I have waited months to write these entries. My desire to address the value of the Kama Sutra is one of the reasons I started this blog. Finally, I have the opportunity to embrace real controversy.
I once dreamt of church adult Sunday School rooms plastered with copies of pages from the sexually explicit ancient Indian sex manual (the Kama Sutra) demonstrating numerous
(24-39) positions that can help maximize the joy of intercourse. I've come to see that the clamor against such an action would minimize its value. I do think something has to be done to help the Church re-think its attitude towards orgasm - something that would energize its members' sex lives.
Is it even right to look at the book's anatomically correct drawings of almost entirely clothed Indian couples having intercourse in a wide array of positions? Is this pornography? If you sit alone masturbating at the drawings, I guess it's pornography. If you use it to bring joy back into unrelenting monogamy, I'd say it's instruction.
The question is, why do American Christians need so much help to enjoy sex? It starts with a faith that is often confused about the relationship between the body and the flesh, which teaches a high standard about fighting lust "in the heart." It continues with a founder who was abstinent and encouraged His disciples to serious consideration of this form of sexuality and a later Apostle, Paul, who followed Jesus' encouragement personally and was reluctant to endorse marriage in one area of his travels (the city of Corinth).
If sex is not sinful, why all this energy to have people restrain themselves? Jesus understood several important things: the expansion of the Kingdom of God would not come through procreation, but evangelism; there would be a great need for mobility and quick relocation among His First Century disciples as they grew the faith; everyone would be persecuted; and there would be little time for quality family time while ducking stones fired at you by irate, displaced workers in the idol makers' union.
more, more, more . . .
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Foxes have Holes
"Pete, where the hell is Jesus?"
"I don't know John, He was with us a couple minutes ago."
No, He was with the Samaritan woman by the well, gently exposing her immorality and extending to her an invitation to follow Him and, in doing so, find everlasting, living water;
Or He's with the prostitute Mary Magdalene and the crowd of religious extremists surrounding her, holding heavy, jagged rocks, ready to stone her to death. When Jesus asks that the man without sin throw the first stone, all the men disperse, and Jesus tells Mary that He doesn't condemn her and all He asks is "that you sin no more;"
Maybe they should look at their friend Matty's house, where they were with Him at dinner one night, with all the tax collectors of the region and their very unsavory friends.
"Johnny, you don't think the Romans took Him?"
"Petey, the Romans will never get Him."
True enough, but He was accessible to Romans and one time He even healed a Centurion's daughter. He would talk to Pilate and be fearless when the toughest army in the world beat Him to a pulp and willingly be hung on one of their crosses.
"What if He's walking on the water again, or gathering a huge crowd of poor people who need food or raising someone from the dead or entertaining people from the Old Book who have been processed into our time or turning over Friday Market in Temple Square?"
"Pierre, you can be sure that He is somewhere, doing what He feels He's called to, completely different from what we think He should be doing. He may look different; may have cut His hair; He might be saying words I don't really understand; or revealing the meaning of Old Book truths that I've never really understood."
Aslan is a wild lion, C.S. Lewis said. And Jesus is as wild as the wind and elusive as a ghost and yet wants desperately to connect with the human race.
"Yo, John, Pete - hey, it's me, Nick, here - from the 21st Century. Let me tell you where we find Jesus in our world: with the hungry and sick; in Darfur and Rwanda; in Congo and the Palestinian State; in missions and orphanages; on soup lines and under bridges; in prayer and praise; in the New Book and the men who honestly teach it. He hangs with Bono, reads Sojourners Magazine, worships in a small, black church in the inner city, listens to Rich Mullins, howls at movies like ARMAGEDDON and THE DAY AFTER, walks through our cities, unnoticed, and preaches on its corners, unheard.
Mates, we know it's difficult to find Jesus in big Churches; on Christian TV and in Bible Book Stores. Won't find Him on both sides in armed conflicts; won't find Him on either side, actually; He's not networking on the Golf Course or running to be Mayor of Jerusalem or leading armed insurrections against Rome. He's not setting policy for lobbyists or doing strategic planning for large corporations.
Guys, Jesus is everywhere we don't want to be: broke, homeless. consumed with a zeal to serve the insignificant. And doing everything without the need or desire to be acknowledged."
Take all that you have been taught about Jesus: His voice, face and features and throw it out and insert the image displayed in PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Even resurrected, He shows scars of the crucifixion.
Not an appropriate sight at a Country Club; but a welcome presence at Portland Rescue Mission.
"I don't know John, He was with us a couple minutes ago."
No, He was with the Samaritan woman by the well, gently exposing her immorality and extending to her an invitation to follow Him and, in doing so, find everlasting, living water;
Or He's with the prostitute Mary Magdalene and the crowd of religious extremists surrounding her, holding heavy, jagged rocks, ready to stone her to death. When Jesus asks that the man without sin throw the first stone, all the men disperse, and Jesus tells Mary that He doesn't condemn her and all He asks is "that you sin no more;"
Maybe they should look at their friend Matty's house, where they were with Him at dinner one night, with all the tax collectors of the region and their very unsavory friends.
"Johnny, you don't think the Romans took Him?"
"Petey, the Romans will never get Him."
True enough, but He was accessible to Romans and one time He even healed a Centurion's daughter. He would talk to Pilate and be fearless when the toughest army in the world beat Him to a pulp and willingly be hung on one of their crosses.
"What if He's walking on the water again, or gathering a huge crowd of poor people who need food or raising someone from the dead or entertaining people from the Old Book who have been processed into our time or turning over Friday Market in Temple Square?"
"Pierre, you can be sure that He is somewhere, doing what He feels He's called to, completely different from what we think He should be doing. He may look different; may have cut His hair; He might be saying words I don't really understand; or revealing the meaning of Old Book truths that I've never really understood."
Aslan is a wild lion, C.S. Lewis said. And Jesus is as wild as the wind and elusive as a ghost and yet wants desperately to connect with the human race.
