Archive for June, 2009

English Lakes Post #1

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

I’m in the Omaha airport currently, about to take off for the English Lakes District northern England for some much-anticipated study-leave.  A dozen or so people are rendezvousing with poet/philosopher, David Whyte.  This gathering is focussed on being a time to deepen one’s commitment to the direction one’s professional or artistic life is taking, or loose it toward a new direction (Don’t worry: I’m in the FORMER camp, not the latter!).  For further inspiration we will spend every afternoon amid the mountains and lakes that surround us, walking the hills and arriving at small pubs and hostelries for the evening meal. David will lead the morning sessions, bringing poetry to bear on the insights he has gained through twenty years of examining the necessities of work, career and relationship. Our accommodation is in a manor house nestled in the foothills of the North Pennines, one of 40 classified areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales. 

If you’ve never heard of David Whyte, a wonderful introduction to his work is The Heart Aroused: Poetry and Preservation of the Soul in Corporate America.  That’s the book that got me hooked.  Now, after reading a stack more of his books, I’m looking forward to finally being able to experience how his brilliant mind works (Don’t count on me coming back with any of his brilliance!).  

Yesterday I visited Best Buy and drooled over a Flip Video mini-camcorder which is popular with video bloggers thinking I might take some video of David Whyte and others on the trip and perhaps post a few video reflections on what’s happening there and potentially on the Phoenix Affirmations.  I decided against it … and then rushed out this morning to purchase one … So for better or worse, you’re going to get some video entries in the coming week, should you care to watch them.  They’ll be posted on YouTube with links provided on this blog.  If you’d rather go straight to the YouTube videos and not go thru the blog, you can type “eelnes” in the search engine and find all my video blog posts (including some videos I’ve posted previously).  However, I do plan on writing a little here, too, not just doing video.  

My first entry is cheesy, and says nothing important, but it’s my very first video blog, shot at the airport in Omaha, so for those who wish, you can click here to view it.

But not to leave you with empty vapor, I thought I’d share one of David Whyte’s poems for your enjoyment:

“In the Beginning”

         by David Whyte (From Fire In the Earth)

Sometimes simplicity rises

            like a blossom of fire

                        from the white silk of your own skin.

You were there in the beginning

            you heard the story, you heard the merciless

                        and tender words telling you where you had to go.

Exile is never easy and the journey

            itself leaves a bitter taste.  But then,

                        when you heard that voice, you had to go.

You couldn’t stay by the fire, you couldn’t live

            so close to the live flame of that compassion

                        you had to go out in the world and make it your own

so you could come back with

            that flame in your voice, saying listen …

                        this warmth, this unbearable light, this fearful love …

It is all here, it is all here.

In the eye of the believer (or just the facts)

Saturday, June 13th, 2009

@ Macy’s in Flagstaff

Last week I watched a rerun of Einstein on the History Channel. I had seen it before but I always enjoy serious history. That and the fact that I am desperate for anything worth while watching on TV. A big part of the story was the attempts to prove Einstein’s theory of relativity by photographing a total solar eclipse and measuring the positions of stars that appeared close to the sun. The theory of General Relativity predicts that the path of light will be bent by gravity as it passes close to a massive object. Therefore stars that appear close to the sun (they aren’t really close, they are far beyond the sun in distance but lie in the same direction as the sun) will appear even closer to the sun than they are. See Putting Relativity to the Test for a better description. At the time (1916 to 1922) the only way to photograph stars close to the sun was during a total solar eclipse. Several astronomers competed to test the theory of which Sir Arthur Eddington from the UK and William Wallace Campbell (and here) from the US were the most involved.

~

I really liked the program for humanizing Albert Einstein but found it lacking in explanations. The most disturbing missing detail was in explaining the differing results obtained by Eddington and Campbell. World War I complicated things quite a bit. Einstein was in Germany, Eddington, a big fan of his, was in England and both were not too well thought of because of their views on the war. The American astronomer, Campbell definitely did not share their views of the war but was just as impeded by the conflict. What with one thing and another Campbell had the first opportunity to observe (and hence obtain photographs) of an eclipse. This was the 1918 eclipse which was visible in the state of Washington. After the war was over Eddington got his first opportunity on the island of Príncipe near Africa during the eclipse in May of 1919. Now here is the unexplained part. Campbell could not confirm that the theory was correct and was about to publish results that said Einstein was wrong when Eddington announced that he had confirmed the theory. Today we know that, in the main, Einstein had it correct and therefore Eddington was right on with his results. So, does this make Campbell out to be some sort of incompetent? The program (and almost everyone else) just goes on to praise Eddington and Einstein for this great advance in our understanding of the universe. It remained silent on how Campbell could have been wrong.

