Paul Pace

The Adjective of Christian?

2010-07-12T12:35:00.000-07:00

Christian politician, Christian education, Christian Marine, Christian Cop, Christian musician, Christian MMA, Christian ...?

In 21st century America, it seems that our individualized need for recognition have far outweighed the communal call of the church to, "...serve one another in love." (Galatians 5.13) The Apostle Paul is attempting to unite a church, divided over Christians wanting to utilize their individual systems of power to gain some type of influence over other people, usually those perceived as weaker than themselves. Paul therefore, alludes constantly to the central praxis of Christ's cross as being the symbol of our relationship to one another. In our current society, we also have utilized the "idea" of Christianity, making it into an adjective which has created people to think that Christianity is a stamp which justifies their need to gain a foothold in the world of power, privilege and status.

This end result of this problem is that the latter (Politician, Cop, Marine, etc.) informs the former (Christian) far greater than we will ever know. From a psychological perspective we constantly being shaped and formed by our society, by our experiences, and by our system of beliefs. So, in a society which has said that each individual needs to provide for themselves, our vocations as Christians end up shaping our Christianity, based predominantly upon an economic system which pushes people into these jobs, which may have detrimental affects on our lives in Christ. I do not have a definitive answer, but I do know that it is weakening us as followers of Christ.

I read Acts 2 this morning and I have difficulty imagining that the resurrection of Christ empowered people to do what they were already doing. Peter is preaching in the Temple and this is the reaction of the people, "When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) What shall we do?

Here is their response: They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.⁴³Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. ⁴⁴All the believers were together and had everything in common. ⁴⁵Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. ⁴⁶Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, ⁴⁷praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

So a good question to ask would be, “Why does the book of Acts have anything to say for our present order?” Because, I believe as Christians, we hold to the stabilizing world that the Spirit of God continually forms through our mutual life together. We seem to have interpreted the text to make sense of the increasing amount of power associated with our economic systems, but I think we, as a community should allow the greater influence of the narrative to shape our lives, I think that the telos (the end result) of this interpretative framework is a greater reliance upon a shared life. We practice the task of the shared life, because we as human beings need to form habits, out of which will flow the creative emergence of nuanced ways of engagement with our society. Simply assimilating into the already existent created power systems will in the end diminish our ability to care for the needs of others.

The question remains, Are Christian politicians willing to lose their jobs for the sake of another? Are Christian Marines willing to say no, when asked to kill and face court marshal? Are Christian Educators willing to not exclude people from the knowledge that they have been freely given? Probably not, and why you ask? Because for far too long, we in North America have bought into the system that values the self actualized needs of people over the life of the community of faith. It also comes from the believe that I have somehow earned what I have. I can not get around the statement by Gore Vidal that we live in the United States of Amnesia. We forget as quickly as we learn.

Max Weber in, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism has detailed that post-Reformation and especially post-Industrial Revolution, the church began its slow, insidious descent into securing power for human beings through our institutionalized vocations, which naturally would lead to teaching to that each person finds their purpose in what they do. We as Christians though affirm that our life in Christ is found in relationship with each other and with God. We affirm each human being as created in the image of God and thereby has innate value. We do not affirm people for what they can produce in terms of industrialized society, but by the value of love which produces fruit which other people can experience. Our Scriptures are written and attested to by those who were willing to suffer and still willingly offer love, peace, and blessings to those who by every definition of the term, did not deserve it.

So, when we really look at this issue, are we pursuing these vocations because we're following the call of God, or are we doing it because it makes us feel good about our positions? It gives us influence and power and status, and people look at us at great people.

This short clip from Dietrich Bonhoeffer explains this above mentioned task more appropriately.

Her choice...?

2010-06-04T09:24:00.001-07:00

2 Samuel 11:2-5: One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, ³ and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" ⁴ Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home. ⁵ The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."

How many times have we heard this story? Not necessarily this specific story from Scripture, but the story of power, seduction, and violence. This story could read from a Hollywood movie script.

Recently though I have been studying this story again, simply because it seems that a few points have been overlooked, not in understanding the implications of David's adulterous act, but in the set paradigm of power in relation to the king and one of his civilian subjects. The eventual outcome of violence later in the story in relation to the woman's husband Uriah, the Hittite seem to really be an extension of the initial violent act against this innocent woman committed by a man given the incredible responsibility of actually building trust in a community committed to the faithful act of being Yhwh's covenant people. I wish that more could be said about the inter communication between David and Bathsheba. Verse 4 says that, "David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her." So, a woman living by herself as her husband, a soldier in the king's army is in battle is brought into the king's palace. Was she nervous? Was she apprehensive? Was she thinking that she must impress the king to keep her husband safe?

From an outside perspective, I have to ask, "Did she even have a choice in the matter?" Now I do not assume to place my modern worldview of the 'autonomous individual' into the story, simply because the people in this story did not think in those terms. And the fact that the idea of the 'autonomous individual' is deeply flawed anyway, because even in our modern world, we continuously have to understand the dynamics of how power is utilized in relation to each other. In this story, we seem to have focused primarily on the fact that the king slept with Bathsheba, (committing the act of adultery) but we do not view this act as a situation of an extreme power imbalance between two parties. This act was probably not a consensual act, but an act of manipulative power, utilized by the king, especially since in Bathsheba's mind, she understood her husband as being a soldier under David's regime. I can imagine the feelings of powerlessness as she consented this act by the king, possibly with the tacit threat to her husband's life. The threat may have been greater than tacit, it could have been formal, i.e. David could have stated that her husband's well being depended on her consent. I would be quick to believe that this interpretation would be possibly correct, since the eventual outcome of this act was the subsequent killing of her husband. The very lie told to Bathsheba to gain her consent was eventually actualized in this story to cover the fact that this facade would be exposed. But this story is not surprising in the least given the institutionalization of power through the monarchy and the explicit violence associated with war.

David's act of violence against Bathsheba is simply an extension of an institution which needed violence to perform the duties of preserving its position. Previously in 1 Samuel 8 when the leaders came together and petitioned to have king other than Yhwh lead them, one of the stipulations of the monarchy would be war with other nations, and the exploitation of human beings. The institutionalization of power needs a presentation of an image in order to sustain itself. Therefore, people would be utilized for the purpose of creating an image which creates a facade of impenetrability.