"Yo, John, Pete - hey, it's me, Nick, here - from the 21st Century. Let me tell you where we find Jesus in our world: with the hungry and sick; in Darfur and Rwanda; in Congo and the Palestinian State; in missions and orphanages; on soup lines and under bridges; in prayer and praise; in the New Book and the men who honestly teach it. He hangs with Bono, reads Sojourners Magazine, worships in a small, black church in the inner city, listens to Rich Mullins, howls at movies like ARMAGEDDON and THE DAY AFTER, walks through our cities, unnoticed, and preaches on its corners, unheard.
Mates, we know it's difficult to find Jesus in big Churches; on Christian TV and in Bible Book Stores. Won't find Him on both sides in armed conflicts; won't find Him on either side, actually; He's not networking on the Golf Course or running to be Mayor of Jerusalem or leading armed insurrections against Rome. He's not setting policy for lobbyists or doing strategic planning for large corporations.
Guys, Jesus is everywhere we don't want to be: broke, homeless. consumed with a zeal to serve the insignificant. And doing everything without the need or desire to be acknowledged."
Take all that you have been taught about Jesus: His voice, face and features and throw it out and insert the image displayed in PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Even resurrected, He shows scars of the crucifixion.
Not an appropriate sight at a Country Club; but a welcome presence at Portland Rescue Mission.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Self Deceived
If I wasn't a follower of Jesus, I think I would worship my ancestors. I am wrapped up in history and in my family's place in it, and I could easily take that to the point of offering pieces of apple pie to a picture of my father.
My dad's been dead almost four years, but I still feel him close to me. I can't imagine dishonoring his memory by discarding the values he fleshed out in his life. Although I have no reason to live in the light if I don't believe in the power who created that light, I do have an obligation to my father.
My days in the drug culture - the arrests, courts, stealing, squandering his money - were not pleasant ones for him, and he never really recovered his trust in me. In the thirty-four years after my commitment to Jesus, I learned a lot from him regarding the old ways - honor, truthfulness, straight shooting, kindness, patience, compassion and generosity.
If I had a reason to dis-believe tomorrow, I would live a life that mirrored that of my father. No dope; no old broads; no hardness and cynicism; no pessimism about the future; keeping my word; treating people fairly; supporting that which is just; and always, always voting for Democrats.
Some things rest heavy on me, and after years of peeing on what my dad held important, I am certain that I would go down screaming rather than meekly acquiescing to values contrary to his.
That's what I can do to keep him close.
Although I made cogent arguments in my last blog regarding "doing good for good's sake," I was deceiving myself about who I would be if I didn't believe. As much as I could in my own strength, I would live in the image of my father.
My dad's been dead almost four years, but I still feel him close to me. I can't imagine dishonoring his memory by discarding the values he fleshed out in his life. Although I have no reason to live in the light if I don't believe in the power who created that light, I do have an obligation to my father.
My days in the drug culture - the arrests, courts, stealing, squandering his money - were not pleasant ones for him, and he never really recovered his trust in me. In the thirty-four years after my commitment to Jesus, I learned a lot from him regarding the old ways - honor, truthfulness, straight shooting, kindness, patience, compassion and generosity.
If I had a reason to dis-believe tomorrow, I would live a life that mirrored that of my father. No dope; no old broads; no hardness and cynicism; no pessimism about the future; keeping my word; treating people fairly; supporting that which is just; and always, always voting for Democrats.
Some things rest heavy on me, and after years of peeing on what my dad held important, I am certain that I would go down screaming rather than meekly acquiescing to values contrary to his.
That's what I can do to keep him close.
Although I made cogent arguments in my last blog regarding "doing good for good's sake," I was deceiving myself about who I would be if I didn't believe. As much as I could in my own strength, I would live in the image of my father.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Love Should Be Its Own Reward
I love to get comments on a blog entry, and I want to respond to one I got to a recent entry entitled "Forever." I had a harsh and dramatic reaction in it to the idea that living a good life was a fulfilling path even if Jesus wasn't God and had not risen from the dead.
It's a good question: "Shouldn't love be its own reward?"
At the highest point on the triangle of human needs, in the world of self-actualization, love may be its own reward. I have never been to the realm of self-actualization, save by the power of Jesus, but I know there are altruistic people who do live in that rarefied atmosphere. It's hard for me to understand that, for the theology of the New Book indicates that sin should prevent that sort of selflessness, but I'd rather be challenged by the life of Gandhi than deny its value on some distorted view of the New Book. Jesus remarked on an occasion that "those who aren't against me are for me." There is value in good, whether a person does it with a pure heart or distorted one. Good and truth exist outside pure theology, and people can experience those things whether they are believers or not.
As we try to be unified in doing good, we need to be accepting of those who do it for different reasons. I can't find in myself the motivation to do the kind of good I want to do outside the power of Christ. In the 60s, the end result of my absolute commitment to a loving, caring community was to break into my friends' houses and rob them. I came to Jesus because of the gap between aspiration and execution. For thirty eight years, I have looked to see if I have come to a place where obedience to His instructions was my major motivation, not the desire for a reward or to avoid punishment.
If it's all a sham, I don't think I would walk a sacrificial life of service. I like carnal pleasures, and I'm not denying them out of the kindness of heart. I'm continuously trading baser instincts for higher ones, because Jesus wants that. Eternity plays a part, as I said in the original blog.
I love people who do good, who have a heart for the poor, orphans and the disenfranchised. People live that way for different reasons. With or without New Book faith. For me, if Jesus isn't risen and eternity is a fantasy, out of the way, I'm rolling joints and cruising retirement centers.
But Wednesdays and Thursdays, I'm still watching my grandchildren Greta and Calla, for some things will never change. My unconditional love for them is at the top of that list.
It's a good question: "Shouldn't love be its own reward?"
At the highest point on the triangle of human needs, in the world of self-actualization, love may be its own reward. I have never been to the realm of self-actualization, save by the power of Jesus, but I know there are altruistic people who do live in that rarefied atmosphere. It's hard for me to understand that, for the theology of the New Book indicates that sin should prevent that sort of selflessness, but I'd rather be challenged by the life of Gandhi than deny its value on some distorted view of the New Book. Jesus remarked on an occasion that "those who aren't against me are for me." There is value in good, whether a person does it with a pure heart or distorted one. Good and truth exist outside pure theology, and people can experience those things whether they are believers or not.