~

This wasn’t a case of religion vs. science with one side obtaining knowledge by divine revelation and the other by testing a theory by observation. Or was it? Eddington was a staunch Quaker and therefore an avowed pacifist. Einstein wasn’t a Quaker but did have pacifistic leanings. Campbell was just the opposite. Eddington was a big fan of Einstein and his theory. In more modern times some have suggested that Eddington fudged his results (if he did not lie outright). I prefer to think that Eddington, who understood the theory when most scientists did not, only found results he was looking for. Campbell had another astronomer measuring the results of his observations and this astronomer was more of an observational astronomer than either Campbell or Eddington. As such he was possibly more concerned with data than implications. It turns out that photography and astronomical methods of the time were not up to the challenge of being able to prove the theory. The photographic emulsions of the time could only resolve stars to about ½ of the resolution necessary to confirm the theory. In other words a stars position could not be measured to the accuracy required using photographic emulsions available at that time.

~

Today we have abundant proof that Einstein’s theory of relativity is the best description we have of the universe (even if there are some details where Albert missed the boat). There are many places where we can measure the amount of light’s deflection caused by gravity. Other proofs of the theory exist such as the explanation of the deviation (from Newtonian physics) of Mercury’s orbit. I try to remember that even scientists like to find the results they are looking for and that beliefs can put a spin on results.

~

To my way of thinking, creationists and Eddington differ only in degree. Still, I won’t be changing my thinking about evolution any time soon. I also note that the History Channel airs shows such as UFO Files, UFO Hunters and Monster Quest. The best that can be said of any of those is that they involve a good deal of belief as opposed to fact. What can one believe from a source such as that?

~

Note on the use of Wikipedia – often I look up things on Wikipedia but I always keep in mind that the authors of individual articles can biased and all facts reported there may not necessarily be so.

Reflections on Affirmation 6

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

Affirmation 6
Standing, as Jesus does, with the outcast and oppressed, the denigrated and afflicted, seeking peace and justice with or without the support of others;

Evangelical Christian activist Jim Wallis writes in his book, God’s Politics, that he often does a little “Bible quiz” for audiences he speaks to.  He asks, “What is the most famous biblical text in America about the poor?”  He writes, “Every time, I mean every single time, I receive the same answer: ‘The poor you will always have with you!’  they shout out.”

I can relate to this experience.  Growing up in the affluent suburban community of Mercer Island, Washington (a suburb of Seattle) this phrase was drilled into my head over and over.  However, Jesus’ saying that “the poor you will always have with you” is far from the sum total of what the Bible has to say about poverty and, in fact, this passage is misinterpreted to mean that Jesus didn’t care about the poor (If so, why did he care in so many other passages?).

Contrary to what some would have us believe, the Bible is far more concerned with justice for the poor, widow, orphan, and foreigner than the issues like homosexuality, abortion, and prayer in schools.  For instance, in contrast to the six passages that could be construed as having to do with homosexuality (and not all of them hold up to closer scrutiny), there are over 2,000 passages in the Bible that have to do with wealth and our use of material possessions.  In some of the prophetic literature (Amos and Jeremiah), the claim is even made that you can be among the most pious people in the world and if you fail to care for society’s marginalized and denigrated, you may as well be worshipping astral deities or Canaanite gods, not the God of the Hebrews.

On the other hand, contrary to the view of some Christians who would claim that social justice is the ONLY issue God is concerned about, the biblical tradition  speaks quite assertively that turning our lives over to God and attending to our spiritual path are at least as important as social justice.  In fact, the great prophets of old would have thought it absurd to invest energy in the very justice issues they were so passionate about without turning one’s heart, and indeed one’s very life, over to the will and guidance of God’s spirit.