Now, I am of course taking certain liberties with the text, since the story does not unpack any of what I have interpreted above, but I believe that the implications of David and Bathsheba's relationship is not only demonstrated in the eventual killing of her husband, but the violent acts committed later in the story by David's children.

Take up your cross and...

2010-02-26T09:33:00.000-08:00

The Passion of the Christ

I had written a couple months ago about something which I titled, "The Illusion of Caring", referencing the documentary Roots by Alex Haley. What initially grabbed my attention in this mini-series was the Captain of the slave ship, The Lord Ligonier, who professed Christianity, and was deeply perplexed about his first slave mission to West Africa. The Captain originally seemed disturbed about this mission, but participated anyway, and I thought that the documentary did a marvelous job portraying the slow, insidious process that took place in the Captain's actions during this endeavor. Slowly, the Captain seemed to succumb to the power of evil associated with this slave trade, until he was fully engulfed and participating in the trade wholeheartedly. I thought about Jesus' call to, "Take up your cross and follow me" in Matthew 16 and how the cross is a counter intuitive to what we think will bring forth life, but in essence will bring us to the point of death.

The Christian tradition over the past thousand years has interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus through the lens that the cross "pays for the penalty for our sins and appeases the wrath of God", which is a marvelous way to understand Jesus' crucifixion as long as we understand what "sin" really looks like. The Penal Substitution model basically says that Jesus stood in the place of humans and took upon himself God's wrath for the sin of humanity, which in essence appeased an angry God and therefore, allowed humans to once again know God, since his wrath was subdued. (My words) The penal substitution model though in our culture, because of it's implicit dualist worldview, does not situate sin as participation, but situates sin as either individual or abstract. This model therefore, has limited power to address or due justice to the historical reality that Jesus died a death as a Roman agitator and the only way Jesus would be thought of as an agitator would have been to challenge the Roman imperial policies of his day. That the "sin of humanity" killed Jesus through the participation of humans, in their actions, hearts, and public policies.

The central praxis of the crucifixion of Jesus fits with Jesus' direct interaction with the practices of Israel and Jesus' own statements of kingship over against the kingship of Caesar. If Jesus stood against the powers which were attempting to destroy humans for the sake of power, privilege, and status, then what would this mean in relation to the ministry of the church? The ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation should recenter our worldview to at least default to the fact that we must work toward love for an enemy, but the splitting of the world and the splitting of the human being into various parts, can keep humans from understanding that, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." (MLK, Jr.)

The difference of course in Jesus' way of challenge and other counter revolutionaries that came before and after (Barabbas as being a good example) is that Jesus did not pick up the sword to overthrow by violence, but bore the violence of humanity into his own body. Therefore, the invitation by Jesus to "take up your cross and follow me" in Matthew 16:24, could have been interpreted by the faith community as being embodied in the counter revolutionary act aimed at subverting the system of oppression contained in the slave trade. The Captain not simply looks perplexed and strained at participating in this horrible industry, but engages with other Christians who offer a language more in line with the voice of God and he says "No!" to the British Imperial Crown, i.e the systems of the world which Paul talks about, but then suffers the fate associated with counter worldly wisdom. His fate is that he loses his position as Captain, he no longer makes the money which procure for him a life of luxury, and people no longer heap upon him complements for the position he holds. In turn, he gains freedom to say and do those difficult tasks to which Jesus calls his followers. His position as Captain no longer matters, because the community of faith embraces him as having suffered along with his Lord and in a major way contributed to the release of those held in prisons (Luke 4). The paradox and scandal of the cross is that freedom is found in bearing the cross by becoming the exact image for another of the "good news" that yes, Jesus cares for how one is treated in society. The world continually proclaims very loudly that freedom is found by throwing off the boundaries, or throwing off any forms of authority, whereas it is not the boundaries and authorities which are the issue, but the domination systems associated with these boundaries and authorities. When one creates boundaries which are unable to be crossed at various moments. When authorities proclaim that they possess the truth and one must assimilate into their likeness in order to know the truth, this poses serious problems for truly understanding the dynamics behind systems of power.

As a Christian, I know that I am endowed with power by the Holy Spirit's direct action in the midst of the church, of which I participate through the communion of the saints of God. When this communion is broken through my participation with the communion of the systems of the world as described above in the slave industry, I must gain power through the direct demonization of another, since identification with those who suffer is usually non-existent. This poses a significant problem for Christians, since the call of Jesus is to "love God and love neighbor", this means we must somehow develop a way to address the problem of caring for those who are not as "blessed" as we are. How then should Christians trained in the ways of Western Civilization address caring for others? For the most part, we have followed the ways of the Enlightenment thinkers before us and tilted our heads to the side, looked concerned, and maybe even shed a tear or two at the suffering in the world. We then return to our vocations, our houses, and our isolated lives, afraid that real participation in the kingdom of God will cost too much.

Remember that Pentecost brought forth the Spirit of the living God, drawing people together from all tribes, tongues, and nations, forming a community of people who no longer were held by the bondage of property, but understood that all earth's abundance is truly a gift from God and the hoarding of property in lieu of the communion of the saints could cost Christians their lives (Annanias and Saphira). There is a degree of socialism within the structure of God's economy and only an economy of individualism would believe that each person provides for themselves. Individualism within the scope of the Captain of the slave ship contributed to his eventual demise, since he believed that he could be a Christian and participate in an evil industry. Roots does an incredible job in portraying how as the lone individual Christian on the ship, he slowly succumbs to the pressure of assimilating into the evil associated with being the Captain on a slave ship.

Although at any point the beautiful gift of grace would be available to this Captain, in my opinion his repentance, i.e. his turning away from this horrible industry would be needed to truly experience God's grace. I do believe that grace is always found in the midst of evil, but the continuing of participation with evil would in the end diminish the grace which we find in following Jesus. In order to truly follow Jesus, I must not make God into my image, but be recreated into the image of God, who brings the slave out of bondage, not into bondage.
We today have these same institutions and I continually struggle with our participation in them. Our world has created massive institutions, which make it very difficult to live outside of their powerful influence upon our lives. In Max Weber's, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he very clearly examines how the individual vocations of Christians became their ministries from the Reformation onward and how this has affected the life of the church in Western culture. Without the community of faith standing alongside the the Captain of the slave ship, the power of the systems of the world will most likely ensnare him and all that he will be left with is an "illusion of caring."

