Question: Do or should people get what they deserve?

"Our Father who art in heaven

Hallowed be your name

Your Kingdom come, your will be done

On earth as it is in heaven

Give us this day our daily bread 

And forgive us our debts

As we forgive our debtors

Deliver us not into the time of trial

But deliver us from the evil one."  (Jesus in Matthew 6)

The beauty of this verse is that in the original Greek text, the word translated for the word debt is aphiemi, which precisely means a monetary debt. (Politics, page 62)  The reason that I included the Lord's Prayer is to give a practical demonstration that people are sometimes in debt because of their own choices and because humans are enslaved to the social system which needs to oppress in order to create wealth and Jesus is attempting to draw forgiveness together to create a mutual bond of relationship.

I had a great conversation with someone this week concerning the question of whether people get what they deserve.  Since also writing the beginning section of this post, I heard an Easter Sunday Sermon on the absolute-ness of God's law which is interpreted to mea; when we do evil we will, "Get evil", but if we do good we should, "Get good."  This always begs the question what do people deserve?  If we look at the word deserve from the perspective of the universality of God, then we believe that people deserve God and they deserve God's love, God's trust, God's provision, and God's mercy.  We as humans are created in the image of God, should reflect these traits and characteristics of God's image. 

The Reformation and a strict hyper-Calvinistic viewpoint, has transformed total depravity into we deserve total depravity. Holding the tension between the theological doctrine of "Total Depravity" which attempts to explain human sinfulness, gets enmeshed with the fascination in America of individual choice and combines the two, making it seem as though we choose total depravity, instead of understanding it as something which we in some ways have ignorantly participated in, and God wants us to know we deserve life, peace, and wholeness.

The process to obtain life, peace, and wholeness, i.e. the kingdom of God, will always come at a heavy price, which is how we should see the cross of Christ. When Christians as the body of Christ, not as individuals, but as a community of faith are calling people, structures, systems, and evil what it is, then we should expect some resistance, which is why non-violence must be at the core of the mission, because once we are persecuted, it becomes very easy to pick up violence to defend our cause.  Non-violent resistance also allows humans to directly stand against oppressive systems, without directly destroying the system itself or the people within the system.  People need systems to live and it is not the boundaries of the system which are the problem, but how the implementation of the boundaries against certain groups which should be seen as the problem. This can be seen as one of the most tantamount historical issues within America and American Christianity, especially in reference to African slavery (a shutting a people group out of the God given benefits of the earth).  

This issue is at its core an issue of the domination system of power, in which people incorporate all the various forms of power within their system and do not allow others to possess any forms of power.  Once I have attained all the various forms of power, I am not static, but fluid and moving, therefore, I will implement these power forms in order to retain my power through suppression of another. Christians need to recognize these forms of power and how they develop.  For a Christian, morality is a form of power which has too many times been wielded like a sword over another, who is deemed immoral. That is never what the gospel is intended to do.

The person from the first conversation stated that when a human violates "laws", i.e. the American Criminal Laws or as he generalized them; "God's laws", that person reaps what they sow and get what they deserve.  Although I believe that reaping and sowing is what humans work toward; such as sowing goodness into our families, communities, nations, and hearts, I believe that from a Christian perspective I would vehemently say, "The gospel is good news and is specifically designed 'against' people getting what they deserve."  First, I would say that the word, "deserve" specifically needs a little unpacking.  At the core of a statement such as, "Everyone gets what they deserve", is strong group identification.  To make the previous statement implicitly means that I am identifying not as an individual, but within a group, because there is no other way for me to know whether I am one of the people who is deserving of what I get, unless my group claims to be on the side of rightness.  We also desperately need to see ourselves as always implementing our theology, so if we claim we all get what we deserve, and believe in the total sinfulness of humans as being what we deserve, then next step is to secure the label of "deserving depravity" and begin to implement it, i.e. the Prison Industrial Complex.

The theological implications of this type of system of Christianity as mentioned above is wrought full of karma and as I call it, Jeffersonian ethics, i.e. God helps those who help themselves, which really means that we are all simply Deists and God exists in a world which has nothing to do with our world, I can do it myself.  Karma seems to be something which helps people to put a framework around our daily lives.  If I  work hard, do good, and treat people well I will reap the benefits.  Although I do not think that we should not participate in the above mentioned activities, but these activities need to be situated around the, "life, peace, and wholeness" or the kingdom of God.  Common Sense will tell people that they should treat people well to get benefits or work hard to get benefits, but the problem is that within the structure of the kingdom the "benefits, benefit" all the wrong people.  The lazy, the poor, the tax collectors, and those wretched totally depraved people, who are depraved simply by being oppressed within the current system which has told them that they have gotten what they deserve, because it actually benefits those who hold power to tell make people feel inferior.

