One thing I have never wanted to become on this blog is someone who goes around arguing with other people's theology. Not that I don't have disagreements with people; I could spend a lot of time critiquing guys like Mark Driscoll, but what comes of it? First you're giving airtime, and second, I think when your "ministry" becomes nothing more than critiquing other "ministries" ... at some point you just become a jerk.
However, sometimes when I get hit with a broad brush, I feel the need to raise my hand and say, "Excuse me!?"
In a recent interview, John MacArthur said (amongst other self-serving statements) "the underlying bottom line of this whole emerging movement is they don’t believe in any doctrine, they don’t believe in any theology. They don’t want to be forced to interpret anything in scripture a certain way..."
As I said... at some point you just become ... well, you get the idea. Ignoring the title emergent for a moment, John basically states that anyone who doesn't buy HIS doctrine or theology doesn't believe ANY doctrine or theology. In fact, since I don't see it his way...I (according to him) am not a Christian.
I believe and follow plenty of doctrine and theology John. I just don't believe or follow yours.
The irony of Mark Sanford's about face when it comes to politicians having an affair is beyond perfect. Thanks to video recording, we have a detailed account of what he believes a politician caught in an affair should do.
Ummm.... except when he does it.
This is why scripture tells us again and again not to judge... but we just can't stop ourselves because it is so damn satisfying.
It makes us feel righteous...
Romans 2 1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
What leads someone to repent?
Kindness.
Judgment brings defensiveness. Kindness is subversive. It breaks down defenses.
The thing is, it is easy to show kindness and refrain from judgment when it is someone you love.
For example: You become aggravated at the person who just cut you off on the road and you speed up so you can swing up along side them to give them a piece of your mind!
Then you see it is grandma... and all of your anger melts away. You forgive her offense because you love her.
You hold anger against a former friend because you remember the time they betrayed you - you think you will resent them forever. Then you hear she is dying and their family is grieving, and all you want to do is support their family, remember the good times, make it right.
This is why Jesus told us to love our enemies. When we love someone, we can offer grace that we could never offer to the other. In the Way of Jesus there is no other.
Ok, this was not in a blog article, but Redlefty wrote it and it was one of the coolest things I have read in a while:
It's impossible to behave like Jesus until we can perceive like him.
_________________
There was a time where possession of a Bachelor of Theology degree put your near the top of the educated within a western society. But, today it is usually very unlikely that a pastor would be anywhere near being the most educated person in their congregation in most churches. Moreover, the explosion of christian publishing means that theological resources are more available than at any time in the history of the church. And, it doesn’t stop there, the possibilities for mentoring, retreats and spiritual direction are no longer confined to clergy and their professional development. Fernando's Desk
The problem is that there is a middle ground between eclecticism and orthodoxy, one that views how we interpret Jesus as a much more open question than that was allegedly "settled" by ecumenical councils held centuries after Jesus died, and which focuses more on how we can transform our lives by following Jesus than on whatever theological spin you want to put on Jesus's nature. I believe I am not alone in being someone who is interested in Jesus, his life, his message, and their resulting implications for today, and who are also interested in progressive theologians like Borg, Crossan, Spong, Fox, Pagels, Hick, and Cobb. And I believe I am not alone in embracing an intelligent reading of the Bible without taking at face value some of the mythological claims found there. I see a lot of churches that talk a good game about diversity; but when push comes to shove, it seems that in many cases diversity really means "think what you want but this is what you really should be believing." If they are really going to tell us what "we" believe by laying out a set of orthodox dogmas, then they should not advertise themselves as encouraging diversity--because they don't. Mystical Seeker
Somehow we have convinced ourselves that each succeeding generation has to have a “better” and more luxurious lifestyle than the one before us. I just saw a statement by the director of the FCC that noted with the switch to digital from analog broadcasting, 3 million “at risk” Americans would find themselves without television. Only in America can the term “at risk” be used to describe someone who might have their T.V. shut off.Beyond the Pale
And I'm heartened to see much of my fundamentalism left behind as if in a cake pan; I'll serve the best of my religion to my kids in large slices and leave behind the crumbs. Most of it isn't intentional, but when I engage the fundamentalism of my youth (on a summer visit back home), I see what I was taught as a child, but I'm not teaching to my children:
- that they're going to hell- that God kind of loves them and kind of hates them
- that sex should be discussed with words like "filthy" "slutty" and "dirty"
- that rightful authority should be ascribed to James Dobson, Jim Bakker, Ken Ham, Bill Gothard, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell
- that conservative talk radio and cable news corresponds with conservative Christianity
- that whatever they're doing isn't good enough
- that their culture deserves their fear, judgment, and avoidance
- that the the world is 6000 years old and that God planted dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith
- that Jesus is going to return any minute and won't they feel ashamed because their beds aren't made
- that, as boys, authority over women is their birthright
- that if they question outrageous, violent, ethnocentric, historically questionable, or contradictory things in the Bible, their faith is weak
- that a single moral point may be derived from absolutely anything in the Bible
I was reminded of a passage I recently taught on in our youth group, the story of Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman. If you don't know the story, Jesus is hanging out with his disciples and a Syrophoenician Woman--someone that had no business coming to Jesus for help, he was the Jews messiah--comes to Jesus begging for help. Jesus calls her something quite derogatory saying, "it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." Now what was Jesus doing here? I am sure, at least I hope, that the disciples were surprised to hear Jesus talk this way. I am defiantly surprised to hear Jesus talk this way. But perhaps Jesus was talking to his disciples more so than he was to the woman. Think about it, the disciples looked at this woman and probably thought "dog." They had no problem thinking this way. But then I can almost see Jesus turning to his disciples as he says, "it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." It's one thing for the disciples to think it, but another thing for Jesus to say it. Jesus says this just to expose it for how ridiculous it really is. Here is a woman who desperately needs help, who is begging for just the crumbs from Jesus' table, and Jesus calls her a dog. This is not the kingdom Jesus has been proclaiming. There's a level of sarcasm in Jesus words, as though to say, "yeah, she's just a dog, huh? NO, that's ridiculous!" Jesus' final response is to do exactly what the woman asked. The disciples must have felt some conviction, hearing Jesus say what was in their hearts and seeing him expose it for what it was.Living in the Kingdom
Yep, I am a comic geek. The coming of children and the expenses they bring caused me to curtail my buying habit, but I am always happy when a comic character hits the screen correctly.
I was horrified a few years back when there were rumors that Jack Black was going to portray Green Lantern in a campy/comic take on the character. The author of this fan trailer has caught the tone I hope the upcoming movie will have. And since they haven't chosen a lead actor yet, I think this video shows that Nathan Fillion would be a great choice.
I am enjoying an early Father's Day present. My children and wife got me an Aspire One Netbook. Love it, love it, love it!!!!
It has been so wet and cold, that I have not been able to do one movie in my backyard park yet this year. My theater and vacation schedule means I probably won't get to do one until August. Bummer!
Our church is opening a south campus this Fall, 15 minutes from my home (presently it is 30 minutes). I am hoping this will help me re-connect there, as I have been increasingly feeling that, though I support what happens there, it occurs outside everything else I do here in South Jordan - it services a community that I am not a part of.
I just finished watching the series Life on Mars... great stuff. I am also enjoying the British show Being Human.
There are two evangelical apologists whose blogs I follow. I don't read them often, because usually their blogs are boiler-plate bullet points presented in a "thou shalt" format. In addition, when I watch these two interact with those not of their belief line, they tend to be caustic, sarcastic, and abrupt (one particularly). I would chalk some of this up to the fact that people often tend to be a little more extreme in their online rhetoric than they are in real life. However, I know some folks who have interacted with these gentlemen personally, and their online persona seemed fairly consistent with real life. With these commentaries and experiences, I have not been able to help developing an underlying feeling that these two would be difficult to like.
So, I was a little surprised when I saw them interacting on a Youtube video recently and found them both to be pleasantly engaging. When I first became aware of the video, I assumed I would not be able to stomach more than 5 minutes of their firery and frustrated discussion.
In the video, they were discussing their theological problems with Mormonism. Their points, though biased, were clearly and calmly presented in a tone void of sarcasm and eye-rolling. I found this to be very out of character in contrast to my previous experiences. This was bordering on civil and respectful. What was going on here?
An explanation occurred to me later that evening. There was no THEM in the conversation... there was only US. Anger, fear, and frustration were not present, because everyone in this conversation belonged. Both speakers were comfortable and at ease, because they felt safe with one another.
This experience showed to me again why the US/THEM approach to life is wounded and hobbled. When we place someone in a position of opposition, there cannot help but be feelings of unease and defensiveness. Under such emotions, it is not a far step to frustration and anger. Contempt and hatred are often the natural result.