The Cross and Control

2010-02-09T16:37:00.000-08:00

Confessions

For approximately the past three years I have spent countless hours researching, reading, and writing concerning the powerful systems in our society which have slowly and insidiously enslaved numerous Americans. At the center of this American system is the ability of humans to believe that they can 'control' everything. This system, mainly based upon economics has slowly distanced human beings from other people, since other people are really the one aspect of life that will never be completely controllable. And that which is not controllable is not commodifiable and therefore will not produce wealth. In essence it is an unproductive aspect of our daily living. Yet, I want to say that these supposed "unproductive" aspects of life are most valuable within the scope of the kingdom of God. The problem though is that they won't give us the value which our society demands.

These systems have appeared to benefit some people to a great degree, with the appropriate term being "appeared". While it appears that the people have gained prestige, status, and wealth in our society, their children have subsequently grown up isolated in rooms playing by themselves. Many of their relationships never gain depth, because of the idea that each individual is responsible for themselves, therefore contributing to divorce rates which never need to be so dramatic. People that have grown up in American culture over the past fifty years have some serious identity issues, mainly because, "Identity is formed in the midst of communities." (Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God) Without these communities, people are limited in human to human contact, making it appear as though the world is very controllable. It is only through our human contacts that our understanding of the world is formed. As God has given the earth food and water to nourish humans, the human brain also needs the nourishment of diversity in order to grow. Our brains are constantly forming memories and as we grow older, we are making it continually more difficult to make change if we are not willing to live in and among difference.

Difference also allows humans to offer that wonderful gift of forgiveness for the offenses that will come and the hope of being reconciled. It will allow human beings to actually participate with the ministry of reconciliation. We have the option of distancing ourselves from difference, but this may be the option of "losing one's life" that Jesus speaks about. In the midst of "losing one's life for the sake of the gospel of reconciliation, we will find our life." (My paraphrase)

Now as a Christian, I believe in God asking humans to participate in the renewal of creation, which is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This participation can manifest itself in numerous ways and the formation of relationships should be the primary aspect to our commitment to this "good news". Yes, it is good news that God does not want us to live our lives separate from each other. But, here is the deeper call to the gospel. God wants us to live our lives completely connected to those to whom we can not control.

In my opinion, the thought of controlling our world actually usurps the rightful place of God. When the Israelites were called out of Egypt in Exodus 32 and came to Mt. Sinai, they formed a 'golden calf', because the 'golden calf' was something which they could control. The 'golden calf' had no real power outside of the value which the Israelites placed upon it, but idolatry always gives the facade of control. Life was not turning out how the Israelites had envisioned and they wanted to gain some control over this adventure. We human beings really believe that we can control everything, but in reality much of life will simply happen, because in essence we can not control the world. This facade of control is indirectly related to the fear of death. But what happens in the end if I really can't control other people? What if those people really are as dangerous as I initially believed?

The control that Jesus exhibited before the Romans and the Jews was that he had the ability to control life, but faced the power of those systems, and defeated this evil power contained within the fear of death. This power was the driving force behind his crucifixion, from the cosmic and earthly level. Jesus was faced with the alluring premise of controlling everything in his life, yet refused to succumb to this powerful idea. Why did Jesus refuse?

Without reading the idea of the modern 'autonomous individual' back into the text, I think that Jesus refused because his trust was completely in God final deliverance. Much of what control is based upon is fear of the unknown and the anxiety that can cause. Trust though should reconfigure our default positions. A default position is something we need to fall back upon. I believe that Jesus' default position in "God's final deliverance" was the resurrection from the dead. The resurrection from the dead defeated the fear of death and brought humans into the fulfillment of God's new creation.

I confess that fear has gripped my life for so long and has slowly squashed so much of my faith and trust in God's final deliverance. Amen.

The Slippery Slope of Vengeance

2009-11-22T15:21:00.000-08:00

Flickr

Reaching In Pollsmoor Prison Restorative Justice Programme

The gift of forgiveness

The question which I will attempt to ask within the scope of this paper, then methodically work through until in typical post-modern fashion come to the conclusion of having more questions is, "How should we understand the gift of forgiveness in a society which prides itself on human progress?" The other basis for my paper is the assumption that I am speaking as an American and as a Christian. Also, for argument's sake, I will define human progress as basing itself on the assumption that we as American Christians can develop ways to overcome the presupposed evil in the world by sheer intent. To will ourselves or even project ourselves into this world of human progress means developing new ways to advance as a species, but the problem with this modern worldview is that those people who don't, won't, or can't advance quickly enough, will be marginalized on the periphery in this world of progress. This exclusive world will grow simultaneously in violence, since humans have at their core the innate desire for participation as social creatures and being excluded will diminish hope. Although the language I am using may appear to be some quasi-socialist perspective, let me assuage any fears that what I am talking about is the gift of forgiveness with the hope of reconciliation, not a new or even old political praxis.

How can we advance when so many people don't have the will to overcome and rise above their present circumstances? They will in essence be left behind and in order to rationalize their being left behind, they will be classified as deserving of what they get. What if they did not deserve what they got, but simply decided that this world of human progress was not a world which put God in the forefront, but made God into a golden calf which could be controlled, so that God advanced along with us? We as Christians would then have to define this world as the culmination of an idolatrous world, since idolatry is creating god in the image of that which can be controlled and in the world of human progress, god is technology.

Working off the old, but continually moving into the new, This myth is perpetuated by many well meaning Christians in the U.S. who preach, teach, and hold to the fact that each person should and can muster the inner resolve to simply rise above their circumstances. To rise above one's circumstances means that we need to assimilate into the American ideal, which in the end is vastly different than the Christian ideal anyway.

