities: food, shelter, and clothing. Over a million is supposed to be affected by the disaster, many are left homeless.
If you wish to help, please send material things like food and
clothes to:
Jun Patricio
c/o Makati Church of Christ.
1598 Archimedes St
Brg Lapaz Makati, (near brgh hall)
Metro Manila

For cash donations, please send it to the bank account of Mactan Church of Christ:
Metro Bank, Pusok,
Lapu-Lapu City
00718550805-2

Foreign donors can send their check to:

BandS Ministries
P.O. Box 1926
Colleyville, Texas 76034
You may
contact Dr. Bailey at jcb2of3@sbcglobal.net or
www.bandsministries.org

If you need further information, please email me or text me at +63 917 6243719

In His Service,

Salvador Cariaga
http://www.philippinechurchesofchrist.org/

Typhoon Durian

2006-12-09T19:07:00.000-08:00

Odd name for a typhoon: Durian. In the Philippine Islands, which Typhoon Durian hit just a few days ago, Durian is a fruit -- a "stinky fruit" for which, they tell me, one must develop a taste. Apparently it smells so bad that it is illegal to carry one on any public transportation. No kidding.

And now, after Durian, another typhoon has hit the Philippines. One of my old college friends, Salvador Cariaga, has been a missionary in the Philippines since his graduation from Oklahoma Christian University in 1983. The Philippines is a very poor country generally, and the people who have gone to the disaster site to minister to those in crisis do not have a lot.

Below, I will paste several messages I've received from my friend, Salvador, along with information which will tell you how to donate to the relief efforts.

First, the "official" plea for assistance.

Manila authorities say over 1200 dead. Hundreds of villages destroyed.

Two scout teams will start serving the typhoon victims today in Albay. We have joined forces with MARCH for Christ led by Chito Cusi. While some will be providing food and medical care, others will be scouting the area and working with the government and relief agencies on how we can be most effective.
We are looking for sources of cheap used clothing to buy and ship them in site as soon as possible. We are sourcing out funding for that and canned foods also to provide for the victims.

Next week, larger teams will arrive to do more medical mission and provide spiritual and emotional counseling. Jun Arcilla, preacher of Mandaue Church of Christ, and a native of Albay and Dr. Teves, a Christian surgeon were sent by BANDS to do the inital work there. BANDS (Body and Soul), led by Dr. John Bailey, is sponsoring a larger team next week.
www.bandsministries.org
To help with the disaster victims,
please send it to:
BandS Ministries
P.O. Box 1926
Colleyville, Texas 76034

You may contact Dr. Bailey at jcb2of3@sbcglobal.net or send them to your home church and they will contact us.

Salvador Cariaga
http://www.philippinechurchesofchrist.org/

carla calhoun wrote:
Viet Nam update:
Currently: 59 dead
Areas affected: Within two months of typhoon Xangsane hitting both the Philippines and Viet Nam, typhoon Durian has followed the same path leaving the Philippines and travelling parallel to the southern Vietnamese coast. Typhoon Durian made landfall in the southern Vietnamese province of Vung Tau and the Mekong river delta on the evening of Tuesday 5 December 2006. The eye of the typhoon crossed Phu Qui island in Binh Thuan province, destroying homes, community infrastructure and disrupting out communications and electrical systems. Initial estimates by the authorities and Viet Nam Red Cross (VNRC) officials indicate 48 people dead, 184 injured and ten missing. Over 120,000 houses are reported to have collapsed or had their roofs blown off and approximately 700 boats have been sunk.
The most affected areas are Phu Qui island in Binh Thuan province, Ba Ria Vung Tau, Tien Giang, Ben Tre, and Vinh Long provinces. Heavy rains as a result of the typhoon in Danang, Quang Nam and Quang Ngai provinces have increased river water levels to dangerous heights.

Philippine Update:
MANILA, Dec. 6 (Xinhua) -- The death toll in the aftermath of typhoon Durian has risen to 543 with over 2,000 people reported injured or missing in Albay province, central Philippines, the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) said on Wednesday.