Jesus had myriads following him happily from every walk of life and situation. People whom much of the Christian culture would define as THEM, would travel uncomfortable distances just to be near him.
What we believe is highly conditional on what we have been taught.
I was listening to NPR last week and they were doing a story on Tienanmen Square. They focused on how little the present generation knows about what happened 20 years ago. The Chinese government has succeeded in making Tienanmen Square a non-topic.
They interviewed a University student in Beijing. This girl knew only a vague, government-sanitized version of the massacre. She knew that were other opinions and accounts out there, but she finds them suspect since they are promoted by westerners. She was more likely to trust her government's view.
It reminded me of the rhetoric of many of my fellow Christians. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard Christians proclaim a certain view to be lacking credibility because it was given by "the liberal media". Of course, I am no different. For me,anything said by Sean Hannity is going to be highly suspect.
What is most interesting to me is how quick we are to condemn this behavior in others, but forgive it of ourselves.
For example, Mormons will often get grief for accepting the Book of Mormon accounts of history, when archeological evidence is contrary. However, if a Christian (in my circles) takes a similar stance, this is regarded as being faithful. I saw this one evening at a bible study. There was a movie being discussed in which the body of Jesus was found. Someone asked, "What would become of your faith if such a thing happened?" One person quickly countered that he would not believe it. If he had a choice between believing the event, or believing the bible, he would believe the bible every time.
Same thought line. However, in our case it is faithfulness; for others it is foolishness.
What you believe and to what you dedicate yourself seems to be driven in large part by where you were raised. If you grew up in the American South, you will probably hold conservative evangelical views. If you were born here in Utah, you will most likely be Mormon. If you are a young person in China, you probably have a skewed view of Tienanmen Square.
As a Christian, this causes me to question the traditional views of eternity concerning heaven and hell. Under the teachings in which I was raised, it seems your eternal destiny is going to be most highly influenced on where you were born.
A superb speech and message was given by President Obama in the Middle East today. There is a long way to go, but Obama has finally pointed us in the right direction.
Usually, when I get a letter from a reader of my Truth Project articles, the writer lambastes me for how I am deceiving Christians, or how I am deceived and going to Hell, or that God is going to get me, etc...
The following letter stood out in that it was systematic, and the writer asked me questions that he genuinely seemed to want a response to. I wrote him back and asked if I could answer his questions in a post. Since it was going to require a fair amount of writing on my part, I have a natural inclination to want to post. Also, I feel his questions probably address the thoughts of a number of people who would typically be supportive of the Truth Project view point. So, I have put his questions in blue italics with my answers beneath.
Mr. Hackman,
I am reading your posting on the Truth Project, and I was wondering if you could clarify a few issues for me. I am about to start a Truth Project Study.
1)You state that Christianity cannot have a worldview, and that disagreement between different groups suggest that “Many voices must be heard.” I think that the point of the study, however, is to determine what the Bible says about what our worldview should be. That is, there should be a range of what is a “reasonable” set of beliefs, and what is not, given what Scripture teaches. To determine what the relevant range of worldviews would be, however, you don’t need to interview people. You need to look at evidence. Another way of saying this is that The Truth Project is meant to be prescriptive, not descriptive. In light of this “narrowing” view of the project, why do you need to hear multiple voices? Why do you need any voices other than Scripture?
I need those voices because I do not believe that scripture speaks without them. When my theology was of a more "hell, fire, and brimstone" bent, those were the scriptures I read and those were the ones I quoted. My eyes seemed to skim past "It is your kindness that leads us to repentance".
Everyone brings their vested interests to the table. No one reads scripture cleanly or without lenses. Everyone interprets. Anyone who denies this simply desires that their view be the default view. They want to be able to play a theological trump card. When the Truth Project puts forth that there is "A" Christian worldview (theirs) they are stepping beyond their grounds. I am a Christian. I do not agree with the Truth Project overall. So either, I am not a Christian, or there must be other Christian worldviews to be heard.
It reminds me of a scene at the beginning of Gandhi. Gandhi is about to be thrown off a South African train because he will not leave first class (for being colored). He explains that he is an English lawyer and purchased his ticket at home. He is told by the conductor that there are no colored lawyers in South Africa. Gandhi exclaims that since he is a lawyer and is, as they say, colored, then it can be surmised that there is at least ONE colored lawyer in South Africa.
Have you ever experienced a time when a scripture took on a new nuance or meaning because of something someone said? or an experience you had? Without those voices, yours as well as others, the words sit inert on the page.