As we try to be unified in doing good, we need to be accepting of those who do it for different reasons. I can't find in myself the motivation to do the kind of good I want to do outside the power of Christ. In the 60s, the end result of my absolute commitment to a loving, caring community was to break into my friends' houses and rob them. I came to Jesus because of the gap between aspiration and execution. For thirty eight years, I have looked to see if I have come to a place where obedience to His instructions was my major motivation, not the desire for a reward or to avoid punishment.
If it's all a sham, I don't think I would walk a sacrificial life of service. I like carnal pleasures, and I'm not denying them out of the kindness of heart. I'm continuously trading baser instincts for higher ones, because Jesus wants that. Eternity plays a part, as I said in the original blog.
I love people who do good, who have a heart for the poor, orphans and the disenfranchised. People live that way for different reasons. With or without New Book faith. For me, if Jesus isn't risen and eternity is a fantasy, out of the way, I'm rolling joints and cruising retirement centers.
But Wednesdays and Thursdays, I'm still watching my grandchildren Greta and Calla, for some things will never change. My unconditional love for them is at the top of that list.
Bar Keep or Circuit Rider
The American Experience bred a different kind of Christian than is found in the rest of the world. Our cultural retardation comes from the American West, where two great institutions collided - the Saloon and the Church.
The Saloon pre-dated the Church on the frontier: the danger of Indians and outlaws on the fringe of expansion encouraged husbands to leave their families behind as they forged a new identity, hundreds or a thousand miles from wife and children. Working cattle drives and life on a ranch were occupations that discouraged normal family life; mining was long,tough work that made brave men hard; all this played out in a dangerous environment, where crime and violence were all-to-present realities.
The Saloon was a refuge for men alone on future's edge. They could drink freely, and to excess. They could gamble, blowing their monthly wages on crooked tables. They could dance all night, stopping occasionally to expectorate the juice of their chaw into omnipresent spittoons. They could watch burlesque on large stages inside the saloons, and bone the chorus girls afterwards, because the Saloons were almost always brothels as well as watering holes.
Frontier preachers - aka Circuit Riders - saw the depravity of the moving edge of America and arrived in numbers to minister to its lost souls. They were received with indifference until wives and children arrived from back East, and when now reassured families settled there. The Church was the second institution established in Dodge City, Ogalalla, Silver City and Tombstone, and the battle between the Church and the Saloon was on.
There was no question who would win, at least in the immediate run. If there are stages of settlement, and there certainly are, the danger of original conquest is followed by pacification. The railroad wanted peace and predictability. The Federal Government wanted an end to Indian wars. Small business owners didn't want cowboys shooting up their store fronts every two weeks.
Churches were the instruments of pacification - in towns, with church meetings and events and the establishment of schools; on the reservation, with missionaries who "civilized the savages."
The Saloon had reduced influence on the frontier after the arrival of the Church, and eventually it was shut down by Prohibition.* The American Church continued to vilify the Saloon and made its attributes the main enemies of faith; i.e., the aforementioned WOLBI Statement of Conduct - no drinking or smoking; no card playing; no social dancing; no shows/movies. This was all about Saloons, not New Book teaching.
After WOLBI, I was shocked to learn that C.S. Lewis, probably the pre-eminent theologian of the 20th Century, drank Scotch, freely and openly - with no guilt - and that Charles Spurgeon, the great English preacher, smoked cigars "to the glory of God. But these were European Christians, never under the spell of the Saloon, so never needing to discard it.
They realized that you don't break the power of something by attacking its components. The problem with the Saloon was how it existed as an agent for "Spiritual Wickedness in High Places," not the drinking, smoking, card playing, dancing and shows that flourished there. These things didn't make the Saloon. They were merely present there, and if you think smoking in my office, having a beer at a sporting event, playing Bridge in my parlor, square dancing at the Elks Lodge and going to see the Chronicles of Narnia at the movies speaks to my spirituality one bit, you are deluded and deceived, and drunk on the need to legalistically judge others.
"You ain't going to make it with anyone, anyhow" - the Beatles once more. Oh my god, the Beatles? Were they believers?
* Bars came back after Prohibition, but Saloons, with their expansive reach and influence, didn't. We have specialized places of relaxation now: strip clubs, dance clubs, dinner theater; all selling alcohol and, in the past, encouraging smoking, but few places (Las Vegas Hotels?) that do it all.
The Saloon pre-dated the Church on the frontier: the danger of Indians and outlaws on the fringe of expansion encouraged husbands to leave their families behind as they forged a new identity, hundreds or a thousand miles from wife and children. Working cattle drives and life on a ranch were occupations that discouraged normal family life; mining was long,tough work that made brave men hard; all this played out in a dangerous environment, where crime and violence were all-to-present realities.
The Saloon was a refuge for men alone on future's edge. They could drink freely, and to excess. They could gamble, blowing their monthly wages on crooked tables. They could dance all night, stopping occasionally to expectorate the juice of their chaw into omnipresent spittoons. They could watch burlesque on large stages inside the saloons, and bone the chorus girls afterwards, because the Saloons were almost always brothels as well as watering holes.
Frontier preachers - aka Circuit Riders - saw the depravity of the moving edge of America and arrived in numbers to minister to its lost souls. They were received with indifference until wives and children arrived from back East, and when now reassured families settled there. The Church was the second institution established in Dodge City, Ogalalla, Silver City and Tombstone, and the battle between the Church and the Saloon was on.
There was no question who would win, at least in the immediate run. If there are stages of settlement, and there certainly are, the danger of original conquest is followed by pacification. The railroad wanted peace and predictability. The Federal Government wanted an end to Indian wars. Small business owners didn't want cowboys shooting up their store fronts every two weeks.
Churches were the instruments of pacification - in towns, with church meetings and events and the establishment of schools; on the reservation, with missionaries who "civilized the savages."