As I am currently reading John Howard Yoder's, The Politics of Jesus, he speaks at length about the bringing forth of this kingdom of God, which should be seen contained within the practices of the 1st Century.  Yoder talks at length that Jesus brought forth the Jubilee Year, whereby the debts were canceled and the slaves set free.  "Jesus was establishing a strict equation between the practice of jubilee and the grace of God." (Politics, page 62) This kingdom language needs to be something which becomes real to us, in that it means the rule or reign of God is brought near and God's reign always effects our economic practices. Yoder calls to remembrance that a problematic issue contained within the book of Jeremiah was that Israel participated in the oppression of the slaves and the poor.  The Israelite community had not released the people from their debts, even after the sabbatical year and when Jeremiah speaks against these unjust practices, King Josiah institutes God's law and releases people from their debts. After the slaves were released, the Israelite community reneged on the sabbatical year and re-enslaved them.  Why would Israel commit these actions?I personally believe that nothing causes people to fear more than economics, because people begin to fear for their survival, even if the justification for survival is completely absurd.  

We have seen within the context of Jeremiah and Isaiah how the practices of cult religion (Baal worship) directly affected the poor.  We also have a direct trace between the social/economic practices of the 1st Century and people's decisions.  It is difficult speaking with people who think that decisions are not created at all, but we pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Israel was commanded by God to teach the Shema (the community prayer), "Hear Oh Israel, the Lord is one..." to their children and children's children. Jeremiah 2 speaks directly about the people, "following after worthless idols and becoming worthless themselves", i.e. the people become ineffective in displaying God's love to each other and other nations.  God obviously places importance upon the communal aspects of life.  Even after everything Israel had done, God continually will NOT give them what God determined that they deserve. Jeremiah 31 is a beautiful illustration of God's provision for those who have, "gotten what they deserve."  God says he will, 'build them up, he will have compassion, he will not forget their pain, and he will bind the broken-hearted.' 

Along the same lines as, "Do people get what they deserve?" we also need to look at one of the major theological inquiries over the past four thousand years, "Is God angry or not concerning these practices?"  "Is God an angry God?" If we understand that the full manifestation of God is found within the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and we believe that God wants to bring forth life, peace, and wholeness, then we could say that God deeply cares for his world and how our practices directly and indirectly affect other people.  Jesus demonstrates that we all have an interdependence with one another and that our practices, whether "good or evil", will affect people.  This would be the point of karma that I agree with, yet we must never let karma be the final word.  I tend to see God as manifest in love, therefore, I would say that although God can be manifest in anger, God is usually angry at the certain evil practices that we as humans participate in, which in turn moulds us into the very image of evil itself.  So, God is not against humans, but against the evil which enslaves human beings.  I think we need to use language such as enslaving, because we can not participate with practices which enslave.  Evil is part of the human condition, but God is against this evil which enslaves people, rather than the people themselves.  

We also have a tendency to speak in absolutes, but this also is not an absolute, because once a human takes and manipulates evil to gain authority and power, then wields it over another through violence, I would not say that God has no concern about this individual's practices.  Jesus specifically on one occasion called converts of the Pharisees, "...twice the son of hell that you are." (Matthew 23.15)  The Pharisee has now taught the disciple to also oppress, causing repentance to be needed on both ends of the spectrum, which is a travesty of justice.

This was a blinding statement directed against the Pharisees practices, who manipulated and used their position as religious authorities to control their converts.  Being a disciple of a Pharisee or Rabbi in the 1st Century is something which a young man coveted and the Pharisees understood this knowledge very well.  The Pharisees would place heavy burdens upon the young converts, which was not reflected in their own practices.  Of course we do not see these practices reflected today within our own churches or traditions.  Jesus understood the social implications of placing expectations upon another person, which were almost impossible to fulfill.  When a person is subjected to an oppressive system, the person under oppression will usually not become "like" the oppressor, but will become even worse than the original oppressive regime.  "Victims need to repent of the fact that all too often they mimic the behavior of the oppressors, let themselves be shaped into the mirror image of the enemy...without repentance for these sins, the full human dignity of victims will not be restored and needed social change will not take place." (Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, page 117) We as human beings have a tendency to either over-react or under-react to systems of oppression.  I though would struggle with allowing a person who was attempting to justify the oppressive system say that the victims are as guilty as the oppressors, but within the cycle of oppression, Volf knows that they too will one day be more guilty than the ones they oppress.   