2)You state “The presenter states that there is no area where God has not given the answers.” I am pretty sure that he says that there is no area where God has not SPOKEN. This is very different.
When you go through the series, see what the wording is.I thought he said answers, but I could be wrong.In any case, I don’t think that God has spoken clearly on everything (if he had, I do not think there would be 30,000+ Christian denominations and groups).I think it is our natural desire to want a sure fire answer to everything… but I think there is always going to be plenty of mystery when it comes to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
3)About your teacher perspective, you are right that you need to teach your students to think rather than to just get the right answers. However, you need to teach them the correct way of thinking about an issue. I am not necessarily saying that there is only one correct way to think about any given issue, but there are plenty of blatantly wrong ways to think about an issue. This is certainly true in the subject that I teach. By the way, what do you teach?
I teach 6th grade in an inner-city school.
I understand your overall point, but I would never state it so strongly. I would be very leery of teaching someone "the correct way of thinking about an issue." Not to say that I do not have a view, but I feel that any view that gets imparted in that way tends to get very distorted down the road. Again, it seems a short-cut; giving them an answer without the perspective, experience, and ethos that caused me to develop my answer.
4)I am pretty sure that when he says that the culture is anti-God, he does not mean that you should not have gone to the theater to see Dark Knight. Rather, he is saying that our culture is, by and large, built on a bunch of lies. An easy example of this is to look at the unreasonable expectations that society has for women and their bodies, how society says to a girl that she only has value if she will have sex (sorry, my wife watches Tyra, and I am overhear these things, so I have a bit of a bias). Don’t you think that a culture that teaches us that our worth is built on such frivolous things rather than being children of God is, well kind of evil?
I agree that when we objectify women, or teach such things to our children, we need to change our way of thinking.However, I do not think it is simply a matter of broad brush painting present culture as evil.I think this causes us to romanticize or criticize things that are not real.For example, the “old” days are often romanticized by some conservatives when wanting to contrast how sinful our present society has become – conveniently avoiding the tolerance of abuse, slavery, racism, and oppression that was allowed in the “old” days.In that light, society has become much LESS sinful over the decades.So which is it?I would say neither, because each plank of our culture must be judged on its own.
5)Why do you think it is appropriate to quote Yoda in a religious discussion? He is a guru of a form of Eastern religion or philosophy, so what he says must be investigated in that light. I should point out that anger is not necessarily wrong, because Jesus got angry in the temple before he drove the money changers from the temple. Therefore, there is a big divide between Yoda and Jesus.
I have three thoughts on that.A.Why do you think it is inappropriate to use that quote in a religious discussion?For myself, a good quote is a good quote.You yourself state in question 10 that “Truth does not depend on who says it”.
B. My point in that section was that all of the us/them rhetoric creates a fear and paranoia… and that those emotions take Christians down a path we are not supposed to go.Jesus’ anger was not generated as a result of fear, so his end result was not along the same trajectory.
C. I do not find anything inherently wrong with Eastern views.Christianity is Eastern in its origins, we have simply Westernized it.
6)What do you mean by hate? Some in our culture want to define certain beliefs as inherently hateful, and I wanted to check what you mean. Also, you should evaluate a religion on a reasonable outcome of its beliefs, not by the abuse of its beliefs.
I consider hate to be anytime we despise someone else.That is why I have always felt that the line “Love the sinner, but hate the sin” (aside from the fact that it is not scriptural) to be so unhelpful.99 times out of 100 when I hear someone use that line, the disdain and contempt is right on its heels.I think Christianity and the cause of Christ would be better served with “Love” and leave the but out of it.Since I have yet to adequately master the first part, I see no reason why I should touch the second.
7)Your argument that he is proof-texting is irrelevant, because John 14:6. Jesus did not say that you can look to him for truth, but something far more fundamental. He said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by me.” This is a very bold statement. It says that Christ is the very definition of truth, and that all other forms of truth must be judged in light of him. This is what us math types call an axiom.
Also, when you list the other reasons that Christ came into the world, none of them contradict his interpretation. By testifying to the truth, Jesus has saved sinners. You seem to have some beef with the line in the sand. However, Del did not draw this line, Jesus did. One quick example is Matthew 25. There are clearly sheep and goats. The question is where the line is, not the existence of one.
We will just have to disagree on this one.I still contend that it is a twisting of the intent of scripture to imply that the purpose of Jesus coming was to set a truth line in the sand and shove everyone to one side or the other.In fact, I think that goes against his very nature.