In this the prophets were utterly practical.  They recognized that the interests of society are fickle and tend to drift with the wind.  Without an adequate grounding in the spiritual path, they recognized that justice would be subject to people’s momentary whims and desires.  People would work on behalf of the marginalized only as long as it was the socially acceptable thing to do, rather than as a long-term commitment to doing “on earth as it is in heaven.”  Justice would be subject to fads, or to the exigencies of self-interest (“I’ll be glad to help the poor as long as I can make a buck off it.”).

It may seem contrary to popular wisdom, but the spiritual disciplines of prayer, Bible study, worship, and fellowship in a faith community, are critical to the maintenance of a long-term commitment to (and energy for) social justice.  This isn’t merely personal opinion, but is backed by solid evidence.  Throughout American history, issues of social justice have had a very hard time gaining traction in society until communities of faith took them up and began seeing them as part of their spiritual walk with God.

Of course, there have been many times when faith communities were the very ones standing in the way of justice, whether it was during the struggle against slavery, or for women’s rights, or for civil rights for all races.  Nevertheless, none of these movements caught fire in our society until a critical mass of faith communities began to embrace and sustain them.

One possible exception to this pattern is the current struggle for civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people (LGBT).  As in the “days of old,” many churches have followed the pattern of being slow to awaken to this social justice issue.  Yet what seems to be breaking the pattern is that a strong and growing consensus is developing in our society – particularly among those under the age of thirty – that LGBT equality is basic to our social contract.  This is happening despite faith communities, not because of them. To this day, being an active member of a faith community is the biggest predictor of support (or rather, lack of support) for LGBT equality.

To me, this break in the pattern of justice being carried forward by communities of faith is troubling.  For “secular” society to be the champion of social justice for LGBT people suggests that churches and other communities of Spirit have somehow lost a connection to the historical relationship between faith and justice for the marginalized.  What is particularly troubling about this break is that, whenever this happened in biblical history, the faith community went into steep and even disastrous decline.  It is as if God’s Spirit has a flow to it, and when that flow is impeded by the communities of Spirit overly long, it jumps boundaries and flows into “back channels” (These days, the “secular” community.).  While this new pattern cannot be sustained over long periods of time (the Spirit is intelligent enough to know that it flows most robustly when it is sustained by those committed to its flow), it can indeed work temporarily.  Justice can be sustained in the short-run by those who do not connect justice with their spiritual path – as long as it’s the “socially acceptable” or self-interested thing to do (On this latter point, note the embrace of LGBT equality by corporations who have realized it’s not profitable to discriminate based on sexual orientation).  In the meantime, the spirit-communities flounder, lose spirit and energy, and eventually begin to collapse in on themselves.

When this happens, the basic pattern morphs, and looks like this:  When the pain of collapse becomes widespread enough, and great enough, people begin realize once-again that they can’t sustain their faith communities under their own will and direction.  Some of them begin to rediscover the classic spiritual disciples – the things that turn their heads and hearts over to the Spirit – and this re-ignites their essential spark.  They begin to wake up and come alive in their worship and community life, and in their work in the community, even as other faith communities continue to implode.  Eventually, thus, this generalized implosion among the faith communities leads to an explosion of new energy similar to what happens when a star collapses in on itself (Supernova!).  Unlike stars, whose supernovas signal their final end, supernovas in the faith community tend to thrust them into another dimension or sorts – a higher level of existence.  These periods become known as “Great Revivals” and “Great Reformations.”

This pattern was perhaps best articulated for our times with respect to the Christian faith community by the late William Sloan Coffin, former Senior Minister of Riverside Church, who observed:

The Church, of all the institutions in society, interprets the memory and proclaims the message of the coming kingdom.  The Church may distort Jesus into a white middle-class pillar of American respectability; it may pervert his image into that of a religious Babbitt pushing the cult of successfulness; it may distort and pervert his image, but the Church cannot forget Jesus.  And in spite of its best efforts to domesticate that Jesus, the Church knows and frequently fears that his message will be rediscovered.  The Church cannot help but keep the name in circulation, and where the name is remembered there is hope.” (Credo, p. 138)

A true church is one which is “joyfully and unapologetically Christian” and is just as ”joyfully and unapologetically” justice-oriented.  As in biblical times, these go hand in hand, and lead to amazing vitality and life not just for the marginalized but for the whole community.