The Saloon had reduced influence on the frontier after the arrival of the Church, and eventually it was shut down by Prohibition.* The American Church continued to vilify the Saloon and made its attributes the main enemies of faith; i.e., the aforementioned WOLBI Statement of Conduct - no drinking or smoking; no card playing; no social dancing; no shows/movies. This was all about Saloons, not New Book teaching.
After WOLBI, I was shocked to learn that C.S. Lewis, probably the pre-eminent theologian of the 20th Century, drank Scotch, freely and openly - with no guilt - and that Charles Spurgeon, the great English preacher, smoked cigars "to the glory of God. But these were European Christians, never under the spell of the Saloon, so never needing to discard it.
They realized that you don't break the power of something by attacking its components. The problem with the Saloon was how it existed as an agent for "Spiritual Wickedness in High Places," not the drinking, smoking, card playing, dancing and shows that flourished there. These things didn't make the Saloon. They were merely present there, and if you think smoking in my office, having a beer at a sporting event, playing Bridge in my parlor, square dancing at the Elks Lodge and going to see the Chronicles of Narnia at the movies speaks to my spirituality one bit, you are deluded and deceived, and drunk on the need to legalistically judge others.
"You ain't going to make it with anyone, anyhow" - the Beatles once more. Oh my god, the Beatles? Were they believers?
* Bars came back after Prohibition, but Saloons, with their expansive reach and influence, didn't. We have specialized places of relaxation now: strip clubs, dance clubs, dinner theater; all selling alcohol and, in the past, encouraging smoking, but few places (Las Vegas Hotels?) that do it all.
Monday, September 22, 2008
don't smoke; don't chew; don't go with girls that do
Want to know how screwed up the American Church is? Check out the Conduct Statement students at Word of Life Bible Institute (WOLBI) in upstate New York have to sign. See Wolbi.com.
It's an horrific view of the past; it's like the one I agreed to when I was a student there in the early seventies. Yes, I was there. I agreed not to drink, smoke or take illegal drugs. I agreed not to play with a standard deck of cards; or to go to movies or plays; to never dance socially and to wear a one piece bathing suit (quite a sacrifice that).
Because of changing standards, hair length, facial hair, piercing and tattoos are not mentioned, but I'm sure that WOLBI will police its students, striving to have the most conservative, "Christian looking" student body possible. I forgot, they had better be listening to appropriate (insert Christian, rapless, moderate rock beat) music also, because rock music unfettered is "The Devil's Diversion."
I didn't care much about WOLBI's restrictions in 1971. I was coming out of the counter-culture, and it all meant nothing to me. I was beamed into Jesus, and everything was secondary to that.
But within a year, the spirit behind the regulations had captured me. Christian legalism is a system that establishes that Christians can, and are, to judge fellow believers by their appearance and actions to see how they match up to the testimony of Jesus. This system inevitably spills over to judgment of those not following Jesus as well.
Legalism is an awful thing. It separates people who have the same faith on the basis of choices regarding mostly unimportant issues. In that it creates confidence in those not practicing these evil actions, it takes focus away from moving to accomplish positive things for Jesus. You don't do good by policing those doing bad. You don't do good resting in the knowledge that you have prevented someone from doing what you perceive as evil.
Christianity is a quagmire much of the time, but never more than when children of the same father kill each other with words and deeds. I may have to speak very harsh things about prosperity theology and Joel Osteen, but I have no joy in doing it, and I don't feel I gain anything from that action. Joel Osteen may be a godly man - I hope he is - but prosperity theology (think, act, believe prosperous and God is required to make you that) is a complete distortion of Jesus' teaching in the New Testament. The theology is wrong - Joel Osteen may or may not be - but calling him out does nothing for the integrity of my life. That is determined by my actual life, and the things I do that advance God's love on earth.
Just so you have ammunition to judge me, Word of Life friends and alumni: I drink beer, wine and Scotch - once a week, usually; I smoked a pipe for years, now I do a couple of cigars a month; I play cards indiscriminately, but don't gamble; I would dance all night if I could do it well - I like to be close to female flesh (my wife's specifically); I have three tattoos - two are huge, in vivid color; I love movies and theatre - I have been known to watch questionable programs on TV, most recently "The L Word," and I deal with God's conviction when I give myself access to programs that distract me from the task at hand.
I care about Christians squandering their sexuality, getting DUIs, being dishonest in business transactions, abusing their spouses and children and getting easy divorces, but I don't sweat the small stuff, nor do I think I gain anything from an other's failure.
Jesus said it was right to address brothers and sisters caught in sin - quietly, meekly, with absolute humility. I see no humility in WOLBI's Conduct Statement, and very little of Jesus either.
It's an horrific view of the past; it's like the one I agreed to when I was a student there in the early seventies. Yes, I was there. I agreed not to drink, smoke or take illegal drugs. I agreed not to play with a standard deck of cards; or to go to movies or plays; to never dance socially and to wear a one piece bathing suit (quite a sacrifice that).
Because of changing standards, hair length, facial hair, piercing and tattoos are not mentioned, but I'm sure that WOLBI will police its students, striving to have the most conservative, "Christian looking" student body possible. I forgot, they had better be listening to appropriate (insert Christian, rapless, moderate rock beat) music also, because rock music unfettered is "The Devil's Diversion."
I didn't care much about WOLBI's restrictions in 1971. I was coming out of the counter-culture, and it all meant nothing to me. I was beamed into Jesus, and everything was secondary to that.
But within a year, the spirit behind the regulations had captured me. Christian legalism is a system that establishes that Christians can, and are, to judge fellow believers by their appearance and actions to see how they match up to the testimony of Jesus. This system inevitably spills over to judgment of those not following Jesus as well.
Legalism is an awful thing. It separates people who have the same faith on the basis of choices regarding mostly unimportant issues. In that it creates confidence in those not practicing these evil actions, it takes focus away from moving to accomplish positive things for Jesus. You don't do good by policing those doing bad. You don't do good resting in the knowledge that you have prevented someone from doing what you perceive as evil.