Not enough emphasis is placed upon the deep emotional aspects of receiving and giving forgiveness. "To forgive contains an explicit condemnation of the wrong done, but also an offer toward reconciliation through this gift of forgiveness." (Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge) When one offers forgiveness to another, the person who offers the gift is recognizing a wrong done against them by the mere fact of offering forgiveness, but in the same breath drawing the other person toward themselves. Forgiveness should hold within its grasp a direct human connection not only for the deeply emotional movement toward vengeance, but the fact that this movement toward vengeance will destroy our own connection with God, humans, and ourselves. Vengeance must be recognized within the scope of forgiveness, since oppositional logic would tell us that we understand ourselves in relation to and opposed to other objects. We as Christians understand forgiveness through the perspective of my knowledge of the vengeance sometimes explicitly and at other times very implicitly from deep within myself.

Forgiveness offers the possible initial movement toward reconciliation, but violence offers the continued perpetuation of the initial offense. This perpetuation though will usually be exhibited as harsher than the original offense. We as humans tend to be one dimensional and over or under perform vengeance. Vengeance may also trigger a conflict spiral, whereby, the initial action causes a psychological response in the victim, which causes an action, since humans are not neutral beings, which causes a psychological response in the initial offender (now victim); repeat cycle. This cycle will usually end through one party overwhelming the other, which can sometimes cause death, or parties are forcibly separated and these two scenarios clearly reflect part of the problem with our society today. The movement of forgiveness does not have to be immediate either, but through the actions of another person who will walk through this process, one of the parties involved in a conflict can possibly voluntarily separate themselves for a time, until a person has the space and time to process their thoughts.

From numerous studies done after state executions, many people say that the death of the offender did not heal the pain of their loss, as they may have expected. There is no punishment which can be outwardly inflicted on another person to heal the pain of the loss felt from within. Neither should the outward act of forgiveness be viewed as a complete healing, since scars will always leave residual marks upon human beings, until that future moment when we are transformed through the resurrection. Until then, we must pursue forgiveness since the offer of forgiveness will soften the natural defensive posture of the offender. This defensive posture may be dismantled through the heard expression of pain felt by the victim or victim's family through the action(s) of the offender. Since we as Christians affirm that the cross of Jesus drew us into God's very self, we can as church, as body of Christ offer this gift of forgiveness to other people. As a matter of fact it is imperative that we do offer this forgiveness to other's. We are still entrenched in Western Civilization though, and the abstractness of sin, causes the abstractness of forgiveness, as not related to our lives and communities. As Jurgen Moltmann has poignantly expressed in The Crucified God, "The fullness of God and the fullness of humanity was drawn together on the cross, where Jesus prayed, 'Father forgive them, for they don't know what their doing.'"

This statement explicitly decried certain actions being performed by humans, but by saying, "Father, forgive them", this ties together the condemnation of the wrong with the offer of forgiveness.

If we have so many various testimonies of the healing aspects of forgiveness and reconciliation within the lives,communities, societies, and even once in a while a nations, then why is forgiveness not being expressed as the central theme of Christianity? One of my favorite stories of forgiveness is Corrie Ten Boom, who was approached after a speaking engagement in Germany in 1947 by a former guard from the Ravensbruck concentration camp, where members of her family were executed for hiding Jews. She said, "For a long moment, we grasped each other's hands, the former guard and the former prisoner." "I had never known God's love so intensely as I did then." I still can not read this without a deep felt need for God's love to penetrate the coldest, darkest areas in our lives and societies. Although, we live in a highly individualized culture, so God's love will be manifest itself personally and individually, but God forbid that love stay individualized. The coldest, darkest areas are held by the most utmost secrecy, as if no one can see what is taking place. Once the secrecy is brought into the illumination of God, it may be healed. Jesus traveled and made visible that which was previously invisible. Jesus constantly demonstrated how power was affecting people and holding people in bondage.

I think that at the heart (core) of forgiveness is the relinquishing of what really belongs to God, which is the power of vengeance and we as humans think we can handle or control vengeance. We seem to tend to believe ourselves to be rational enough in our post-Enlightenment minds to handle this type of power, but the power of vengeance contains deep emotional impacts, of which even the most reasonable people can not suppress. These felt emotions within the scope of being offended is so important to move toward the process of healing. Without the emotion, one is unable to process the severity of the offense. An act of violence against a person or loved one should illicit a response of disbelief and shock at the trauma involved, including a full range of emotional responses. The dominant problem is not the reaction toward the offense, but that there are limited outlets toward condemning the offense by the person offended. Somehow we as Christians have outsourced this job the criminal justice system, at least in terms of violent or property offenses. We have subsequently through many years of neglect allowed this important job to be conducted by people who should not be engaged in the difficult work of reconciliation. The Criminal Justice System is not based in the U.S. on restorative justice, but punitive justice and to a great degree ignores the victim, in favor of the offender.

Restorative Justice though draws the victim and offender back together, since the actions of sin had previously separated them. This is the goal of Christianity and this act brings glory to God, since it demonstrates love, not through ignoring the offense, which is deeply unloving, especially to a victim, but expresses the pain and grief caused by these actions. This also is not universal policy, since there are numerous factors which should be stipulated and agreed upon by the parties involved. If one party is unwilling (especially the offender) to acknowledge the offense, then restorative justice could cause further harm to the victim. Many times though, the problem in our society stems from people feeling that lying will benefit them the best. We as a society have created this phenomenon, through implicitly teaching that one person should pay for their offense by themselves. If a person or society sees no intrinsic value in confession, then confession is not a value which is pursued.

The church is based upon the aspect that the gospel is explicitly social in that as we have been forgiven, reconciled, and participate in God's gracious action toward us, then as Jesus commands, we 'freely' offer these gifts to other people. If we are not offering forgiveness to other people, then maybe it's because we ourselves do not truly believe that we are forgiven. To know God's forgiveness is to see forgiveness exhibited in the lives of people. If we do not see forgiveness demonstrated in social action and therefore social responses, how are we to know we ourselves are forgiven? When I offend and my brother or sister offers the gift of forgiveness through deep empathetic concern that our relationship may be strained, I must respond to them over the possibility that I have in some way contributed to this offense. It does not mean that every offense is only one person's fault, but through the act of dialogue, I can realize that I may be ignorant to my actions. If done in ignorance, I have gained knowledge, if done knowingly, then I must begin the process of confession that my sheer willfulness to offend is causing harm to others. Of course the second scenario is more difficult to address, but forgiveness is still offered and until the movement away from sheer intent is recognized, usually reconciliation is impossible, since at the core of reconciliation is trust.