News from the Faith Singers Tour

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

Okay, I know this is the Asphalt Jesus blog, but since I’m on tour with Countryside’s Faith Singers right now, I couldn’t help but give an update on how the kids are doing.  Call this a shout out for Affirmation 4 – artful and spirited worship!

Last night was the Faith Singers’ fourth performance on the road.  They performed at the Congregational Church of San Mateo, CA, just south of San Francisco.  Their performance spoke to me on a number of levels, not only about music, but also about life and Spirit.  I’ll explain this, but need to back up a couple days.

The Faith Singers tour started with two performances in North Platte, singing for the Annual Meeting of the UCC’s Nebraska Conference last Saturday night, and for worship at First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) the following morning.  Both performances were extremely well received, with a “standing O” the first night and lots of glowing accolades after church Sunday morning.

As good as those performances were, the kids were pretty much focused on the mechanics of performance, having just started their tour. There were little glitches here and there (nothing serious), and if you were familiar with the Faith Singers, you could tell they were getting their feet wet.

The second night of the tour, the kids performed at First Plymouth UCC in Denver, CO.  With two performances under their belts, the kids were no longer so focused so much on mechanics.  With most of the rough spots smoothed over, they were free to focus more on their audience, projecting their sound out into the sanctuary.  They sang confidently and clearly, filling the sanctuary and giving their sound texture and shape.  By the end of the program, there was so much energy in the audience that people were literally dancing in the aisles during the final song (“Stop By, Lord”), which Jim had the singers repeat after a standing ovation went on and on.

My favorite performance, though, was last night in San Mateo, though the kids were not well set up to have a great performance,.  They had spent much of the day in airports and on the plane between Denver and San Francisco.  After being fed a tasty and nourishing meal by the church, which perked them up, they entered the sanctuary to perform only to find it mostly empty. Despite the fact that the concert had been advertized on a large, professionally-created poster on a prominent San Mateo street outside the church, a scant dozen or so showed up for the performance – not even as many as it takes to provide home-stays.

I feared for the Faith Singers’ morale.  In college I toured with a singing group, and while finishing my doctorate at Princeton I served as a part-time, interim minister for a congregation of twenty-five members.  In both cases I learned first-hand how much energy it takes out of a person when few souls are occupying the pews.  No matter how much energy you try to project, it can feel like it’s all disappearing down a bottomless void and quickly deflate you unless …. well, let’s hold the “unless” part aside for now.

While deflation and discouragement was what I worried over for the Faith Singers as they entered the nearly vacant sanctuary, I needn’t have worried.  Our youth discovered the “unless” part quite on their own.  Since they had gotten the difficult mechanical issues worked out the first night of the tour, they didn’t need to put their energies there.   And since there was little audience to project to, it was pointless to focus on the audience as they had the night before.  Last night, the Faith Singers focused neither on mechanics nor projection, simply on the joy of listening to each other, and responding to one another, singing as a group.

As an audience member, you could feel the singers actively listening to each other, taking in the energy around them and reflecting it out to their fellow group members.  They didn’t need an audience.  They were caught up in each other and the beauty they were creating together.  Throughout the entire concert they smiled as they sang like I’ve never seen them smile before.  To be sure, the Faith Singers had been prompted to smile more in their pre-concert talk.  But these smiles came from more than just prompting.  You could tell that they arose from within, from a since awe and wonder.

It was an electrifying experience to take all this.  It was magical.  It was sacred.   As I sat and listened, trying to hold back tears, I thought to myself, “This is what church looks and feels like when it starts becoming aware of itself and the magic in its midst.”  When people can move beyond the mechanics of worship and committee meetings, and when they move beyond “projection” (or the notion that the “true” mission of the church is “out there somewhere”) and simply focus on their connection to each other – the harmonies and interwoven rhythms they create under the Master’s direction – magic happens.  Sacred space enters our world.  That special sense of sacredness is an amazingly attractive force. You want to jump up, jump in, and become a part of it.

Last night, the Faith Singers didn’t need anyone in the room listening to them.  In listening deeply to each other, they started responding to an energy (and dare I say a Presence) far greater than them all.  And that energy (and Presence) was deeply attractive. Isn’t it ironic that when a group of people become deeply engaged with each other and the power that unites them, without concern for what they are “doing” for others, that they become a powerfully attractive force to the rest of us?