Christianity is a quagmire much of the time, but never more than when children of the same father kill each other with words and deeds. I may have to speak very harsh things about prosperity theology and Joel Osteen, but I have no joy in doing it, and I don't feel I gain anything from that action. Joel Osteen may be a godly man - I hope he is - but prosperity theology (think, act, believe prosperous and God is required to make you that) is a complete distortion of Jesus' teaching in the New Testament. The theology is wrong - Joel Osteen may or may not be - but calling him out does nothing for the integrity of my life. That is determined by my actual life, and the things I do that advance God's love on earth.
Just so you have ammunition to judge me, Word of Life friends and alumni: I drink beer, wine and Scotch - once a week, usually; I smoked a pipe for years, now I do a couple of cigars a month; I play cards indiscriminately, but don't gamble; I would dance all night if I could do it well - I like to be close to female flesh (my wife's specifically); I have three tattoos - two are huge, in vivid color; I love movies and theatre - I have been known to watch questionable programs on TV, most recently "The L Word," and I deal with God's conviction when I give myself access to programs that distract me from the task at hand.
I care about Christians squandering their sexuality, getting DUIs, being dishonest in business transactions, abusing their spouses and children and getting easy divorces, but I don't sweat the small stuff, nor do I think I gain anything from an other's failure.
Jesus said it was right to address brothers and sisters caught in sin - quietly, meekly, with absolute humility. I see no humility in WOLBI's Conduct Statement, and very little of Jesus either.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Inadvertent
Neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King were accidental in their commitment to non-violence. Each of them, publicly and privately, acknowledged that his choice of this method of resistance was intentional. It would only work in a society with a free press, basic humanity and a democratically elected government. When British soldiers killed unarmed Indian protesters, it was reported to a morally outraged British public who demanded reform of the nation's colonial policies. Failure to comply with the demands threatened the ongoing viability of the party in power.
Fire hoses and attack dogs did more to advance the Civil Rights movement in this country than MLK's eloquence. Injustice to a defenseless crowd of peaceful demonstrators activated a sensitive television audience more than history or rhetoric ever could, and sweeping legislation gave civil rights to blacks, women and perhaps, in the future, gay Americans.
The fact that non-violence was pragmatically chosen does not invalidate its morality. Jesus is absolute about turning the other cheek. He is not trying to evoke some response in doing this. Non-violence is for the cameras and the jungles; reported by the JERUSALEM NEWS or secretly practiced in the bowels of the Soviet gulag; never to gain support; always to gain God's presence.
Christians tend to have big agendas - the greatest being to win others to Christ. But if you can't turn the other cheek, what are you winning people TO? If Jesus can't change you once He owns you, why should He own anyone else? And if you don't want to be owned and do the things asked of you - in the spotlight and in blackness - why continue under an inappropriate description? Being a Christian involves knowing the way and trying to walk it. Lacking either of these two things, all you can ever be is inadvertent, a random flicker in a world that needs floodlights.
Fire hoses and attack dogs did more to advance the Civil Rights movement in this country than MLK's eloquence. Injustice to a defenseless crowd of peaceful demonstrators activated a sensitive television audience more than history or rhetoric ever could, and sweeping legislation gave civil rights to blacks, women and perhaps, in the future, gay Americans.
The fact that non-violence was pragmatically chosen does not invalidate its morality. Jesus is absolute about turning the other cheek. He is not trying to evoke some response in doing this. Non-violence is for the cameras and the jungles; reported by the JERUSALEM NEWS or secretly practiced in the bowels of the Soviet gulag; never to gain support; always to gain God's presence.
Christians tend to have big agendas - the greatest being to win others to Christ. But if you can't turn the other cheek, what are you winning people TO? If Jesus can't change you once He owns you, why should He own anyone else? And if you don't want to be owned and do the things asked of you - in the spotlight and in blackness - why continue under an inappropriate description? Being a Christian involves knowing the way and trying to walk it. Lacking either of these two things, all you can ever be is inadvertent, a random flicker in a world that needs floodlights.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Forever
As I watched an Amy Winehouse video this morning, I couldn't help thinking of how difficult it is for the truly gifted to make it through this life. There is a seemingly endless list of famous people who have drunk, drugged or eaten themselves to an early grave and an equally impressive group who have ended things by their own hand. Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison, River Phoenix, Sid Vicious, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Poe, Dennis Wilson, Kerouac, John Candy, Hunter Thompson, Ledger, Chris Farley, Belushi and Marilyn Monroe all died hard and young.
Someone once told me that even if Heaven was a lie, the Christian life was the best life to lead anyway. Sheer and utter garbage. The Apostle Paul said if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead, Christians were the most foolish people in the world, and they should embrace eating, drinking and being merry with everyone else. I personally would be smoking lots of dope, chasing skirts and committing larceny (for amusement and profit).
Following Christ is equal measure playing out this hand and playing out different cards in eternity with God, in one of the 8 other dimensions super collider scientists have isolated.
There is only so much intrinsic joy in selling your possessions and giving your money to the poor; only so much cheerful interest in being burned alive; only so much peaceful anticipation of being disemboweled like William Wallace; only so much steely resolve to endure torture behind the iron or bamboo curtains.
Following Jesus includes eternal life in a spiritual place where time blurs into a mysterious, personal experience with God. Heaven is forever without boredom or endless
repetition. I don't understand all of it, but I don't get where the matter given life by the "big bang" came from either.
Heaven is irrelevant to many in our culture. We are smarter; we live longer; we are not persecuted. Before my father, not a Christian, died - three years ago at 88 - he often commented on how ready he was to die. He was tired and wearing out. He was ready to sleep. Older people are less interested in converting to a religion that promises activity after death than a thirty year old, cut down by the bubonic plague in his prime. We don't often huddle in the corner of a jail cell whimpering to God for help or have the occasion to cry out from the chopping block, waiting for the axe to fall. Westerners die in our beds, doped to the gills with pain reducing agents, easing us out through the last stages of metastasized cancer. We are numbed into eternity - or into nothing.
As important as Jesus' teachings are, the lynch pin of his life was the resurrection. This validated His miracles, the authority of His words, His promises about the future, His assurances about eternal life and His warnings regarding a future without His involvement in an individual's life.
Forever is a long time, with or without Him.