In order to understand how one arrived at having to offer forgiveness, we must begin to understand the process toward offense. Therefore, the offer of forgiveness is implicitly tied together with the movement toward re-engaging with another in the hope of reconciliation. This action of forgiveness should allow both parties the mutually satisfying solution of unpacking the issues of offense. The one who originally causes an offense toward another person or even toward a community of people has explicitly violated various forms of established boundaries, set in place by social norms to prevent these violations.

The following excerpt from the gospel of Luke begins to unpack the premise that sin is manifest in our actions toward God and toward other people. No sins exist in a vacuum, whereby they don't directly or indirectly affect our relationship with people. For too long has sin either been compartmentalized into being defined as abstract or as only relating to the issues which the person defining is not controlled. The way which I perceive Jesus defining sin is not through these definitions, but as manifest in our social institutions and within our wills. Sin could then be succinctly defined as a continued movement toward self aggrandizement without care for another.

In Luke 1:1-4, Jesus' language involving sin or "offenses" is fierce, due to his complete understanding that people do what they see, therefore, people will follow the leadership either into the kingdom of God or into practices which diminish a person's unique ability for the sake of building up the leadership. If we thought outside of the scope of our world, then it would not matter what another does, since we would be able to act outside of another's actions. We thoroughly know that life is not like that, nor did God intend life to created from nothing. The only time anything was created out of nothing was the original act of creation, but ever since, creation can only utilize the created world to re-create. This means that life can not exist outside of our space/time continuum, nor is it intended to. It places humans as directly inter-connected to each other and to our world. As illustrated above, forgiveness is the means to reconciliation and reconciliation is God's means to rebuilding our world.

Luke 1:1-4: "Things that cause people to sin (offenses) are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, I repent, forgive him."

The Illusion of Caring

2009-08-14T08:30:00.001-07:00

The Illusion of Caring

My wife and I have recently rented the entire DVD collection of Roots from Netflix and last night we watched the first episode. I want to unpack a premise which I have titled, "The Illusion of Caring", because I think that there is an overwhelming sense of urgency within the spectrum of Christian traditions to move into the the practical implications of this phrase. One example that I will use to describe this allusion of caring will be from the above mentioned mini-series, Roots, in order to demonstrate that individuals alone can not shoulder the burden of changing how Christians are called to care for those in need. I will attempt to show that Christians who desire to show some degree of care for the oppressed, must be part of a larger community of people who are also committed to this venture. Humans in isolation who can garner the strength to stand against these awful institutions of oppression will in essence manifest this "Allusion of caring", but human beings tend to be one dimensional creatures and this poses the threat of being re-made into the image of the exact institution which supports the oppression.

Part 1:
In the first episode of Roots, the Captain of the slave ship, The Lord Ligonier claimed Christianity and is initially outspoken in his system of belief in God. He is portrayed in this movie as having a facade of care in the initial stages of learning that he is being appointed to make his first voyage to kidnap and transport 170 African slaves back to the America's. The viewer is made to think that the Captain is deeply perplexed concerning participating in this endeavor, because while taking inventory for the ship, he does not want to use a device which controls the slaves through a thumb press, which looks like a screw attached to a wooden device which will hold the thumb in a pressurized location. Apparently this thumb press is inhumane in controlling the slaves on the ship, as opposed to the absolute horror of transporting human beings involuntarily from one nation to another. The Captain appears often perplexed and demonstrates this allusion of caring as he reflects on his voyage (head tilted to the side, gazing upwardly, with vexed look) and engages in debate with the second in command on the ship as to the moral principles associated with the slave trade. Apparently if Christians tilt their head to the side and look concerned, God looks favorably upon this allusion that we give a ....! The second in command on The Lord Ligonier has already participated in 18 slave trips to Africa and is well versed on the techniques for capturing, transporting, and selling the slaves. His influence over the Captain is very clear in his interactions during this voyage.

Alongside my viewing of Roots, I am also reading a book entitled; Recovering the Scandal of the Cross (for a third time) by Dr. Joel Green (Fuller Theological Seminary). The framework for this book unpacks the premise that the cross should be scandalous to our way of thinking and knowing God. The Christian tradition over the past thousand years has interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus through the lens that the cross simply "pays for the penalty for our sins and appeases the wrath of God". This understanding of Jesus' crucifixion is known as, 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement' and was developed in the 11th century has not changed that much into the 21st century according to Green. Penal Substitution basically says that Jesus stood in the place of humans and took upon himself God's wrath for the sin of humanity, which in essence appeased an angry God and therefore, allowed humans to once again know God, since his wrath was subdued. (My words) In essence, although the penal substitution model attempted to make sense of the social norms in the 11th century, it does not due justice to the historical reality that Jesus died a death as a Roman agitator and the only way Jesus would be thought of as an agitator would have been to challenge the Roman imperial policies of his day. The reason that I am speaking about any of this is because it fits with how we view our lack of action in relation to social issues. The crux of the crucifixion of Jesus fits with Jesus' direct interaction with the practices of Israel and Jesus' own statements of kingship over against the kingship of Caesar. If Jesus stood against the powers which were attempting to destroy humans for the sake of the elite, then what would this mean in relation to the churches ministry? Simply placing an atonement theory in place of truly understanding the dynamics behind the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus does not due justice to God's mission in the world. I am attempting to relate the Christian traditions use of atonement theories to the Christian traditions support of unjust practices such as the slave trade.