As to the sheep and the goats, I think Jesus was speaking to ways of living that bring either life or death… and in the words of the OT, he wants us to choose life.If you take that story as literal, than the evangelical way of interpreting salvation goes right out the window (which I am fine with btw).
8) You are taking Romans 2 horridly out of context. Romans 1 just told the history of the world, that we all reject God. Romans 2 and 3 gets into why following the law alone is not good enough, because we are not perfect.
Actually, I agree with you in some respects.I think Romans 1 lists how we all fail (can we all not place ourselves somewhere on Paul’s list?).I just think Romans 2 is Paul’s follow up, saying how absurd it is for any of us to get too “us/them”, in light of everything he just said.
9)“Our battle is not against flesh and blood…” The Bible uses the war metaphor repeatedly. Of course, it also uses the runner, the boxer, the farmer, and others. I just thought I would point out to you that regardless of how much he uses war metaphors, any reasonable Christian would never take up arms.
That is my point… that our battles are not with flesh and blood.However, much of Christianity is, and is being encouraged, to view their fellow human beings as the enemy.I think the “us/them” rhetoric encourages this view.I believe we turn people away from Christ when they feel they are viewed in this manner.
10)Your ad hominem attack on their interviews are unjustified. I could just as easily argue that you would better understand the Bible if you were disabled, because that one kid seemed to always have the right answer. I know you are trying to strike a race tone here, but that is irrelevant. Truth does not depend on who says it.
I think if that was my only contention, you are probably right.However, it just stood out so boldly to me on top of everything else.That is why I said it “devolved into a bad caricature of itself” at that point.It just struck me humorously.
11) Us/Them thinking. Again, back to the Judgment Scene – Jesus divided the world, the project didn’t. Again, you are quoting Paul in I Tim 1:15 so as to suggest universalism. This seems really silly, given Paul’s rant against false religion earlier in the chapter.
You caught me… I am a universalist.However, I don’t think that necessarily invalidates Paul’s “rant”.Universalism does not say that everything is ok… just that everything is/will be redeemed.But in any case, I still believe strongly that us/them thinking damages the cause of Christ.
Anyway, I was just wondering how you would respond to these questions. Thanks for your time. I am sorry if some people are not nice to you in their emails. I know that there is a behavioral bias that people are harsher in email than in person. Also, some things get lost by being put into text. I hope nothing I said sounded too harsh. I sometimes write aggressive words, but that is just because I am getting excited about the discussion.
Thanks,
David
PS Looking at your profile, why do you need to “abandon your certainties?” There are some things you can take to the bank.
I abandoned my certainties because I found that so many of the things I thought were iron-clad, turned out not to be.Certainty is something our churches emphasize, and in doing so, I think we perpetuate a disservice.Certainty, very often, causes people to live in denial.They have to live in contradiction in order to keep the certainty safe.I have seen too many people jettison their faith because they were taught that Christianity operates in this or that way.When they found that not to be true, they either had to abandon the Faith, or become more fundamental and rigid than ever.I have found fidelity to be a necessary third option.Fidelity applies to relationships.It can withstand the ups and downs, the silence and the paradox, in ways that certainty simply can’t.
David – I appreciate your approach and I hope this clarifies some things.I do not seek to convert you to my way of thinking on these issues, I just hope to more clearly explain why I think the way I do.
I chose to read this book because I wanted to read something about curbing consumerism from a Christian perspective. Saying "Enough!" is something most of the Church has been silent on- or has proclaimed the exact opposite. Many of the church circles I traveled in growing up were very encouraging of the accumulation of stuff... it was a sign of God's favor.
I highly believe that, because Christianism has been largely silent on consumerism, God has had to seek out agnostics like Rev. Billy to get a message of contentment out to the world. So, I am glad to see that the Claibornes, Wallises,Sojourners,... and the Will Samsons, are getting a voice in the Christian subculture. Christianity needs to have a counter culture, not a parallel one.
Samson proceeds early on from a personal foundational statement:
I had two Volvos, three kids, and a five-thousand square foot house. Everything was coming up sevens. But, like a consistent majority of Americans, I did not feel content with the dream.
I related to this because 5 years ago, I made twice the money and had twice the house that I do now. However, now I am content, and then I was not. Contentment does not come with possessions. I had to downsize to learn that.
He observes that:
Most, I would guess, had more material wealth than their grandparents could have imagined possible. Yet for the majority it was not enough. It seemed they would never be satisfied.