Someone once told me that even if Heaven was a lie, the Christian life was the best life to lead anyway. Sheer and utter garbage. The Apostle Paul said if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead, Christians were the most foolish people in the world, and they should embrace eating, drinking and being merry with everyone else. I personally would be smoking lots of dope, chasing skirts and committing larceny (for amusement and profit).
Following Christ is equal measure playing out this hand and playing out different cards in eternity with God, in one of the 8 other dimensions super collider scientists have isolated.
There is only so much intrinsic joy in selling your possessions and giving your money to the poor; only so much cheerful interest in being burned alive; only so much peaceful anticipation of being disemboweled like William Wallace; only so much steely resolve to endure torture behind the iron or bamboo curtains.
Following Jesus includes eternal life in a spiritual place where time blurs into a mysterious, personal experience with God. Heaven is forever without boredom or endless
repetition. I don't understand all of it, but I don't get where the matter given life by the "big bang" came from either.
Heaven is irrelevant to many in our culture. We are smarter; we live longer; we are not persecuted. Before my father, not a Christian, died - three years ago at 88 - he often commented on how ready he was to die. He was tired and wearing out. He was ready to sleep. Older people are less interested in converting to a religion that promises activity after death than a thirty year old, cut down by the bubonic plague in his prime. We don't often huddle in the corner of a jail cell whimpering to God for help or have the occasion to cry out from the chopping block, waiting for the axe to fall. Westerners die in our beds, doped to the gills with pain reducing agents, easing us out through the last stages of metastasized cancer. We are numbed into eternity - or into nothing.
As important as Jesus' teachings are, the lynch pin of his life was the resurrection. This validated His miracles, the authority of His words, His promises about the future, His assurances about eternal life and His warnings regarding a future without His involvement in an individual's life.
Forever is a long time, with or without Him.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Molasses
American Christians are slow to change their attitudes and churches are like molasses. Theology and church doctrine is either too cumbersome or too rigid, and because of that change is invisible.
So far the Presidential election of 2008 is not about abortion and homosexuality, key arguing points in 2000 and 2004, indicating two things: people are most interested in fear issues - the economy and the war, now; and that religion is contrarian, fighting against change because it is change, not because right and wrong are at stake - when things calm down, the church often disappears.
I had lunch with my good friend Jordan Disko last week. We talked about my blog entry on homosexuality, and he suggested that homosexuality was less of an issue today in the church because that institution had taken a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to gay involvement.
Church members, once so intent on fighting "the homosexual agenda," don't want to fight anymore. They are tired of bad press, nasty characterizations on TV shows, the embarrassment of "outed" clergy and a general mood shift in the Country towards the legalization of gay civil unions.
Some ministers actually see gays as an important mission field for their churches and are ramping up gay friendly programs while ramping down "God hates fags" signage.
God brings things into our consciousness that challenge our moral definitions. It takes a William Wilberforce to see through the economic benefits of the slave trade and fight for the Abolition of Slavery in England. It takes an Abraham Lincoln to see that Emancipation was the the correct policy for American slaves in the Civil War. It took a Susan B. Anthony to activate the process that led to a woman's right to vote. It took a Winston Churchill to personalize the nobility of all or nothing resistance and later Gandhi to epitomize the power of non violent resistance. It took a Martin Luther King to spur legislation that brought to Black Americans the voting rights they had been mostly denied since their Emancipation.
Many British shippers embraced abolition even though it ended much of their livelihood.
It meant ruin for White plantation owners to free their slaves, but some did. Women lost jobs and marriages because they were suffragettes, but they stayed the course. Pacifists in England and militant revolutionaries in India submitted their agendas for the unity of the moment, regardless of their positions after the conflicts ended. Southern whites marched with black Civil Rights leaders knowing they would be beaten outside Selma, Alabama.
The question is, what sort of prescience prepares the Church to be on the right side of these sorts of issues, in that it has a history (in a majority of the aforementioned cases) of coming down on the morally incorrect side of them? It has not usually been through malice, but by a tendency to want to rest in the status quo. The process of understanding would be acceptable except the church generally immediately turns opposition into a political position, making it one of the most conservative parts of society.
I will ring the bell proclaiming the Church is free from the role of political watchdog of the morals of our society. I can tell my neighbor there are options to abortion. I am compelled to, in fact. but throwing the contents a vial of blood on Juno as she tries to sneak into Planned Parenthood "ain't going to make it with anyone any how" (thank you Beatles). Mob mentality can never show the piercing power of the love of God, and when you exchange the vulnerability of one-on-one sharing for the gurgle of a group, the most important part of that encounter is lost, and advocates of life look like bullies.
Perhaps Christians should start preparing for the future moral issues we will be facing: bestiality; the age of consent - as defined by statutory rape and other "sex crimes;" sibling marriage; polygamy; physician assisted suicide; decriminalization and legalization of marijuana and other recreational drugs; tax exempt status for churches and charitable contributions; mandatory military service; defining and dealing with pornography and prostitution; divorce (an ongoing issue everywhere); models of child rearing; and many more I can't even think of yet.
The first thing I want to do when viewing an issue is set it next to the New Book. Pornography, for instance, is people having sex - nothing wrong with that; people are watching that act, nothing in the Book specifically against it, but weird; the participants are casually or anonymously coupled, which is against fidelity and monogamy(share our message); some women have been exploited by involvement in pornography (how does the church help?); some men are prone to addiction to pornography (how can church help?); certain areas should be pornography free for sake of children/addicts (partner in community to insure zones; reasonability reigns; work towards consensus among all parties involved); owners of pornography stores aren't the devil (businessmen; treat with respect and love; win to Jesus and let them decide future of establishment). That would be a beginning outline/strategy. I'd leave the picket signs at home and start working at the parts of the concern that would bring a true change in the industry, not just the shuffling of porno stores into another location in town. The Jesus Way is always harder, for it's built on changing the entire mess, not just lambasting or denying it.
So far the Presidential election of 2008 is not about abortion and homosexuality, key arguing points in 2000 and 2004, indicating two things: people are most interested in fear issues - the economy and the war, now; and that religion is contrarian, fighting against change because it is change, not because right and wrong are at stake - when things calm down, the church often disappears.