“The Laugh Shall Be First”

Sunday, June 7th, 2009

Age of Aquarius, that can’t be right; can it?

Saturday, June 6th, 2009

@ Duck and Decanter

I was watching my latest DVD course, Understanding the Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy, 2nd Edition, from The Teaching Company and learned a fact that raised a good many questions. It wasn’t a scientific fact per se. It was more an astrological fact. As you know, there are 12 signs of the Zodiac. These signs come from the constellations in the ecliptic. The ecliptic is the plane of the sky that the sun (and planets) traverses each year. The basic theory of astrology is that the sign you were born under (what constellation the sun was in) determines events in your life as well as your characteristics. Now there are numerous scientific reasons why this is nonsense. When it comes to believing science or believing something else, I’ll pick science every time. I have never given much credence to Astrology but there are many people that do. What I learned in my course was that there are 13 constellations in the plane of the ecliptic. The professor teaching the course, Alex Filippenko, was careful to point out that astrologers had missed one. He also said that he did not know how or why one got left out.

~

Missed a sign of the zodiac? How can that be? If the whole point of astrology is that your life is determined by what constellation the sun was in when you were born (and what planets are in your sign and probably other stuff that only astrologers care about) what happens if you were born under the missing constellation? Alex Filippenko also mentioned the fact that the constellations were all different in size and the sun spent different amounts of time in them. Hmmm. This called for a quick trip to my favorite – as well as the most used – internet source of quick facts, Wikipedia. Looking up Zodiac, I discovered a mind boggling array of facts about astrology in general and the Zodiac in particular. There are some clues as to how a constellation was left out also.

~

The first thing is that 13 is a terrible number to work with. It is a prime number for one thing. 12 is much better. You can divide 12 by 2, 3, 4 and 6. It is easy to figure out halves and quarters for instance. So, three signs can be assigned to each of the seasons, for example. Other games can be played with the twelve signs. You could take the middle signs and assign the middle one from each of the four quarters to the faces of the cherubim, in both Ezekiel and Revelation, as the article in Wikipedia pointed out. (The Lion is Leo; the Bull is Taurus; the Man is Aquarius; and the Eagle is Scorpio.) No doubt there are others. It is also easier to make them all equal. It wouldn’t do to have unequal numbers of people born under differing signs. If you go by length of time the sun spends in each constellation, you could have anywhere from 12% to 2.2% of the human population born in each sign. That clearly wouldn’t do. Besides, there seems to be something in the number 12. We have 12 apostles and 12 tribes in the bible as well as 12 months.

~

You can also divide 12 into 360 evenly. That is important because it was the Babylonians (also known as the Chaldeans) who invented (?) astrology. The Babylonians were also the people that gave 360 degrees to circles. The ecliptic is a circle and so it made sense to them to have a division of 30 degrees for each sign. Much better than 27.69230769230770 degrees per sign don’t you think?

~

From the Wikipedia article I also learned that there is no one system of astrology. The two main divisions relate to use of a tropical year (solar system based) or a sidereal year (star based). But there are lots of minor differences and interpretations also. This is starting to sound a lot like religion. Weren’t the Magi supposed to be Chaldeans? When the Babylonians invented astrology the vernal equinox was in Aries which is why Aries is sign #1. That was the age of Aries. After wards it – the vernal equinox – moved into Pisces and it became the age of Pisces. Soon (or now or maybe not so soon depending which school of astrology you follow) we will be moving into the Age of Aquarius.

`

When the moon is in the Seventh House

and Jupiter aligns with Mars

Then peace will guide the planets

And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius

The age of Aquarius

Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding

Sympathy and trust abounding

No more falsehoods or derisions

Golden living dreams of visions

Mystic crystal revelation

And the mind’s true liberation

Aquarius! Aquarius!

When the moon is in the Seventh House

and Jupiter aligns with Mars

Then peace will guide the planets

And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius

The age of Aquarius

Aquarius! Aquarius!