This conversation started with an attempt to understand if a person gets what they deserve.  I also believe that somehow through the process of simplification in order to understand our world, we have associated deserving with choice ,but if we as Christians affirm a deep rooted theology of evil, which affects people, structures, the world itself, then why do we attempt to shift blame away from the evil onto the human?  Scripture attempts to portray evil as something which ensnares by trickery and deceit.  People throughout the generations have been confronted with the problem of evil and although over the past millenium, evil has taken on a global form as technology has developed, placing all the responsibility upon the shoulders of any one person is a dangerous venture.  This will inevitably create a victim rage spiral whereby even the perpetuator of injustice could view themselves as victims, recreating the horrific climate of evil all over again.  Focusing upon the evil through the structures that it perpetuates will allow for freedom to emerge, not destroying the people and hopefully liberating them into the beauty of reconciliation. 

A Conflictual Resolution for Peace

In Christian circles over the past say hundred years, especially in the 20th Century with the vast amount of bloody wars fought, there has been a great amount of talk over the 'end of the age' or the 'final consummation of the kingdom of god', where God "sets the world to rights" as the Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright has stated on numerous occasions.  This fascination with 'end of the age' in my opinion and the opinion of those who have written extensively about this powerful theological quandary hold that all conflicts will be set to rest and since we live in a world of constant violent conflicts, it can be easy to see why one would want an 'end' to those conflicts. Although no one can really know what this 'end' will look like or what shape or framework the full consummation of the kingdom of god will take, I am going out on a limb here to say that conflict; is not the problem, nor do I believe conflict will or should, 'end'.  

There are others that have thought about this the premise of the full consummation of the kingdom of god, but I can not remember reading or studying anything concerning conflict.  We must then unpack first the premise of what conflict is?

Conflict is defined as a "perceived divergence of interests".  If I have one interest or human need and I perceive another to have an interest or human need which overlaps my interests or needs, then most conflict would develop out of the idea that my interest (needs) and another's interests (needs) can not be mutually accessible.  Once again, though the key word is "perceived", which is developed out of a faulty sense that the world does not possess enough to satisfy both needs equally. Our perceptions would be that I can not access my interests along with the other's interests, but that our interests stand in stark opposition to one another, instead of us developing a method of collaboration.  This method of collaboration would develop by understanding a mutual interdependence that I have with the other person.  If I understand that my interests can only be fulfilled in relationship to another then it could turn the conflict toward a mutually satisfying solution.  Peace is present, but peace is not the absence of conflict, since growth is impossible without these conflicts as present above.

In this final dawning of a new age, we have always known that peace will reign, since God is a God of peace.  The kingdom of God is God's rule or God's reign, "on earth as it is in heaven" as we have prayed so many times in Matthew 6.  We know that God will "wipe away every tear", but if conflict is not negative, but the violence which is associated with the non resolution of conflict which causes these "tears", then why blame the conflict?  Part of the understanding of conflict resolution is also moving to a place of not blaming, but participating in mutual responsibility, where we realize that I must own my conflicts with another, because we as human beings possess connectedness.  Isn't our non-connectedness, what causes the selfishness associated with only pursuing my interests (needs) as discussed above?  If I am a Christian then I believe in the connectedness of human beings and would not pursue my interests outside of meeting my neighbors interests (needs).  If we as a church were pursuing this goal of conflict and meeting the interests (needs) of our neighbors, then we would say that the kingdom is near.

The final consummation might then look like the fullness of each and every one of us pursuing the interests (needs) of our neighbors.  We could bless and not curse; love and not hate; and when our interests "diverge", pursue a mutually beneficial solution.  Conflict is how the earth cleanses itself, from a nature perspective, through storms,  and although one may think that this is a dangerous statement due to various ethnic cleansing's and racial cleansing's which have been experienced by certain nations and certain groups, but once again it was not the conflict itself but the domination system and the non resolution of the conflict.  It was the domination and forceful overwhelming of my interests by another. It was the complete refusal to acknowledge mutual interdependence with one another, which allows a conflict to become intractable.  Racism contained within the history of the United States is an intractable conflict, because of how long it has dominated the landscape without acknowledging it significance upon the formation of life.  The kingdom of God is formative for life, so will the conflict associated with racism be done away or is it now, "Open for discussion?"  Is this an interesting premise?

One could also say that if God re-creates the earth, then conflict would not be needed, since we would all "think the same", that is like Christ.  What I think could be driving this premise is the fact that we do not love ourselves for who we are and our humanity.  I know that sounds harsh, but if we broke it down, do we simply want to be done away with our bodies?  Galatians 3:28, although used as a text to promote this type of thinking (of doing away with difference), actually affirms that the goodness of who we were created to is one in Christ, but not done away with in Christ.  What is wrong with me being an Italian/Portuguese man?  Once again, I love my humanity for the sake that God created my humanity. 