I had lunch with my good friend Jordan Disko last week. We talked about my blog entry on homosexuality, and he suggested that homosexuality was less of an issue today in the church because that institution had taken a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to gay involvement.
Church members, once so intent on fighting "the homosexual agenda," don't want to fight anymore. They are tired of bad press, nasty characterizations on TV shows, the embarrassment of "outed" clergy and a general mood shift in the Country towards the legalization of gay civil unions.
Some ministers actually see gays as an important mission field for their churches and are ramping up gay friendly programs while ramping down "God hates fags" signage.
God brings things into our consciousness that challenge our moral definitions. It takes a William Wilberforce to see through the economic benefits of the slave trade and fight for the Abolition of Slavery in England. It takes an Abraham Lincoln to see that Emancipation was the the correct policy for American slaves in the Civil War. It took a Susan B. Anthony to activate the process that led to a woman's right to vote. It took a Winston Churchill to personalize the nobility of all or nothing resistance and later Gandhi to epitomize the power of non violent resistance. It took a Martin Luther King to spur legislation that brought to Black Americans the voting rights they had been mostly denied since their Emancipation.
Many British shippers embraced abolition even though it ended much of their livelihood.
It meant ruin for White plantation owners to free their slaves, but some did. Women lost jobs and marriages because they were suffragettes, but they stayed the course. Pacifists in England and militant revolutionaries in India submitted their agendas for the unity of the moment, regardless of their positions after the conflicts ended. Southern whites marched with black Civil Rights leaders knowing they would be beaten outside Selma, Alabama.
The question is, what sort of prescience prepares the Church to be on the right side of these sorts of issues, in that it has a history (in a majority of the aforementioned cases) of coming down on the morally incorrect side of them? It has not usually been through malice, but by a tendency to want to rest in the status quo. The process of understanding would be acceptable except the church generally immediately turns opposition into a political position, making it one of the most conservative parts of society.
I will ring the bell proclaiming the Church is free from the role of political watchdog of the morals of our society. I can tell my neighbor there are options to abortion. I am compelled to, in fact. but throwing the contents a vial of blood on Juno as she tries to sneak into Planned Parenthood "ain't going to make it with anyone any how" (thank you Beatles). Mob mentality can never show the piercing power of the love of God, and when you exchange the vulnerability of one-on-one sharing for the gurgle of a group, the most important part of that encounter is lost, and advocates of life look like bullies.
Perhaps Christians should start preparing for the future moral issues we will be facing: bestiality; the age of consent - as defined by statutory rape and other "sex crimes;" sibling marriage; polygamy; physician assisted suicide; decriminalization and legalization of marijuana and other recreational drugs; tax exempt status for churches and charitable contributions; mandatory military service; defining and dealing with pornography and prostitution; divorce (an ongoing issue everywhere); models of child rearing; and many more I can't even think of yet.
The first thing I want to do when viewing an issue is set it next to the New Book. Pornography, for instance, is people having sex - nothing wrong with that; people are watching that act, nothing in the Book specifically against it, but weird; the participants are casually or anonymously coupled, which is against fidelity and monogamy(share our message); some women have been exploited by involvement in pornography (how does the church help?); some men are prone to addiction to pornography (how can church help?); certain areas should be pornography free for sake of children/addicts (partner in community to insure zones; reasonability reigns; work towards consensus among all parties involved); owners of pornography stores aren't the devil (businessmen; treat with respect and love; win to Jesus and let them decide future of establishment). That would be a beginning outline/strategy. I'd leave the picket signs at home and start working at the parts of the concern that would bring a true change in the industry, not just the shuffling of porno stores into another location in town. The Jesus Way is always harder, for it's built on changing the entire mess, not just lambasting or denying it.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The Gang Plank
After three years study, I have come to the conclusion that the argument among Christians regarding homosexuality and the New Book comes down to 2 verses in Romans.
An accurate translation of Romans 1:27-28 is:
For this cause God gave them up into disgraceful passions, for their women exchanged the instinctive use (sexual intercourse) into that which is contrary to native disposition
Likewise also the men, laying aside their instinctive use (sexual intercourse) of the women burned in their lust one towards another, men with men, working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves the recompense of their effort which was meet.
For thirty years, I never questioned that homosexuality was a sin. I believed that the "know," in the story of Sodom, meant the same as the "know" in Genesis, i.e., sexual intercourse. This seemed a clear illustration of homosexual sin that was judged by God accordingly. I was not a vitriolic opponent of homosexual rights, I just presumed that gay men and lesbians were unwilling to renounce their sins and be converted into Christian heterosexuals. I guess I believed that there was a "gay agenda," which was attempting to usher in a new wave of repulsive sexual spectacle, ignoring God's condemnation of sodomy and other disgusting acts.
I started to waiver three years ago, when after meeting my son's college roommate, a gay ,Christian kid from Minnesota, I had an epiphany. You could be a sincere Christian and be homosexual.
All I'd ever really known about gays was bath houses, nude parades, anonymous sex, uncontrollable lust and a general antagonism to Christianity. Forgive me Mike for knowing so little and judging so much.
There are 10 passages in the New Book about homosexuality. Verses like 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7 that have been used to condemn homosexuality are pretty hollow, for key words in the passages have been fairly well mishandled, reflecting translators' predisposition to be homophobic. I examined Old Book passages, and how the story of Sodom could have been about distrust, dishonor, violent anger and disloyalty of the people of Sodom, not about homosexual mania. I have no problem with other OB passages, because I reject their authority after Jesus' arrival before John the by Baptist at the River Jordan. I find claims about David and Jonathan' sexual relationship and assertions that it was Adam and Steve in the Garden of Eden not Adam and Eve ludicrous (and amusing in their earnest awkwardness).
The OB is clearly about "going forth and multiplying." The NB is about "going forth and making disciples." Homosexuality was an abomination to the Jews. So were Gentiles, Samaritans and any food that deviated from God's instructions regarding diet regulations. Circumcision was sacrosanct. All this was changed in the NB: there is no male or female in Christ; no slave or free; no Jew or Gentile. Circumcision was not required of Gentile believers and the dietary laws were lifted. It was a cataclysmic revolution; Jesus was more disruptive than any figure in world history.