Two men with BANDS will be out today assessing the damage.
Salvador Cariaga will keep us posted on news and updates.

Pray for the families in these areas. May the Christian brothers be blessed as they render aid to their neighbors. More information to follow on how to help.

Carla

Carla Calhoun saw this story on Asianews and thought you should see it.
Message: disasterresource@yahoo.com
Manila authorities say over 1200 dead. Hundreds of villages destroyed. Article:PHILIPPINES - VIETNAM Typhoon Durian:
reconstruction could take yearsThis is the estimation of the Filipino authorities. The typhoon killed 1200 people and buried 700 villages. Moving to Vietnam, it left 54 dead in its wake. If you want to see the full article click here
Asianews is not responsable for the content of this e-mail

NEXT EMAIL:
Filipino Christian workers now on site."Manila authorities say over 1200 dead. Hundreds of villages destroyed." Two teams started serving the typhoon victims yesterday in Albay. Jun Arcilla, formerly from Catanduanes, now minister of Mandaue Church of Christ in Cebu, surveyed the area and interviewed the victims. He reported witnessing a sea of refugees. The constant rain is making matters worse for the rescuers and the survivors. The Philippine newspaper PDI estimated that over a million people were displaced with hundreds of villages wiped out. Elmer Palacio, a preacher in Cebu has a sister in Bacacay, Albay. He said their home was totally destroyed. Her family was devastated and do not know where to go and what to do. A local official found her husband wandering in town aimlessly. I promised emergency fund to tied them over until we get there. MARCH for Christ also have a small team in Albay. Gigi Caranza and Naga brethren are on site preparing a feeding program for the survivors. A joint medical and dental mission will be held early next week with Dr. Samuel Cariaga and other doctors. Preachers from the churches of Christ will also assist in the counseling and spiritual guidance. We hope to provide food and clothing during this mission. Later on, we hope to participate in the rebuilding program and help provide a new home for those who lost everything. We will also ask Philippine churches of Christ to contribute for this cause. Some have already offered used clothes and money. BANDS (Body and Soul), led by Dr. John Bailey, has provided us the seed money to respond immediately. We will need $10,000 for next week's mission and more for the second and third. This will help with the medicine, food, clothes, and temporary shelter for the survivors. We also need a portion of this to transport volunteers, feed and house them. To help with this disaster effort , please send it to:

BandS Ministries
P.O. Box 1926
Colleyville, Texas 76034

You may contact Dr. Bailey at jcb2of3@sbcglobal.net www.bandsministries.org or send your help to your home church and they will contact us.

For local donations, please send it to
Jun Patricio
c/o Makati Church of Christ.
1598 Archimedes St
Brg Lapaz Makati (near brgh hall)

We are negotiating with Manila brethren who are duly registered with the government to be official conduit of funds locally and abroad. The information should be available sometime today. For more information, please contact me or Jun Patricio at bonifaciopatricio@yahoo.com MARCH for Christ can be reached through Chito Cusi at lpcusi@yahoo.com

In His Service,

Salvador Cariaga http://www.philippinechurchesofchrist.org/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This document has been forwarded from the ReliefWeb site. Sender: carla calhoun (carlacalhoun2004@yahoo.com) Source: Philippine National Red CrossDate: 06 Dec 2006

As typhoon Reming (international name: Durian) continues to move out of the country, thousands of affected families are left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives. Houses and infrastructure suffered massive damage from volcanic debris and mudflows from Mt. Mayon, leaving hundreds deadwhile survivors have sought refuge in packed evacuation centers.

Within hours of the disaster, the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) immediately deployed their local disaster response teams to heavilyafflicted areas for rescue and initial relief distribution.

Reports coming in from the field have placed the level of destruction much higher than during the recent typhoon Milenyo. Conflicting initial reports put the death toll anywhere between 200 and 500, and about 140,000 families badly affected. These figures are expected to rise significantly whencommunication lines are restored in areas including Catanduanes andSorsogon.