He goes on to say:
Something deep within us, from time immemorial, causes us to want what we do not have.
He makes the case throughout the book that it is our consumerism and bottomless desire for commodities that undercuts our ability to develop community. Neighborhoods never truly form when people are working endlessly to acquire more so they can move to a bigger house somewhere else. And while we grasp to get more and find our selves increasingly empty, the church, for the most part, has offered no alternative.
Here are some other quotes from the book that caught my attention:
When we use energy without thought of consequence it seems that we are making one of two theological statements. Either we believe that the resources of creation are given to us without concern for their stewardship, or we believe that God is unconcerned with how we use the resources we have been given. Neither of those views seems consistent with what we can learn about God from Scripture or the tradition of the church.
I wonder if those who benefited financially from predicting the soon destruction of the world, and then used that money to build things in that world, might cause some to question their message.
Study after study shows that the average Christian in America is statistically indistinguishable from someone of another faith, or of no faith. The culture seem to have an attitude of "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," and we join in the party. But is this the correct posture for a follower of Jesus?
Too many of us who were raised as "Bible-believing Christians" have often approached scripture to affirm the things we wish to be against and to provide permission for the things we wish to do...Christians are just as likely to carry higher loads of debt, buy bigger homes than they need, and load those homes up with all manner of useless stuff.
Samson weaves the Eucharist and its metaphor throughout the book. If the book has one Achilles Heel, this is it. Not that I do not consider it important, but if your tradition did not teach this well or you do not connect here, you miss a fair amount of his emphasis.
For myself, I grew up in a church where 200 people drank out of a common communion cup. It took me years after leaving to overcome a subtle nausea every time I took communion. :)
In blog comments, and in live discussions, I have noticed at times that some people seem to completely miss what I say. They respond to things I never uttered and seem to assign motives and feelings of which I have given no indication. I used to think this was just the rude and/or dim-witted behavior of someone who could not see past their own opinions, but I have come to think that there is more at play here.
I have an idea that people tend to fall into one of two primary modes of thinking: digital or analog. Digital and analog are two ways of moving electricity. If you think of it in terms of light switches, digital is a typical switch. It has two positions- on or off. Analog is like a dimmer dial; it can be either on or off, but it can also be turned to any level of light or darkness in between.
Whether we tend to be a digital or analog thinker affects how we interpret events. If an event happens that is vague, or has multiple perspectives, the analog person is able to see and understand the various gradients in the situation. However, the digital person must push the event to one side or the other. Since there is no in-between for the digital thinker, the distance to either polarity must be accounted for, and this is where distortions begin to form. The more committed the digital person is to a certain position being true, the greater the potential for distortion. If the event is closer to "off", but the digital thinker needs it to be "on", then more distance must be made up, and the perception is further skewed.
This is why I believe some debates can get so heated. If two digitals are discussing an event, and they are on the same side, there is no issue. If two analogs are discussing an event, even the most oppositional views can maintain a civil tone because the two analogs can more accurately perceive and address the other's viewpoint, even when disagreeing.
However, when digital and analog thinkers mix, there is great potential for sparks to fly. The analog thinker becomes frustrated because he feels he is not being heard. The digital thinker is frustrated because he cannot accept or understand any perspective that is not at the pole where he presently resides. Each tries in vain to get the other to see their view. The analog cannot accept the digital person's perspective because they feel it is not a true representation. The digital cannot accept the analog's perspective because that perspective between the poles cannot exist, so the analog must be pushed to the "wrong" side.
I think one of my favorite scenes from MASH can illustrate my point. In this scene, Hawkeye and BJ have drugged an overly aggressive combat Colonel to give him gastritis symptoms. By keeping him out of the fighting for a few days, they hope to save some kids that the colonel is taking into a losing battle. However, when Hawkeye finds out that the Colonel would lose his battalion altogether if he were out of combat for over 2 weeks, he decides to up the ante' and take out the Colonel's appendix.
BJ:What the hell do you think you're doing?
Hawkeye: I'm taking out that guy's appendix in there. Ya gonna get into your whites or what?
BJ: You're talking about removing a healthy organ!
Hawkeye: No, I figure his appendix is about as sick as his mind.
BJ: Doctors aren't supposed to take bodies apart, they're supposed to put them together.
Hawkeye: Why? So guys like that can take them apart again? You heard him, he's gonna take those kids up that hill tomorrow and send them back to us in pieces.