As our hearts go beating through the night

We dance unto the dawn of day

To be the bearers of the water

Our light will lead the way

We are the spirit of the age of Aquarius

The age of Aquarius

Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding

Sympathy and trust abounding

Angelic illumination

Rising fiery constellation

Travelling our starry courses

Guided by the cosmic forces

Oh, care for us; Aquarius

The Age of Aquarius from the musical Hair written by James Rado, Gerome Ragni, and Galt MacDermot,

`

Astrology appears to have theories about the future even if all branches don’t agree on the timing. I wonder if the different schools of astrology have any theories about how old the earth is or — homosexuality.

Out of context

Saturday, June 6th, 2009

Duck and Decanter

It happened again last Sunday. I was joyfully descending from the top of Piestewa Peak when someone greeted me by name and I didn’t have the foggiest as to who the young lady was. It took me about ten yards to place her. She works here at the D & D and as I lunch (and blog) here frequently I see her several times a week. The reason she knows my name is that at the D & D you are asked for your name when ordering and it is written on the lunch bag with your order. So it was natural for her to use my name. This sort of thing happens to me regularly. I can remember meeting some one that I see in church nearly every Sunday on the street during the week and it took me a couple of sentences to register who I was talking with. When I meet people out of the context in which I know them I often get confused.

~

Same thing happens when I read of or hear people making statements that challenge my understanding of what they represent. Saturday I read about Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State saying some things that really confused me. Now this guy has to be close to the present Pope (who appointed him). The present Pope is not exactly liberal. (He probably is somewhere to the right of Louis XIV.) So when I read:

`

The Church never fears the truth of science, because we are convinced that all truth comes from God

Science will help our faith to purify itself. And faith at the same time will be able to broaden the horizons of man, who cannot just enclose himself in the horizons of science.

Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo as reported in the Singapore Straits Times, Vatican delegation in Cern, June 6 2009.

`

I was totally taken by surprise. He is reported to have said several other things in a similar vein (you will have to read Vatican delegation in Cern if you want to know what) that also blew me away. Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo is the executive head of government for the Vatican and as such answers only to his monarch, the Pope. So what about scientists like Galileo? It took the Catholic Church 400 years to say they had made a mistake about Galileo saying that the sun wasn’t perfect (it has spots) and that Aristotle (and the bible) was incorrect in the understanding that the earth was stationary. Frankly I can’t imagine the present Pope admitting to the error; it was Pope John Paul II that officially regretted the way the Church had handled the Galileo affair and admitted that the earth did move.

~

It could be, of course, that I am taking things out of context. It could be that the good cardinal and the Catholic Church have seen the light and repented of the church’s past errors in matters of science. It could be – but I doubt it. Did you know that the Pope is the Monarch of the Vatican?

What is a Christian fundamentalist? (And why I prefer another path)

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

Recently an Asphalt Jesus group wrote with a series of questions, one of which was: “What is your definition of fundamentalism?”  I’ll try to address the other questions in future posts, but here’s my take on what fundamentalism is.  Feel free to add a comment with your own definition!

My definition really isn’t mine at all, but was articulated in the early 1900s, partly as a result of something called the Niagara Bible Conference which sought to define the beliefs thought to be non-negotiable or “fundamental” to Christian faith (which led to the term “fundamentalism”).  These beliefs were distilled into a “top five” of sorts. Ironically these five principles were first formally articulated within the Presbyterian Church soon which split into two very different denominations as a result of conflict over how “fundamental” these principles actually are:

(1)    The inerrancy of Scripture.
(2)    The virgin birth of Christ.
(3)    The belief in the atonement of sins through Christ’s death.
(4)    The bodily resurrection of Christ.
(5)    The historical reality of all of Christ’s miracles.

Of course, quite a number of people of more moderate faith would affirm some of the above beliefs.  In actuality, just two of the beliefs above serve as significant separators between fundamentalism and other forms of Christian belief: (1) belief in the literal inerrancy of Scripture and (2) belief that Christ saves (only) believers from eternal damnation through atonement on the cross.

I want to make it perfectly clear here, though, that to distinguish between Christian fundamentalism and other forms of Christian faith such as Christian liberal or progressivism is not to distinguish in any way between who is a “good” Christian (or human being) and who is not.
You may recall that Jesus himself said that he came not to serve the “healthy” but the “sick” (Luke 7).  By definition, therefore, ALL who claim to follow Jesus should identify themselves with “the sick” regardless of how liberal or conservative their beliefs.  We all stand in “fundamental” need of God and have “fundamental” problems turning our will (and with it, our lives) over to God’s power and guidance.