The difference of course in Jesus' way of challenge and other counter revolutionaries that came before and after (Barabbas as being a good example) is that Jesus did not pick up the sword to overthrow by violence, but bore the violence of humanity into his own body. Therefore, the invitation by Jesus to "take up your cross and follow me" in Matthew 16:24, could have been interpreted by the faith community as being embodied in the counter revolutionary act aimed at subverting the system of oppression contained in the slave trade. The Captain not simply looks perplexed and strained at participating in this horrible industry, but engages with other Christians who offer a language more in line with the voice of God and he says no to the British Imperial Crown, i.e the systems of the world which Paul talks about and suffers the fate associated with counter worldly wisdom. His fate is that he loses his position as Captain, he no longer makes the money which procure for him a life of luxury, and people no longer heap upon him complements for the position he holds. In turn, he gains freedom to say and do those difficult tasks to which Jesus calls his followers. His position as Captain no longer matters, because the community of faith embraces him as having suffered along with his Lord and in a major way contributed to the release of those held in prisons (Luke 4). The paradox and scandal of the cross is that freedom is found in bearing the cross by becoming the exact image for another of the "good news" that yes, Jesus cares for how one is treated in society. The world continually proclaims very loudly that freedom is found by throwing off the boundaries, or throwing off any forms of authority, whereas it is not the boundaries and authorities which are the issue, but the domination systems associated with these boundaries and authorities. When one creates boundaries which are unable to be crossed at various moments. When authorities proclaim that they possess the truth and one must assimilate into their likeness in order to know the truth, this poses serious problems for truly understanding the dynamics behind systems of power.

As a Christian, I know that I am endowed with power by the Holy Spirit's direct action in the midst of the church, of which I participate through the communion of the saints of God. When this communion is broken through my participation with the communion of the systems of the world as described above in the slave industry, I must gain power through the direct demonization of another, since identification with those who suffer is usually non-existent. This poses a significant problem for Christians, since the call of Jesus is to "love God and love neighbor", this means we must somehow develop a way to address the problem of caring for those who are not as "blessed" as we are. How then should Christians trained in the ways of Western Civilization address caring for others? For the most part, we have followed the ways of the Enlightenment thinkers before us and tilted our heads to the side, looked concerned, and maybe even shed a tear or two at the suffering in the world. We then return to our vocations, our houses, and our isolated lives, afraid that real participation in the kingdom of God will cost too much.

Remember that Pentecost brought forth the Spirit of the living God, drawing people together from all tribes, tongues, and nations, forming a community of people who no longer were held by the bondage of property, but understood that all earth's abundance is truly a gift from God and the hoarding of property in lieu of the communion of the saints could cost Christians their lives (Annanias and Saphira). There is a degree of socialism within the structure of God's economy and only an economy of individualism would believe that each person provides for themselves. Individualism within the scope of the Captain of the slave ship contributed to his eventual demise, since he believed that he could be a Christian and participate in an evil industry. Roots does an incredible job in portraying how as the lone individual Christian on the ship, he slowly succumbs to the pressure of assimilating into the evil associated with being the Captain on a slave ship.

Although at any point the beautiful gift of grace would be available to this Captain, in my opinion his repentance, i.e. his turning away from this horrible industry would be needed to truly experience God's grace. I do believe that grace is always found in the midst of evil, but the continuing of participation with evil would in the end diminish the grace which we find in following Jesus. In order to truly follow Jesus, I must not make God into my image, but be recreated into the image of God, who brings the slave out of bondage, not into bondage.

We today have these same institutions and I continually struggle with our participation in them. Our world has created massive institutions, which make it very difficult to live outside of their powerful influence upon our lives. In Max Weber's, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he very clearly examines how the individual vocations of Christians became their ministries from the Reformation onward and how this has affected the life of the church in Western culture. Without the community of faith standing alongside the the Captain of the slave ship, the power of the systems of the world will most likely ensnare him and all that he will be left with is an "illusion of caring."

What is our Common Good?

2009-07-31T20:22:00.001-07:00

Back in June of this year, I attended a conference at Loyola University, Chicago, which was entitled: Globalization for the Common Good. This conference held many of the most intelligent minds in Higher Education, not only in the U.S., but on a global scale. There are two main points though which deserve some critique concerning not only the content of this conference, but a repackaged phenomenon which seems to be developing within the scope of Peace and Justice Studies in Academic Institutions. The first point deals with the formation of the paradigm or position, such as "The Common Good". The common trait of this theme of the "Common Good" which was a plumb line of this conference to an appeal for rational discourse, which seems to be reminiscent of the old claim to common sense. I remember eight white clergyman appealing to Martin Luther King, Jr. to hold to common sense and not create conflict in the Jim Crow South, but this Common Sense did not appeal to MLK, Jr., but was simply an appeal to the already existent power structure. (Letter from Birmingham Jail)

This type of discussion was developed by asking the question, whose rational discourse we should be appealing, since there was a recognition of power structures. The final verdict though was a rational discourse which in the end would acknowledge human beings as part of a global world, which directly affects the second point of a repackaged modern quest for the enlightened individual. What this means is that we as individuals need to not have any of the previous boundaries, which held us to our "tribal identities", but now we need to move beyond these human boundaries to understand the beauty of other cultures and languages.

It seems as though this could become the new colonialism, through the dominant modern person moving into various cultures and ethnicity's, and instead of colonizing with weapons, we colonize with reason. This "Common Good" may not be common at all, it may be the good of those who are already in power and want access to various cultures, since ours no longer possesses any resources that have not already been hoarded.

There was also an overwhelming fear of what has been termed, "Tribal identities", which would of course eventually result in tribal conflicts. My perception of the conference speakers was that conflict was negative and if one engaged in conflict with another, the one engaging lacked the necessary reason to move beyond the conflict. In terms of Conflict Resolution, allowing conflict to have its place within the scope of the dialogue is essential for growth and actually suppression of the already existent conflict will produce further harm. Hence, peace is not known outside of conflict, since we only know one through the other. But, it is not the tribal identities which are the dominant problem or the subsequent conflicts that will result from these identities. The main problem is the system of domination which attempts to violently suppress the voice of those that sound different. Violence is not necessarily physical, but should be seen as emotional, spiritual, and social through the hoarding of resources.