BJ: That man is crazy, but that doesn't make this right. Some things are wrong and they are always wrong!
Hawkeye: Fine, its wrong! But there are going to be a hundred boys still alive tomorrow. Go tell them how wrong it is!
BJ: Dammit! Why don't you just stab him!? Cutting into a healthy body is mutilation!
Hawkeye: Don't give me that! There aren't doctors back home who do unnecessary operations? You've never heard of that?? and for what? for a few bucks!
BJ: Alright, suppose you get him relieved of his command. What about the guy they send to replace him?
Hawkeye: He's gonna be better than this guy, he's gotta be!
BJ: But you don't know that for sure do you!?
Hawkeye: So I'll take them one at a time!! What have I got to lose?!
BJ: Just your self respect, that's all!! You are a doctor of medicine! You cut into a healthy body and you are going to hate yourself for the rest of your life!
Hawkeye: I hate myself right now! I hate me and I hate you and I hate this whole life here! And if I can keep that maniac off the line by a simple appendectomy, then I'll be able to hate myself with a clear conscience!
BJ: Alright! You wanna play God? You do it alone!
Hawkeye: Fine! If you're going to keep talking about it put a mask on! I don't want to run the slightest risk of infecting him.
Later, as Hawkeye enters their tent.
BJ: So?
Hawkeye: It was pink and perfect... and I tossed it on the scrap bucket.
In the above scenario, I lean towards Hawkeye's perspective; but I can still understand and validate BJ's stance. I believe that both men are right. However, to a digital thinker, it is impossible for two opposing views to be right. It has to be one or the other with no movement in between. The opposite view is deemed wrong.
I suspect that digital and analog thinking can be issue specific. The more tied we are to a certain idea, the greater our tendency will be to push views to a certain side. My question at the moment is whether we are wired that way, or is it our choices that lay down these patterns over time?
Did you know, beginning in the late 19th century, that corporations were granted all of the rights of the individual? -but none of the annoying responsibilities. They lack, almost by design, any kind of moral compass, conscience, or compassion. Basically, corporations are a way to enact sociopathic behavior on a grand scale. In short, they are what make this country so damned great! ~Ray Wise (as the Devil)
One of the push-backs that has occurred due to the Obama administration is the Religious Right's vigorous promotion of capitalism. To read some articles and listen to some ministers (and fellow Christians), you would think that the capitalist economic format is a scriptural mandate. In their resistance to socialism, many in the Christian Right are trying to wed the economic system of capitalism to Christianity in the same way they have tried to tie certain political and social ideas to their faith. To question capitalism or endorse socialism in some churches would bring your spiritual well-being into question.
I am not a trained economist, so my opinions here are limited; but allow me to raise some issues as I see them. It would seem to me that capitalism, at its core, is opposed to the Kingdom of God. Aside from running contrary to many of the economic edicts laid forth in scripture, capitalism makes use of tendencies we are supposed to guard against. It calls us to be first, rather than last. It wants us to be dissatisfied rather than content. It encourages acquisition instead of giving.
So, where do I stand? I think the old axim - Capitalism is the worst system on earth... except for all of the others... - has some truth to it. However, it needs to be critiqued rather than embraced. Capitalism can be very powerful and produces a lot of prosperity for many individuals; but I believe much of its success is because it uses sin as its engine. As a people of faith, we should be suspicious of it rather than endorsing it.
Let’s go back to the passage from John and substitute system for world:
If the system hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the system, the system would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the system, but I have chosen you out of the system—therefore the system hates you.
So if we run afoul of the various systems that dehumanize and destroy, we might be on the right track. There is no illusion in John’s gospel that we will ultimately change all systems. They will be with us as far as we can see. Yet it is possible to make the system a little more humane. It is possible for us as individuals to identify not with our systems, but to become human.
The task of the human being is to love. It is a love that lays down one’s life for one’s friends. In Jesus’ kingdom which is really a non-kingdom, we live as friends—equals--not masters or slaves. Shuck and Jive
Theology is thus always on its way. It never arrives. There is no definitive and normative theology. Theology is ever in the making. It is always to be remade and refined as struggles develop, as experience deepens, change follows change, and history keeps unfolding. It is ever on the move in the direction of the Truth symbolized by faith and mysteriously known in love. Theology is a pilgrim of truth. Catholic Anarchy
I often see people proclaiming how they trust God, and how God will always be there for the, and God will always be a present source of help in times of trouble. And yet, that source of help and trust come down to a very vague concept of God being by one's side. I'm reminded of a scene in the book "The Shack" where the father asks God where God was when his daughter was abducted and murdered. God said that He was with the daughter the whole time.