Do we want to exist in an ethereal world, where we do not feel anything any longer, do not exist any longer as the people to whom God created us to be, and we no longer have to think about and accept each others' differences.  We think that these exact differences are what cause the conflicts and we want to be done away with them.  I do believe that our processing through the schemas in our brains though will change.  Miroslav Volf, Professor of Systematic Theology at Yale has written a book entitled, "The End of Memory", which explores how our the memory of violence done against us must end for true reconciliation to happen, but I believe our memories will not end, but change.  The change will be contained in how we process our differences. Our brains process as associated memories and part of the wiping away of our tears, implies a change in our memory.  Our memories currently dictate how we relate to others and how we perceive ourselves, but in the 'new age', no longer will the memory from our pain dictate how we function, but our conflict's will be handled through mutual embrace of one another. Your difference is unique, beautiful, and completely acceptable and does not threaten my difference.  We can work together in a mutual interdependence doing what, I have no idea. 

Once again, is it the conflict or the violence and our misperception of conflict itself?  

Remember that Jesus conflicted with the disciples even up to the last possible moment on earth.  

Is Forgiveness free or should I put it on my Credit Card?

How does the process of exclusion take place?  

Will forgiveness be charged to me at a later time?

One moment our people group is growing and we are in the process of assimilating with one another, and in the next breath, we are pushing others out of our group, because we have gained a morsel of power and we can now wield this power over another.  This process is quick, but invisible.  These agreements we are forming with each other in our group are predominantly tacit and are therefore extremely difficult to break.  Tacit agreements as I have mentioned in previous posts are those agreements which humans form with one another which are "unspoken, social norms which are extremely powerful predictors of influence in our society."  The reason these agreements are so powerful are specifically because they are unspoken and if one does not articulate them, they will be invisible and remain somewhat abstract.

The new member within any group or organization does not yet possess the same influence, the same prestige, nor the same positional standing as we do, so it is easy to wield power over this person, based simply upon their lack of knowledge and their violation of our tacit norms. The question which should loom in the background is, "If we let everyone in, then we would not possess the same power, since power is established through the process of exclusion (in one form or another) and if we participate in inclusion, then the process of exclusion will die and the established system of power will no longer hold influence over us.  The control exerted through exclusion will not only make one feel more influential, but will implicitly train the person who was excluded, how to exclude.  The abused person will simply exclude once they have gained any form of power and since all humans possess some form of power, this process will begin very easily.  

I use the term, "Abused person", because exclusion is a form of violence exerted over another.  If we truly believe that God is a giver of free gifts, then using power, influence, and exclusion to hold onto these free gifts is a an act of evil against humanity.  The goal of forgiveness is reconciliation and explicit within reconciliation is the joining together of humans to one another.  I would challenge anyone to read the story of Pentecost in Acts 2 and read try to read our "rugged individualism" into the text.  It would be very difficult.  Acts 2 has at its core this offer of forgiveness and the receiving of forgiveness offered by Jesus.  Contained within the crucifixion was the condemnation of evil, but it was condemned by the breathing the words, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing!"  Jesus forgives, but does not ignore the acts of evil exhibited against another.  Too many times, forgiveness does not translate into social action.  In Luke 3:10-11 it states, "And then the crowds asked him, "What then shall we do?" In reply he said to them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise."  Therefore, forgiveness of sin always relates to how we treat each other and how forgiveness informs reconciliation, since sharing is an act of reconciliation, but not necessarily forgiveness.  We can participate in one without the other, but our goal should be the inclusion of both.  Exclusion is an act of violence, cutting another off from participation and eventually from God's self.  God Forbid!

As Miroslav Volf has written extensively in Exclusion and Embrace and Free of Charge; to be reconciled with one another and with God, we must understand that we possess, but allow our possessions to flow through us to another.  Once again, Acts 2 demonstrates this willingness to bestow a blessing upon another person; freely.