It could be predicted that the chasm between homosexuality and heterosexuality would be eliminated as well. The early church had homosexual covenants. The world of the NB is rife with homosexuality, and very little is said about that sexual orientation. The infamous passage in Romans is seen by some as an admonition to not yield to bi-sexuality. The word translated "nature" in most translation is best defined as "native," indicating that the actions described are not contrary to inherent rules for all human behavior, but for individual behavior.
Paul attempts in this passage to call heterosexual believers not to leave their native orientation to embrace entanglement in same sex affairs solely because of pressure from a bi-sexual culture.
Although I am not fully satisfied with this interpretation, the scarcity of passages regarding homosexual practices, the obvious parallel between bond and free, male and female, Jew and Greek, the absolute ability of God to love everybody and the reality of homosexual Christians, famous and obscure, who remain homosexual, even after attempting every means of purging this indelible part of their lives, makes me conclude that some people are born gay, and should be embraced by the faith, not abandoned by it.
This is another area in which many have defined the church as homophobic without having any basis other than changing moral standards behind their own conduct. Christians are servants of Christ and must hear the promptings and instruction of the New Book. If you say you are only going to follow the words of Christ and reject the writings of Paul, you are rejecting the work of the First Century church and its earliest referenced body of sacred writings, detailed in 79AD.
The moral principles of the New Book regarding marriage apply to everyone: celibacy, monogamy, faithfulness, lifelong. The failure of Homosexuals to follow the aforementioned moral principles should be handled the same as heterosexual failure. The bar is the same for everyone, and it is high.
Bi-sexuality is a moot point, because marriage is monogamous and lifelong. Transgender situations should be handled with compassion and understanding. I have no biblical position on this, but I believe in inclusion and support.
That's it. Glug, glug.
An accurate translation of Romans 1:27-28 is:
For this cause God gave them up into disgraceful passions, for their women exchanged the instinctive use (sexual intercourse) into that which is contrary to native disposition
Likewise also the men, laying aside their instinctive use (sexual intercourse) of the women burned in their lust one towards another, men with men, working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves the recompense of their effort which was meet.
For thirty years, I never questioned that homosexuality was a sin. I believed that the "know," in the story of Sodom, meant the same as the "know" in Genesis, i.e., sexual intercourse. This seemed a clear illustration of homosexual sin that was judged by God accordingly. I was not a vitriolic opponent of homosexual rights, I just presumed that gay men and lesbians were unwilling to renounce their sins and be converted into Christian heterosexuals. I guess I believed that there was a "gay agenda," which was attempting to usher in a new wave of repulsive sexual spectacle, ignoring God's condemnation of sodomy and other disgusting acts.
I started to waiver three years ago, when after meeting my son's college roommate, a gay ,Christian kid from Minnesota, I had an epiphany. You could be a sincere Christian and be homosexual.
All I'd ever really known about gays was bath houses, nude parades, anonymous sex, uncontrollable lust and a general antagonism to Christianity. Forgive me Mike for knowing so little and judging so much.
There are 10 passages in the New Book about homosexuality. Verses like 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7 that have been used to condemn homosexuality are pretty hollow, for key words in the passages have been fairly well mishandled, reflecting translators' predisposition to be homophobic. I examined Old Book passages, and how the story of Sodom could have been about distrust, dishonor, violent anger and disloyalty of the people of Sodom, not about homosexual mania. I have no problem with other OB passages, because I reject their authority after Jesus' arrival before John the by Baptist at the River Jordan. I find claims about David and Jonathan' sexual relationship and assertions that it was Adam and Steve in the Garden of Eden not Adam and Eve ludicrous (and amusing in their earnest awkwardness).
The OB is clearly about "going forth and multiplying." The NB is about "going forth and making disciples." Homosexuality was an abomination to the Jews. So were Gentiles, Samaritans and any food that deviated from God's instructions regarding diet regulations. Circumcision was sacrosanct. All this was changed in the NB: there is no male or female in Christ; no slave or free; no Jew or Gentile. Circumcision was not required of Gentile believers and the dietary laws were lifted. It was a cataclysmic revolution; Jesus was more disruptive than any figure in world history.
It could be predicted that the chasm between homosexuality and heterosexuality would be eliminated as well. The early church had homosexual covenants. The world of the NB is rife with homosexuality, and very little is said about that sexual orientation. The infamous passage in Romans is seen by some as an admonition to not yield to bi-sexuality. The word translated "nature" in most translation is best defined as "native," indicating that the actions described are not contrary to inherent rules for all human behavior, but for individual behavior.
Paul attempts in this passage to call heterosexual believers not to leave their native orientation to embrace entanglement in same sex affairs solely because of pressure from a bi-sexual culture.
Although I am not fully satisfied with this interpretation, the scarcity of passages regarding homosexual practices, the obvious parallel between bond and free, male and female, Jew and Greek, the absolute ability of God to love everybody and the reality of homosexual Christians, famous and obscure, who remain homosexual, even after attempting every means of purging this indelible part of their lives, makes me conclude that some people are born gay, and should be embraced by the faith, not abandoned by it.
This is another area in which many have defined the church as homophobic without having any basis other than changing moral standards behind their own conduct. Christians are servants of Christ and must hear the promptings and instruction of the New Book. If you say you are only going to follow the words of Christ and reject the writings of Paul, you are rejecting the work of the First Century church and its earliest referenced body of sacred writings, detailed in 79AD.
The moral principles of the New Book regarding marriage apply to everyone: celibacy, monogamy, faithfulness, lifelong. The failure of Homosexuals to follow the aforementioned moral principles should be handled the same as heterosexual failure. The bar is the same for everyone, and it is high.
Bi-sexuality is a moot point, because marriage is monogamous and lifelong. Transgender situations should be handled with compassion and understanding. I have no biblical position on this, but I believe in inclusion and support.
That's it. Glug, glug.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