Personally, while I find myself frequently at odds with fundamentalist Christian belief (and really, fundamentalist belief of any sort), I would trade the community of a hundred liberal/progressives who saw themselves as completely healthy and in little need for God in their lives for the community of ten fundamentalists who had truly understood themselves to rely on the grace, love and guidance of God.

The reason why, though, I find a more liberal/progressive faith system (and community) to a more fundamentalist/conservative one is because, having tried both systems, I have found that a more liberal/progressive faith helps ME accept and acknowledge the realization that I am sick and am in need of God in my life.  What does this look like concretely in my life?  It looks like this:

Regarding the salvation thing.

Because I have become convinced, through scripture, through Christians who have come before me, and through life experience, that I and all people are loved unconditionally, beyond our wildest imagination, I feel far freer than I did in my distant and brief “fundamentalist” phase to admit that I don’t have all of life’s answers wrapped up in a nice, neat package.  I feel no need to prove to God or others that I have perfect faith, or that my faith has “made me whole” (and therefore no longer in need of God?).

Being assured of God’s unconditional love has given me the freedom to take a more critical look at my life and realize just how strongly I must rely on a higher power to move beyond my shortcomings and truly live on a higher level.  It has also given me a sense of deep acceptance of others, shortcomings and all,  in ways that I did not have before.  If someone is driving me crazy, I firmly believe that when all is said and done (in this life or beyond), we will be united with each other in God’s grace and love.  This gives me a sense of patience with people that I personally would not have if I believed that God was just waiting to punish the person (forever!) for failure to agree with me (after all, my views and God’s are the same, right? Not!).

Regarding the scripture thing.

My belief that the scriptures are NOT inerrant radically increases my joy in studying the scriptures, and with it, my ability to learn from our ancient sisters and brothers of faith.  Since I do not feel compelled to blindly accept that which runs contrary to love of God, neighbor, and self in scripture, I can enter into a deeper, more honest relationship with the texts before me.  (Incidentally, sometimes that “love of self” principle includes love of the part of myself that has an intellect and therefore does not confuse story and parable with scientific fact.  And that “love of neighbor” part convinces me that an adulterer is not to be stoned to death as the scriptures advocate).  I have become convinced that taking the scriptures “seriously but not literally” enables me to better “hear” what the ancients were trying to tell us in the first place about their authentic experiences of God.  Those who wrote scripture weren’t literalists!  And they certainly did not think that what they were writing was inerrant (The only that claims to be the pure words of God is Revelation – the most historically controversial book of the whole Bible!).  When I stop looking for scientific fact and start listening for what the scriptures are trying (imperfectly) to tell us about love of and by God, and love of neighbor and self, the scriptures frequently point me to where I can find these loves potentially at work in my life that I haven’t noticed before.

I could go on and on, but will finish with this final point about what my liberal/progressive faith does for me: It fills me with bewilderment over why more liberal/progressive Christians frequently find it so hard to love their enemies, acknowledge their own shortcomings, devote themselves to seeking God’s guidance on a daily basis, and study the scriptures on a deeper level.  Life gets so darn good when we do these things consistently, and our theology is such an incredibly powerful support in doing so!

But just when I get worked up about how others fail in this regard, I start looking at myself again and realize how far ALL of us have yet to go down this path.  And, it’s also about the time I find yet another example of how perfectly God works through imperfect people like us.  I guess that’s why God loves grace so much.  God isn’t dependent upon our perfection to expand or deepen God’s Realm on earth or to take us into (wonderful) places we wouldn’t necessarily go ourselves!

Redaction in action

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

@ Duck and Decanter

In Lecture Five of his course, The New Testament, (from the Teaching Company) under essential reading Bart Ehrman lists a book, An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown (his obituary is here). After having watched (on DVD) this lecture a number of times and having read the transcript several more times, I decided that perhaps I could increase my knowledge of the subject (the gospel of Mark) by reading Professor Ehrman’s Essential reading. Ehrman only listed chapter 7 of An Introduction to the New Testament but after paying 45 bucks ($44.95 to be exact) I was determined to get my monies worth, and so I began at the beginning with the Foreword and Acknowledgements and have been slogging along for three or four weeks now. I just finished chapter 7 (on the gospel of Mark) and that means I can move on with Lecture Six of The New Testament. I know that An Introduction to the New Testament will be listed as Essential reading again (I cheated and checked).