In closing, we may offer forgiveness unconsciously to another person through our acts of kindness.  Love is not static, but will propel us forward desiring to bear the wrongs of others, the injustice of society, and the layers of evil in which humans participate.  We as Christians then bear this evil into the body of Jesus himself and out comes the good which was originally intended. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Hate destroys not only the person who it is projected upon, but it destroys the white who is filled with hate."  (My paraphrase) 

Forgiveness releases the person who already is inundated with guilt and shame to take ownership of the sin which has ensnared them.  Humans though for the most part, will not take ownership when they feel as though the sin of the world is on their shoulders.  The "Sin of the world" has already been forgiven, so offer forgiveness; free of charge. Our language should also be careful not to blame, so we may not even want to use the statement of forgiveness.  We demonstrate forgiveness by our treatment of people.  If though our treatment is not reflexive of our forgiveness, people will not want to have any conversation. By offering forgiveness, we are offering the hope of reconciliation.  Once someone is aware that blame is not laid upon their shoulders, but blame is contained with people, structures, others, and our natural inclination toward evil, this should free someone from the issue of guilt.

The problem sometimes is that we want to flee from the pain associated with the memories of injustice. We can not seem to bear it, nor should we have to bear the injustice.  God walks with the oppressed, condemning the injustice and deeply desiring to liberate from the pain and abuse in which victims feel. Once again we must return to the cross, where Jesus bore the violence of humanity and offered a beautiful gift of forgiveness; once received though, the person could no longer participate in structures which demonized and crucified.  It would be impossible to think that forgiveness could also be static, or simply internal without deeply affecting the way that we relate to one another.  

Whose Side? Whose Ideology?

It has been a while since I last posted, but I wanted my previous post to simmer a little.  Too many continuous words and words lose the ability to challenge our predisposed inclinations towards apathy.  

This post will attempt to deal a little with the upcoming election from my perspective and I am imposing a critique of the process, not necessarily any one's choice in candidates, since I also have chosen to vote for a candidate.

With that said, I find that the taking of sides; either Republican or Democrat; Liberal or Conservative forms as a result of complex issues being generalized and as we attempt to sift through the muck and mire of; the debates, the policies, history, sociology, the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats switching to the Republican Party because of racism, tax laws, foreign policy, etc., etc...(I threw the Southern Democrat point in there specifically)

The generalizing of information which is almost impossible to process is a phenomenon of great proportion.  Although I am not a psychologist, maybe some of my psychology friends could post more concerning why and how this takes place, but it is none the less, very important.  Most of our communication happens non-verbally, upwards of 75%, which could also be referred to as tacit communication.  Tacit communication are social norms of behavior which are unspoken, but accepted in society.  Take for instance if someone walks into a coffee shop and speaks using decibel levels which would be appropriate for a football game.  Although no one has stated in writing, or given informal rules about this behavior, it is simply acceptable, and a violation of these norms will result in tension.  (It is kind of like going to Fuller and getting a Masters in Theology, then attempting to get a job at a Conservative Evangelical Church) ;) It could simply be the language used which triggers an associated memory in another person, in which they will then make an inference (a judgment) that this person is violating a tacit agreement.  Again the result is fear or labeling, which can also sometimes result in direct violence.

This is one of the reasons that people develop opposing camps (Republican and Democrat), because it helps to structure information to better understand what one thinks.  Also, the dehumanization of one group against the other further solidifies their entrenched positions, until one group can NEVER listen to the other group, because these tacit agreements become very strong. I sometimes listen to a conservative political talk show in Southern California, entitled, The Frank Pastore Show.  Mr. Pastore claims to be a very Conservative Republican and vehemently opposes Barack Obama.  When Mr. Pastore hears the language used by someone in which he then sub-consciously associates with a "Liberal", he will say in these exact words, "That is just the leftist propaganda that the liberals want to bring into this country."  He actually hung up on a caller, because the caller started talking about property rights in relation to taxes, but property rights have been a core foundation of the wealthy and elite in this nation,  and since Mr. Pastore believes wholeheartedly that the wealthy deserve everything they have, he cut the caller off.

It is amusing though that party ideologies have changed over the years.  The Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and the Southern Democrats were the ones who maintained the power base of slavery in the South.  After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 though, many Southern Democrats (Jesse Helms, Ronald Reagan), became Republicans.  So, the ideologies of these parties has transferred power depending on the current causes.  Remember, Mario Cuomo, the very liberal governor of New York is responsible for building more prisons than any state in the history of the United States of America.  He continued the Prison Industrial Complex started by his Republican predecessor, Nelson Rockefeller.  Rockefeller as Governor of New York was the first to criminalize the drug laws in the U.S.  We as a nation started to move in the direction of rehabilitation until Nixon and Rockefeller started the "War on Drugs".  The War on Drugs is almost as stupid as a War on Terror.  I apologize, but as someone who locked up more drugs dealers than days I have been alive, I cringe thinking about it. 