Charismatics are notorious for not realizing that Christianity exists outside of their industry circles. Kingdom Grace
The reason I'm interested in the role of luck is that I hear a lot of religious people railing against the rise of "socialism" in America. But I think it is very clear, the case in Outliers as one example, that personality, work ethic, religious affiliation and income are impacted by luck. Consequently, all I am and all I own isn't solely due to my virtue or work ethic. I'm not good, I'm fortunate. Importantly, luck implies success at someone else's expense. I got the break and you didn't. You're a janitor and I'm a millionaire professional athlete (or CEO, Dr., or whatever). Consequently, it seems right and just that I share.
How much should I share? I don't know. Where is the balance here? How much luck is involved? How much work? When are the taxes too low or too high? Again, I don't know. All I'm arguing is that the socialistic move isn't, on the face of it, immoral or unfair. It's realistic as far as I can tell. I don't mind debates about taxes or entitlements. But I do mind an ideological stance that automatically and unthinkingly equates taxation or "socialism" as evil. Why? Because it assumes life is all merit, work and virtue with no luck involved. Experimental Theology
I don’t think you can have Gospel without Justice. Not the Gospel of Christ at least. Remember, Jesus defined the Gospel (and shouldn’t we let him define it?) as “the Kingdom of God is at hand,” not “accept me as your personal savior and ask forgiveness for your sins so you can go to heaven.” Not to mention, nobody really defined the Gospel in the latter way until the industrial age. I realize those last two sentences may sound outlandish to some. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying there’s nothing personal about the message (there is); I’m just saying Jesus himself didn’t define it that way. The Kingdom (which is a social word) aspect is primary to Jesus, so if we put emphasis on the personal over and above the corporate, we disagree with the Christ. So I think the extent to which we see Gospel as interconnected to Justice is the extent to which we agree with Jesus, who opened his preaching ministry with a social justice quote from Isaiah (Luke 4). Emerging Toward Something Redeeming
This is the problem that I have with some apologists (those who defend the faith). Don’t get me wrong, I believe very much in apologetics and also love many apologists. But very rarely do I find a reasonable apologist. Most are very hardened because they are committed first to defending their particular position, not so much to learning. Parchment and Pen
At least it would be, if you take Hell out of the equation....
That is the view of many in Christendom.
They would not necessarily state it that way, but that is the practical up-shot. That is why I believe large sections of Christendom are being pushed to the back of the bus as its people become increasingly viewed as backward and irrelevant.
I was following various blog links and I came across a pastor who was bemoaning the "worldliness" of the church. He was upset that a local pastor had used almost exactly the same 4 points about bolstering marriages that he had heard a "secular" therapist use. To him, this was evidence that the Church is being over-run by secularists and Christian congregations are in danger of going to Hell.
*Sigh*........
I went to one of his links and I read a post where the author went on and on about how wrong headed non-calvanists were. He said:
Now, that all said, I know this post has a tone of simple disdain. I know it because I cannot avoid it – I really try to have patience for the non-calvinist, but the truth is that they don’t really have any patience for the Calvinist under any circumstance, and they as a group don’t really listen.
The 95 posters that followed (I must admit a little blogger jealousy there) kinda "Rah-Rah'd" his statement... occasionally expressing some level of concern (or satisfaction) for all of the folks who were on their way to Hell because their doctrine was a mess or non-existent.
Besides the bully-ishness of many of the commentators, what struck me most was how utterly pointless their Christianity becomes if Hell is taken out of the equation. Underneath all of their rhetoric was not a desire to follow someone who was worth following, but rather a desire to get out of Hell. The blogger and his commentators adhere to this version of Christianity, not because it is good, but because they are afraid to do otherwise. Christianity, in their view, is getting yourself lined up correctly with God... so you don't go to Hell.
What a hopeless present and eternity that amounts to (for either destination) if that is really all this life is about.
But just to clarify....
I don't believe any of that. Jesus is worthy and I dedicate myself to his way.... without any worry or threat.
One thing I have never wanted to become on this blog is someone who goes around arguing with other people's theology. Not that I don't have disagreements with people; I could spend a lot of time critiquing guys like Mark Driscoll, but what comes of it? First you're giving airtime, and second, I think when your "ministry" becomes nothing more than critiquing other "ministries" ... at some point you just become a jerk.