Many conference speakers feared remaking God into this horrible "Tribal Deity", would force god to fight the other existent tribal deities with violence. Once again this is the repackaged premise of the Enlightenment's quest for an overarching scientific rationale which will eventually suppress conflicts through Leviathan. Leviathan is no longer the monolithic monster of military conquest, but the monolithic monster of reason and good thinking. In terms of tribal identities, we as Christians have to acknowledge the god of the incarnation found in Jesus, which at its very core is tribal. We claim that Israel's god made a covenant with her, to bring forth the redemption of the world through one tribe, that "all tribes" would be blessed. So, in the end, yes can we affirm the monotheistic faiths of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as having a commonality and pursue the good in humanity, but we also understand that we as Christians affirm that the fullness of the revelation of God is found in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. As Jurgen Moltmann has said, "Jesus is not like God, but God is like Jesus." (The Crucified God) This good will also not be brought forth without suffering and not without death. This is probably where conference speakers would part company, because this does not sound very "Good". Christians must affirm that we as human beings suffering for and with other human beings and as a result of our participation with "the others", will our rational discourse then be afforded to us.

Many would ask, "Why would any of this be important"? Because without the tribal nature of god, it diminishes the unique attributes of human beings. Part of the unique attributes of humans will inevitably cause conflict, because of the pull of manipulation and control. This conflict though must be the process through which we understand one another, not a suppression of the conflict through the universalizing of god. Jesus bore the violence of humanity into his own self, without taking up violence and killing those to whom he himself died. Christians as body of Christ are not called to universalize, which will eventually cause Christians to not bear this violence, but only appeal to a "higher logic", or "rational discourse". Which in my opinion means the suppression of emotion, instead we desire the redirection of emotion toward the proclamation of the gospel. I fear the appeal to this repackaged Enlightenment model of "pure reason," will eventually contribute to the lack of growth, through suppression of any and all conflict as negative, thorugh demonizing those who we perceive as not being reasonable.

In conclusion, our Western culture in a typical post-Enlightenment fashion continues the process of objectifying the subjective. Instead of a word possessing various and nuanced meanings, words are used to make into an object something which should have been intended to be subjective. If we look at the term, The Common Good, it has become an object which overwhelms the our unique worlds, which have god given differences, which are supposed to be utilized to benefit humans. If a term then no longer acts within our world, but exists outside of the world in which we inhabit, it causes humans to demonize the subjective realities of people who do not possess the common good. If we also perceive of ourselves as subjective and in direct relationship with another, then I have to recognize that I too can be part of the problem as well as the solution. I can seek the common good, but I might not necessarily possess the common good, since my interests are very one dimensional. People are objectified in order to control their actions and they are formed into idols in the minds of the oppressor. We also have tendency to project our scorn and ridicule into an object. The problem with forming an object from a subjective movement is that the object does not allow for its voice to be heard. In order for me to truly understand the other, I must listen intently to their movements, but objects tend to not speak out against my projections and therefore solidifying my original convictions that I was truly correct in what I thought. We do not want to be found correct, but truthful in our story in how it engages another's story.

Question: Do or should people get what they deserve?

2009-03-28T09:46:00.000-07:00

"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

2009-03-02T18:08:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-27T22:59:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-10-30T15:15:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-09-25T15:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-13T14:43:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-08-29T17:20:00.000-07:00

"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!

Sacrifice of the gods?

2008-08-12T22:51:00.001-07:00

Over the past week I have discovered a new vice, which is entitled Yahoo Answers. (Click on the link and it will bring you to my Q & A section) It encapsulates a question and answer forum where people ask some poignant, but sometimes very random questions about life, spirituality, and various non-sensical stuff. (I am not placing spirituality with non-sense) I usually frequent either the sociology section about "Culture and Groups" to write responses to peoples ignorance concerning the construction of race in the U.S., or the section concerning "religion and spirituality". It is fascinating to read what Americans think about Christianity and to simply understand how Christians are perceived in the U.S. I realize that debate almost never changes people's minds, but I attempt to explain the reasons for certain "Christian" behavior from the perspective of religious traditions, mainly the Reformed ones. Although many people who ask questions are not familiar with Christianity there are some very angry questions directed towards Christianity and I have to think, "Is this fair?"

Many claim to be atheists, but it seems that there is a deep seated hatred for someone or something which has contributed to their overall bitterness. Hey, I will be the first to attest to being from the Anger Tradition and projecting my anger onto an object, which I perceived to be lesser. For many of the atheists, they perceive Christianity to be a blatantly ignorant tradition; caught in myths, spiritual story telling, ghouls, and ghosts, all surrounded by zombie like followers of a dead god. Sounds interesting, eh? I think though if one listened long enough to what they are saying it would be that, "Christianity is meant to be loving, it is meant to care for our needs, it is meant to display compassion, why does it not, why, why??" The people want a loving God, they want a God who accepts their flaws, accepts their questions, accepts their weakness, but most of all accepts that THEY will not accept everything which Christianity is laying down. Oh, wait, I was with you until that last part.

It seems as though God's grace has its limitations with people. God will not accept people who doubt, people who question him, or Christians don't accept people who question God. I don't know why but this drew me to start thinking about the story of Abraham and his son Isaac, when Abraham was told to sacrifice his son. If you know me, I am not one to usually relate something to a biblical story, so maybe this meant something. Abraham in the story seemed fairly ready and able to sacrifice his child at least from the perspective of the writer. From what we know about Mesopotamian culture, they had a fairly broad knowledge of the gods and this would not be a far stretch for a god to request a child sacrifice. Abraham willingly went, but it seems as though we have always read this story from the vantage point of Abraham, because it is easier for us to identify with a "father and son". If anyone else figured this out a long time ago, I apologize for my slowness, since I am just figuring this out, but the story is really about the unveiling of Yhwh to humanity. It is about the unveiling of a god who is beginning the process of transforming how humans treated other humans. Unveiling that Yhwh does not need the sacrifice to know the heart. The unveiling that the earth belongs to Yhwh and he has concern about children, it is the start of the transformative way which humanity sees its God. Maybe I started to think about this because people in the Yahoo section see the god of the Old Testament as so angry, because we have not portrayed this god to be the god who unveils his compassion, kindness, and love, over against the gods who demand the sacrifice of humans. It starts to make sense why the Lord would say, "Choose this day whom you will serve?" (My paraphrase) There were actually many choices in that day. How about in our day? Which god do we serve?

Which god do we serve? The god of civil religion who demands our sacrifice to war? The god of consumerism who demands our money and allegiance? The god of my anger? (That is meant for me) Without an inward critique of my own allegiance, I can not speak of any other allegiances. I will end this by saying be blessed, God loves us.