Cuomo did not move New York in a new direction, but by building more prisons; created more jobs.  Well, that is the goal anyway, right?  Although I myself identify closer with the liberals, I would say that the building of more prisons and Clinton starting the COPS program where he added 100,000 new police officers to the streets is the epitome of the hypocrisy of white liberalism. 

Don't get me wrong, I completely believe that voting for Barack is way better than George W. Bush II, but I might be voting for Cynthia McKinney.  If you have not heard her before, click on her name and listen to her grill Donald Rumsfeld.  I was tickled to hear her asking questions which no one who wants to get elected could ask.  If we simply choose sides, without looking further at the critique, either side will end up implementing policies which can negatively affect certain populations.  Yes, even liberals can add to the gross disparity of incarceration rates in the U.S.--hopefully this point was demonstrated above.  Remember also that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jewish Marxists, since they stood against his fascist policies and he saw them as corrupting The Fatherland, Germany.  If you listen to Hitler speeches, he sounds like the Republicans. (Sorry, if that is the party you support, but Palin is quoting Hitler rhetoric).  She doesn't know that she is though.  Maybe someone could sit down with her and point it out.  

Peace!

Discovering the power of Power!

I thought this picture appropriate for the subject matter of fear and power, even though I begin from the perspective of fatherhood.

Because fatherhood is new to me, I am in the process of discovery.  I discover how much my heart beats for the smile of my son, I discover that with every discovery of his, I uncover characteristics of humans which I never knew, I discover how little patience I actually possess (well, I already knew that), and most of all I discover that God is not like a human father, simply because I am too one dimensional.  I have discovered that God is more like a mother, father, sister, brother, neighbor, friend, companion, stranger, and spouse.  I discovered this, because I continually want my son to experience life, learning that life is not to be feared, but embraced, but I alone am unable to provide ALL the situations and knowledge which he will need to develop as a human being.  (Not a human doing, not a human acting, a human 'being') This was a quote I heard, but I can not find who said it, but I want to give this person credit.

I also discover that no matter how much I talk about communal responsibility or the church, we live in the U.S. and Christians for the most part compartmentalize life, which of course includes myself.  I can not speak for all people, but I can speak for myself by saying that I see in one dimensional realms and living an integrative life is difficult sometimes.

I can foresee some circumstances which may cause harm or inflict pain in the life of my son and I would of course do everything to prevent these circumstances, but since I am a protectionist, like many from my generation, is this the best course of action?  Protectionism is possibly a result of being raised in too much chaos and simply wanting inner peace (protection from chaos) from the dangers in this world or possibly just the opposite, maybe it was raised with too much order and it felt life as sterilized, so it created a little chaos on its own to react against the order (Protection from order). I know that I have said many times, "I don't want my son to do what I have done", and it is interesting that as I learn more about my parent's stories, I usually find that what was hidden, covered over, not revealed by them, I usually struggle with repeating, but what has been laid bare, open, and spoken about has not been that difficult in my life.  I am not making an overarching statement about storytelling, but there is something to be said about passing on our stories to our children.  Scripture is fairly clear about telling the next generation the narrative, not only of Scripture, but the narrative of life.  Think about Pentecost in Acts 2; for the first time, Jews in Israel were speaking the language of those they considered "the others".  

I find that one of the key elements in preventing humans from understanding and producing a language which communicates with others has a lot to do with the created social structures which prevented me from connecting with other people, predominantly the poor or others to whom negative labels had been given.  In church on Sunday, we read a verse from Mark 11:18, "The Chief Priests and teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him (Jesus), for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching."  I thought, Christians over the centuries have not talked that much about fear.  We as humans "kill" those to whom we are afraid, so it would seem somewhat of an important issue. This has been true throughout recorded history.  From a psychological perspective, if there is no interaction with those we consider "the other", certain negative images will naturally be produced in our brains, since our brains needs schema's to frame ambiguous information.  A schema structures information in our brains so that we can make sense of our surroundings, especially with situations which are unclear. These images contained in a schema, create a memory which is drawn to the surface when faced with situations or circumstances which we can not control, which can be called, "Fear".  We fear that which we can not control, which is part of the process of discovery I have learned, since I can not control everything that will happen to my son.  If I try to control it, I will of course drive a wedge between myself and my son, which is part of the tension of the chaos and order of God's creation. These memories then cause us to frame our inferences or judgments based upon our memories.  What happens if our past memories are either negative or even "neutral" (I put neutral in quotes, because neutrality is a myth)?  