The PNRC sent three teams of experts yesterday to ravaged areas of Albay, Catanduanes, Camarines Sur, Quezon and Marinduque to gain a generalimpression of the scale of damage and to gauge the immediate needs ofaffected families there.

PNRC chairman Richard J. Gordon yesterday (Dec 2) flew over Albay andCatanduanes aboard a chopper and observed that, while there was apparently heavier loss of lives in Albay, reports indicate that Catanduanes seems to have suffered heavy damage to property and infrastructure. He also met with some government officials of Albay and Catanduanes who told him of their commitment to assist the affected families.

"Because of the typhoon's extensive damage to property and infrastructure," said Gordon, "many people are without roofs over their heads or access to essential services." He also noted that food and drinking water are inshort supply; details, however, as to the number of families and days they need to be served have not yet been finalized.

The most vulnerable communities, Gordon pointed out, are those living adistance away from the urban centers, whose farms have been heavilydamaged, with coconut plantations and rice fields, as well as banana and abaca groves rendered virtually unproductive for the next season.

"With little alternative sources of sustenance," said Gordon, "thesevulnerable communities need immediate relief to tide them over for theimmediate term, and then some assistance to get them back on their feetwith livelihood assistance.

"It is vital to help them regain their self-reliance and dignity, for this is the core humanitarian mission of the Red Cross: “ to help save lives, improve lives," added Gordon.

For his part, Roger Bracke, head of International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC) delegation in Manila, said of the aerial surveywith Gordon as well as of interviews with people on the ground that"communities are still shell-shocked" and that ongoing food distribution is "on a scale that is not relevant."

Bracke added that they saw about 80-150 buried houses with only the roofs showing, adding however that he cannot release any figures yet based onjust one visit. More assessment teams will be deployed in the coming days to help form a more complete picture of the typhoon damage.

The international community has been responding well to the disaster. The IFRC has released an initial emergency assistance of 100,000 Swiss Francs from its Disaster Relief Emergency Fund, and is preparing to release aninternational appeal soon. The Netherlands Red Cross has pledged 40,000Euros.

The Canadian government has also pledged one million Canadian dollars, half of which was coursed through the IFRC and the other 500,000 through theCanadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

"We need to send out the message that, while we will dig into our ownresources in response to this disaster, our means are inadequate and wewill appreciate and welcome humanitarian assistance in whatever form that the world can extend to us in this time of great need," said Gordon.

As for local companies, the Rotary Club pledged to contribute in-kinddonations, while Globe Telecom is accepting donations through its G-Cash and Donate-A-Load programs. Smart Philippines, on the other hand, willdistribute relief supplies in Albay together with the PNRC on Monday.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the documents carried by theReliefWeb site are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by UN OCHA or the ReliefWeb secretariat. Inclusion of links to sites outside the United Nations does not imply endorsement of the contents of thosesites. Any user comments added to forwarded Email messages are those of the comment authors.

AND FINALLY: TEXT MESSAGES FROM RELIEF WORKERS IN THE DISASTER AREAS. I will cut and paste as they were sent to me. Salvador has provided "translations" of the shorthand texts and of some of the language where necessary.

Another typhoon hit the Philippines yesterday. The wind and rain was strong here in Cebu whole day and night. There are flooding here that caused traffic jams around the city. It even leaked in my house. They had to cancel the ASIAN SUMMIT, a meeting of heads of state in the region due to the weather. However, our woes here are nothing compared to the Bicol area. Jun Arcilla, a veteran of many disaster relief effort said that it is 100 times worse than the Leyte landslide disaster. Note recent few text messages I got....

Text messages from the local volunteers on the disaster area.....
"Never in a distant history dat Ligaspi, Albay, Daraga xperience dis DELUGE, Dis whole cities u can imagine were covered with flood waters more than 10ft. never be4. Its not an exageration wen I said its 100 times more than GUINSAUGON. Tens of towns ERASED. Manu ar buried, smel of death s all over in many places we saw." Jun Arcilla, preacher, Mandaue Church of Christ, working in the disaster area. 12/8 7:39 pm. Translation: "Never in a distant history that Daraga, Legaspi, Albay experienced this DELUGE. These whole cities you can imagine were covered with flood waters more than ten feet.
Never before. It is not an exageration when I said it is a hundred times more than GUINSAUGON. Tens of towns ERASED. Many are burried. Smell of deth are all over in many places we saw."