~

I only mention this because both Brown and Ehrman use the word “redact” a lot in various forms (as in redacted, redaction) in their discussions of the New Testament. According to the dictionary:

`

Pronunciation: \ri-dakt\

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin redactus, past participle of redigere

Date: 15th century

1: to put in writing : frame

2: to select or adapt (as by obscuring or removing sensitive information) for publication or release ; broadly : edit

3: to obscure or remove (text) from a document prior to publication or release

“redact.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.Merriam-Webster Online. 3 June 2009 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redact.) redact

`

Obviously then “redact” is a word uncommonly suited to discussions of written material in general and of the New Testament in particular. It is not necessarily a word that carries a negative connotation. Still, as a recovering fundamentalist, I sometimes have vague feelings of disquiet when it is used in conjunction with the bible (especially meanings 2 & 3 from the definition). At the very least I want to know what the original author (whoever that may have been) said and thought about his subject. I get even stronger feelings when I see same process being applied to history – not necessarily in the written form – today.

~

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is at it again by saying “Holocaust a ‘big deception’”. You may remember his 2005 referring to the Holocaust as a big myth. This guy is just as scary as Hitler, maybe even more because of his desire to obtain nuclear capability. His views are driven by his theology (Islamic fundamentalism) and by the fact that he wants to be elected again.

~

For a more unstated example we have the Peoples Republic of China. They aren’t really saying much but they have instituted internet restrictions and security measures in anticipation of the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. The crackdown started on June 4th and then on June 5th there was the spectacle of one man in a white shirt standing nose to nose with a tank (actually 5 tanks, one behind another in line). For a record (and four photos) of that event, go here. According to a story in the Straits Times, another student leader of those days has turned himself in to Chinese authorities.

`

My turning myself in should not be interpreted as my admission that my behavior [sic] 20 years ago in [sic, should be is] illegal and wrong. I want to reassert here the Chinese government bears complete and undeniable moral, political and legal responsibility for the tragedy that happened in China in 1989.

I hope, 20 years later, the Chinese government can set a new position on the historical problem of the ‘June 4 massacre’, admit its guilt and apologise [sic] to the Chinese people.

Mr Wu’er Kaixi as reported in Student leader turns self in, the Straits Times, June 3 2009

`

The Chinese government is not quite as blatant as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; they just blame the massacre on those who died. And they are making sure that in China there is no easy way of refuting their redaction of history.

~

As an example of an even more subtle redaction process we have Dick Cheney. Dick may not always edit history (although I suspect he has done so) but he certainly frames (meaning number one from the definition above) his part in a rather distorted way. He essentially says that the Bush administration did things that were effective and therefore not wrong. Such as waterboarding, for example. The same tone as taken by the Chinese government on Tiananmen Square. I am not quite sure but I think that he may have fibbed a little in misleading congress. You read Cheney Led Briefings of Lawmakers To Defend Interrogation Techniques in the Washington Post and make up your own minds. When I was in high school (and again in 1984) I read Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. It has always seemed to me that one of the messages of the novel was that if you use the same methods as those you oppose then you have become like them (and therefore they have triumphed). Congratulations Dick on joining the likes of Lenin and Hitler. Maybe that was too harsh. Maybe he is only similar to the nameless faces behind the Peoples Republic of China.

~

The last example I have of redaction is a bit gentler. Apparently Mormons who are excommunicated can rejoin the church after death. This was reported by the Salt Lake Tribune in Evil-doers take back door into heaven. You may remember that in years past non-Mormons have been upset over ancestors being prayed into Mormon heaven. According to a spokesperson for the Mormon Church:

`

Our policy for submitting names for temple work is well documented; we have been over this ground before, and we’re not going to keep revisiting it.

Scott Trotter, LDS Church spokesman, as reported in Evil-doers take back door into heaven, the Salt Lake Tribune, June 3 2009

`

~

I wonder if Scott knows Dick.

Countryside Currents | June

Monday, June 1st, 2009

June 2009 PDF Newsletter