Think about it from the perspective of the Chief Priests and Pharisees.  These leaders held various forms of power in that society.  They had formal authority simply from their position as Priests or religious leaders (a form of power); they had the knowledge of Scripture (another form of power); they had associated power, since some were in collusion with the Roman authorities (also another form of power); and here it comes they had access to the Temple, the bank of the 1st century (obviously, economics are another major form of power).  Also, remember that the zealots wanted the one form of power that they truly believed would free them from Roman occupation, military power. The Jewish people knew that the religious leaders, even without military power, still held a lot of power, so what happened when Jesus stood against these forms of power?  If Jesus simply came against one form of power, say military power, the people could move on and say, "Well, we thought he was going to lead a revolt, oh well."  But what happened when Jesus stood against ALL the forms of power in one way or another?  Every single human has some form of power, but using power over another is what Jesus is speaking about.  I know what has happened when I have been challenged against my numerous forms of power.  I have been driven to the point of hatred and anger seething beneath the surface. 

I believe that it is important to understand these power dynamics to re-discover how we relate to our children, our spouses, and our friends.  Peace!

The God of Indifference is an otherworldly God

As I am continually reading Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God and I am still astounded at the incredible depth's of love in which his theological premises reach.  To set up this following quote, Moltmann is critiquing the "god of theism otherwise known as the brother of atheism", by stating that Christian theology is not against theism, since the cosmos is directly involved in a theology of the cross, and as we know that theism directly relates to the way that atheism developed especially in Western culture,  Moltmann puts a frame around atheism and I personally completely agree with his conclusion, since it is something which I have experienced and have seen.  His conclusion is that, "there is something which the atheist fears over and above all torments. That is the indifference of God and his final retreat from the world."  The questions of many atheists to Christians is, "Where is your God? and why does your God seem so distant and angry?"  It is not an insult, it is theological inquisition.

Remember that the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.  N.T. Wright in What Saint Paul Really Said, has a way of framing what he calls inaugurated eschatology, by saying "that what the Jewish people thought God was going to do for Israel at the end of time, God did in Jesus of Nazareth in the middle of time."  This makes me think of Martha's statement to Jesus in John 11 that she knew Lazarus would rise in the resurrection at the end of time, but Jesus makes it clear that he, himself is the resurrection and since the kingdom of god is brought forth by Jesus himself, this would mean that Jesus inaugurated the kingdom by the resurrection, of which a foretaste would be raising Lazarus. Why on earth would atheists think that God has retreated from the world?  It may have something to do with the rampant evil exhibited within humanity and structures originally designed as good by our Creator, but have become thoroughly corrupted either by apathy, ignorance, laziness, or sheer intent. Therefore, indifference and apathy could only be associated with our god of success, the god who is cold, heartless, and does not suffer with the pain of humanity. Dorothee Soelle in her book entitled, Suffering has stated that cultural success will never choose to identify with the suffering of humans, and it is almost an impossibility to expect it to, since success by design has distanced itself from those it considers to be failures.

This god of success is not embodied in love, but is either dis-embodied as a theistic other worldly ruler or as a revolutionary who will simply replace the already evil structures with new structures of oppression.  Moltmann explains further,

"The peak of metaphysical rebellion against the God who cannot die is therefore freely-chosen death, which is called suicide.  It is the extreme possibility of protest atheism, because it is only this that makes man his own god, so that the gods become dispensable.  But even apart from this extreme position, which Dostoevsky worked through again and again in The Demons, a God who cannot suffer is poorer than any man.  For a God who is incapable of suffering is a being who cannot be involved.  Suffering and injustice do not affect him.  And because he is so completely insensitive, he cannot be affected or shaken by anything.  He cannot weep, for he has not tears.  But the one who cannot suffer cannot love either.  So he is also a loveless being. Aristotle's God cannot love; he can only be loved by all non divine beings by virtue of his perfection and beauty, and in this way draw them to him.  The 'unmoved Mover' is a 'loveless Beloved'.  If he is the ground of the love (eros) of all things for his (causa prima) and at the same time his own cause (causa sui), he is the beloved who is in love with himself; a Narcissus in a metaphysical degree: Deus incurvatus in se.  But a man can suffer because he can love, even as a Narcissus, and he always suffers only to the degree that he loves.  If he kills all love in himself, he no longer suffers.  He becomes apathic." (Apologies for the gender exclusive language)

It seems that one of the starkest problems today are our Christian traditions.  Our Christians traditions either remain committed to one form or the other.  The two choices seem to remain, traditional or non-traditional, which is in and of itself a tradition.  I have highlighted a segment of the text, because to me this speaks volumes to exactly how the churches in our present society are falling in love with the artistic expression of the beauty and perfection of God, while the rest of the world lives in squalor and dirt. I know that many people would protest saying, "No, we point people to the beauty and artistic qualities of God, because that will draw people to him." Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the German church readily embraced the artists and elites, but pushed the working classes and poor out of the church.  Why would this happen? I think that once again this theological tradition truly thinks that this draws people to God.  Is this once again, repackaged Theism, and how does the incarnation fit into this paradigm? If God wanted humans to be drawn to God's self simply through beauty, then why was Jesus, God incarnate, crucified on a cross, which is a symbol of shame and torture in the Roman world?