" I can feel d fear of d pepol nw dat again ders heavy dwnpour. Im afraid dis wl triger another mud flw at Mayon." Jun Arcilla, minister of Mandaue Church of Christ, working in the disaster area. Translation: "I can feel the fear of the people now that again there's heavy down pour. I am afraid this will trigger another mud flow at Mayon (Volcano)." Sent 12/9/06 at 10pm
"Pilar Sorsogon: Madilim sa labas mlakas ang ulan at hanging bagyo na dito dilikado na naman ang Mayon area. Divotional kami dito. Jst finis our diner with Adi family." Jun Arcilla 12/9/06 9:13 pm. Translation: " Pilar Sorsogon: It is dark outside. The rain and wind are very strong. It is typhoon again here. The Mayon (volcano) area is dangerous again. We are having devotional (service). Just finnished our dinner with the Adi family."
"Medyo mahangin at maulan d2 sa bayandong. Wer ok, nagtransfer kami ng place mas safety." Elmer Palacio, preacher in Babag, Lapu-Lapu City visiting Mayon where her sister's house was completely demolished. Sent 12/0/06 8pm.
Translation: "It is windy and raining hard here in Bayandon. We are ok. We trantransfere to a safer place."
"Ang mga lava frm vomayon sa brgy padang, Legaspi ang na grabehan, maraming namatayang town of St. Domingo mudlow and nakasira, un ang nadaanan namid. Malakas na ulan at medyo mahangin na rin." Elmer Palacio, sent 12/9 2:12 pm
Translation: " The lava from Mayon Volcano is worse in Padang, Legaspi. Many died in the town of St. Domingo due to destruction of the mudflow. We passed by there. The rain is strong and it is windy also."
"Some o most of d ppol hir dont ask clothes ecept sa mga naanod n natabonan ng haws, wat dey nid now, fud, medcine, n 4 rebuilding der house. I dont know kung bagyo nasad kini ron." Elmer Palacio. 12/9 3:04 pm. "Some or most of the people here do no t ask clothes except whose house was washed out or burried. What they need now are food, medicine, and for rebuilding their house. I do not know if another typhoon is coming."
"Im at bayandon na. Kawawa mga ung lugar at tao talaga, 368 hawhold, 207 totaly damage na mga bahay, naanod ung iba. Walang pagkukunan ng income dahil nasira lahat, bago lang kami nagusap sa capt nila." Elmer Palacio.
12/0 11:54 am Translation: "I am at Bayandon already. I feel pity for the place and the people. 368 house hold, 207 houses are totally damaged. Some were washed out. They have no source of income anymore because everything was destroyed. I just spoke to their local chief."

Salvador Cariaga
http://www.philippinechurchesofchrist.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
(Dec. 7, 2006)
Filipino Christian workers now on site
"Manila authorities say over 1200 dead. Hundreds of villages destroyed."
Two teams started serving the typhoon victims yesterday in Albay. Jun Arcilla, formerly from Catanduanes, now minister of Mandaue Church of Christ in Cebu, surveyed the area and interviewed the victims. He reported witnessing a sea of refugees. The constant rain is making matters worse for the rescuers and the survivors. The Philippine newspaper PDI estimated that over a million people were displaced with hundreds of villages wiped out.
Elmer Palacio, a preacher in Cebu has a sister in Bacacay, Albay. He said their home was totally destroyed. Her family was devastated and do not know where to go and what to do. A local official found her husband wandering in town aimlessly. I promised emergency fund to tied them over until we get there.
MARCH for Christ also have a small team in Albay. Gigi Caranza and Naga brethren are on site preparing a feeding program for the survivors. A joint medical and dental mission will be held early next week with Dr. Samuel Cariaga and other doctors. Preachers from the churches of Christ will also assist in the counseling and spiritual guidance. We hope to provide food and clothing during this mission. Later on, we hope to participate in the rebuilding program and help provide a new home for those who lost everything. We will also ask Philippine churches of Christ to contribute for this cause. Some have already offered used clothes and money.
BANDS (Body and Soul), led by Dr. John Bailey, has provided us the seed money to respond immediately. We will need $10,000 for next week's mission and more for the second and third. This will help with the medicine, food, clothes, and temporary shelter for the survivors. We also need a portion of this to transport volunteers, feed and house them. To help with this disaster effort , please send it to:

BandS Ministries
P.O. Box 1926
Colleyville, Texas 76034
You may contact Dr. Bailey at jcb2of3@sbcglobal.net www.bandsministries.org or send your help to your home church and they will contact us.
For local donations, please send it to
Jun Patricio c/o Makati Church of Christ.
1598 Archimedes St
Brg Lapaz Makati (near brgh hall)
We are negotiating with Manila brethren who are duly registered with the government to be official conduit of funds locally and abroad. The information should be available sometime today. For more information, please contact me or Jun Patricio at bonifaciopatricio@yahoo.com MARCH for Christ can be reached through Chito Cusi at lpcusi@yahoo.com

In His Service,

Salvador Cariaga
http://www.philippinechurchesofchrist.org/

Faithful Questioning

2006-12-05T09:38:00.000-08:00

William of Saint-Thierry (ca. 1085-1148) was a French monk, theologian and "mystic" who had been a close friend of Bernard of Clairvaux. He was an early critic of the rationalistic theology later known as "Scholasticism," and opposed the rationalistic theology of Peter Abelard before Bernard of Clairvaux did so -- and in fact encouraged Bernard to oppose him.

He was not, however, by any means against asking questions or using one's intellect. He was not an irrationalist, neither was he antirational. What he opposed was questioning that seemed to him to be unfaithful and wholly rooted in cynicism rather than in faith and faithful pursuit of truth. Cynical questioning is rooted in pride rather than in discipleship.

In his work The Mirror of Charity, William wrote:

When more obscure mysteries are presented to your timid nature by your faith, Christian soul, take courage and say, "How are these to come about?", not in a controversial spirit but with the love of a disciple.

Let your questioning be your prayer, your love, your piety, your humble desire; not seeking to plumb the depths of God's majesty, but looking for salvation in the healing acts of God who saves us. And the Angel of great counsel will reply to you: "When the Counsellor comes, he whom I shall send from the Father, he will bring to mind all things, and teach you all truth." For no one "knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him; so also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

Hasten then to be a sharer in the Holy Spirit. He is present when he is called upon; nor could he be called upon if he were not present. When, on being called upon, he comes, it is with the abundance of the blessings of God. He is the flowing of the river which gives joy to God's city.

And if, when he comes, he finds you humble and still and respecting the words of God, he will rest upon you; and he will reveal to you what God the Father withdraws from the wise and prudent of this world; and those things will begin to dawn upon you which Wisdom could say to the disciples when on this earth, but which they were unable to bear, until the Spirit of truth came who was to teach them all truth.

In the diligent seeking after or learning of these matters it would be vain to expect from any human teacher what cannot be sought or learnt from the lips of Truth himself. For as that Truth says, "God is spirit," and as it is necessary for those who adore him to do so in spirit and in truth, so for those who wish to learn of him or know him it is only in the Holy Spirit that the understanding of the faith and the perception of the pure and unadorned truth ought to be sought.

For in the darknesses and ignorance of this life, he is the light which enlightens the lowly of spirit; he is the love which draws us; he is the sweetening presence; he the human being's approach to God; he the love of the loving; he is devotion; he is piety.

He reveals to the faithful the justice of God which starts from faith and ends in faith; when for grace he gives grace, and for the faith which is by hearing the faith which gives light.

One More Way our Tax $$ Pay for Torture

2006-12-02T11:02:00.000-08:00

http://www.alternet.org/stories/44965/