We sing songs that say, "The beauty of the cross", but is the cross truly beautiful, or have we made our worldview determine that it is beautiful, because it is too difficult to understand the implications if we say that it is truly shameful, grotesque, and destroys our sensibilities?  I am not against the churches who proclaim the beauty of God, since God is truly beautiful, but as Moltmann continually reiterates, "Jesus is not like God; God is like Jesus."  If we situate our understanding at the point of the incarnation, then I believe our worldview is transformed.  My good friend, Nick Warnes has done an excellent exegetical study on Judges 2, and in the literal translation of a verse in the text says, "God was found within the evil".  I was absolutely floored by that, because it is not that God condones the evil, but was found within it, in the middle of it.  This is why Jewish scholars such as Elie Wiesel can say that God suffered in the gas chambers with the victims of the Holocaust, and as Moltmann has added, "and they (the victims) will one day rise again." 

On another note, I wrote an e-mail to Ergun Caner, the President of Liberty Theological Seminary concerning an article he had written entitled, The Racism of Black Liberation Theology.  There are mainly two reasons why I wrote this e-mail; first, it was to point to the fact that his opinion of this form of theology is not simply The Truth, because he has said it, and second, to point out that he can not determine that an entire form of theology is racist, because he does not agree with it.  There are many people out there who would disagree with dispensationalism and although I am one of them, there are many points of dispensational theology which are positive, such as addressing some of the anti-semitism contained in many Reformed traditions.  Anyways, I could go on, but I will not for now, Peace and Love!

Kick it Root Down!

"I kick it root down, I put my root down, I kick it root down, I put my foot down!" Sometimes, I gotta' kick it old school with some classic Beastie's. I love that song, because if you YouTube it, click on link to watch it, you will see New York (specifically Brooklyn) back in the late 1970's, early 1980's which was directly responsible for the foundation of break dancing. In a documentary entitled, The Freshest Kids, it details how the South Bronx and Brooklyn contributed to this new form of dance (break dancing) based upon "Dancing at breaks in the music, performed by DJ's spinning records." The DJ's would spin records which caused the music to break, over and over again, contributing to a beat which enabled people to dance in a more rhythmic form. Only New Yorker's could do something like that! JK of course. Kind of. The greatest part about the DJ's spinning records was that they used old time rhythm and blues artists. Mo-Town, James Brown, Disco...etc. There always needs to be the integration of the old, coupled with the new--feeling the classics, but keepin' up with the cultural milieu.

I, of course related this to the way that each generation in the United States thinks that it has been the first to develop a new concept. We would deny that our culture does this, but how many conversations do we have between the World War II generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and now Generation Y? I know that there are some organizations and churches which have bonded the generations together, but for the most part, at least the people that I associate with have found that they are doing everything for themselves. Maybe this has to do with America's "rugged individualism", which is one of the core tenet's in the foundation of our country. Maybe it has to do too much with the modern quest to know the "true self." This is a funny identification, because the true self is whoever we actually are. We have heard the statement before, "Well, they were not really like that!" I am the first to say that blame is never completely on the shoulders of any one human being, even for their own choices, and the beginning of owning decisions starts with the premise that it is never one person's fault. But our true selves are sculpted by our history, our culture, other peoples judgments about us, societies labels of us, our associations, etc...the list could go on.

This leads to a radical restructuring of the centrality of discipleship. What does it truly mean to be "In Christ"? Is being In Christ integrally tied to being connected with my heritage and my roots? I started this blog by quoting from the song, "Root Down", because maybe something in us longs to truly know our roots, our heritage, our seeds. This is the reason that I truly identified with Black Liberation Theology, because its central message is the African-American experience, which believes in the incarnation of Jesus into the midst of our communities. This theological supposition does not need post-modernism to tell it that we should be living in community. It has been a part of the experience of Africans and African Americans for centuries. For the most part, my history has been color blind, but has our color blind-ness, really been a blindness to the depth's of the human story?

To truly know and be known is at the core of humanity and as Miroslav Volf has said in Exclusion and Embrace, post-modernity has a fascination with the self and deeply desires a "Liberated self", but in the process of liberation, have we lost our roots? I want to once again, "Kick it Root Down!" Peace!