Subverting systems of power and domination

2008-07-27T11:02:00.001-07:00

I started writing today about the economic practices of the Protestant Church, mainly taken from McLaren's book, Everything Must Change and Max Weber's, The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but I did not get very far, because the more involved in society I am, the more I realize that our economic practices (U.S.) can not be separated from the social construction of;"White Privilege"! Although Weber sees this "Spirit of Capitalism" coming from the Reformation and Protestants embracing the work ethic of secular society, I personally believe that that supposition alone will not have much influence in our current society, unless one identifies with whiteness in the U.S., since whites hold dominant control over the means of production. Wow, that sounded a lot like Karl Marx, but unlike Marx, I do not believe that whites (dominant class, bourgeois) are the problem! I believe the system of "whiteness" (bourgeoisie) is the problem.

I know many people who work hard, but are extremely poor. What a paradox, one can be a hard worker and be poor? If those people were part of the system of whiteness, would their hard word be of greater benefit towards advancing in the workplace? Of course the definition of hard work also needs to be deeply examined within Protestant circles, so that we as Christians do not demonize another group, simply by the delineation of "hard work or lazy", as if those are the only two categories we can choose from. As McLaren says, "Some people are actually people oriented, not task oriented," but in an ever developing technological society, how do we strive to move ahead by focusing on being relational? (My words) I am being facetious in my question.

I have written a lot on what it means to be "white" in the U.S. and this morning as I took a minor detour by going to Noah's Bagels in South Pasadena, I suddenly understood the intricacies involved in this process of "becoming white". Simply by going to Noah's Bagels, I feel my "white-ness" affirmed, yet I leave sensing that this privilege has drained people of their ability to be, dare I say, "Human". The dominant characteristic of my writing stems from my belief that not everything is "alright", and by dominant culture ignoring one of the most controversial issues of our day is not, dare I say, "Christian". Our assumption of privileges in the Christian community is a direct result of social programs in this country which have been specifically created to benefit the people in power. It is not a dismantling of the system which needs to take place, but a reconfiguration to include all people, not just some people.

I should do an anthropological study of people who frequent Noah's Bagels, it would be very interesting to understand there are cultural distinctions which are unique to white culture. Noah's Bagels in South Pasadena on a Saturday or Sunday morning is in my opinion, "a bastion of elite-ness". "What draws me to go to this Noah's Bagels"? I must say that something inside me wants to identify with people who hold influence and power and it is comfortable. So, could you say I am a hypocrite? Depending on what one considers a hypocrite. A hypocrite is a person who "plays a part, simply to have people acknowledge that they are something more than it appears." I fit that category sometimes, other times I do not. Once again, simplification of a complex world, NEVER works. This is a time that I will use an absolute.

People go to Noah's Bagels with their families, but interact very little with each other, but the question must be asked, "Why not make an egg sandwich at home?" It would be much less expensive. Expense, is of course not the reason for going to Noah's Bagels. Community is the reason people go, yet very little interaction with others actually takes place, yet humans still have an innate desire to be around other people, even if they will not talk to those people, or acknowledge another's existence.

I know many who believe that having "White Privilege" can be a catalyst for change and their dominant issue is not, "having power as the problem, but what we (whites) do with this power that matters." I might believe that the underlying premise of such a statement, spoken by a Fuller student in a class with Dr. Love Sechrest called, Race and Identity in Paul, is a dangerous configuration of many different paradigms. I wonder if people understood that this same idea was also prevalent during slavery, where the cross was not something which demonstrates the evil in humanity, but it became a symbol of power placed upon the backs of those deemed "evil". If not for the mere fact that I know my own tendencies toward power and I know how "all consuming power can be," I would probably not be were I am today. The underlying issues of power in a police department were some of the reasons that I left. Power has a way, as does violence of remaking the one participating in its system into its very image. This is why being "white", of course is not the problem currently in our society, since these sociological constructions are as real as our sexes, meaning I can not change them, but yet "white-ness" is something which derives out of a system, in which I can choose to NOT participate.

Walter Wink has written about the issues of personal and systemic power in three different books entitled, Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, and The Powers that Be.

Although it is not a new phenomenon that those who have identified with "white-ness" in the U.S. have been part of a dominant majority; this majority have aligned themselves with a power system which has slowly subverted their allegiance. I am speaking of the allegiance the Christian majority, since they are the ones who "run" the churches in the U.S. I guarantee that when most pastor's started they were concerned about power, but the structure and design of churches have allowed pastor's to gravitate towards holding the dominate ideology over the subjects. Therefore, if we understood the power system which underlay the identity forming supposition of this "white-ness" in the U.S., we might not so closely align ourselves with this dominant structure. We desire as Christians to be followers of Christ and although the argument has been made for centuries about how Christ and Culture intersect, rarely are systems of power the basis of the discussion, but it is my firm believe that Jesus clearly understood "power systems" and spoke about them frequently.

A New Revolution

2008-07-07T11:48:00.000-07:00

The more knowledge of certain issues that I acquire, sometimes it seems as though the angrier I become. It is easy to assume in the "present evil age", to quote George Eldon Ladd, New Testament theologian, that we will all grow weary and tired of pursuing the fullness of being enveloped in love to some extent in our lives. Normally in my blog posts, I would say something like; "We talk about the fullness of community, yet still live isolated, we talk about global crisis, yet still have bills to pay, we talk about the idealistic objectives of the "renewal of God's creation", yet pursue jobs which provide security and safety, remaking us into people who are satisfied with the status quo," but for some reason today, Jurgen Moltmann's article, "The Crucified God", has captured my attention. Through my alleged pursuit of revolutionary activity, it seems to simply get me angry at others' apathy, yet being someone who naturally dislikes apathy, I feel very apathetic myself. Moltmann talks about the coldness which the God of success gives to his people. It is not the God of love found in the theology of the incarnation, cross, and resurrection. When Moltmann went walking through a Concentration Camp in Poland, he said, "The shame I felt for what my country had done, I wished the earth swallow me up, if I didn't believe that they (the victims) will rise again."

This brings me back to the dominant underlying issue concerning my over-reaction against the Evangelical Church in the U.S.. In American Evangelicalism, the over-arching premise is its implicit stand with nothing, and yet everything, so I therefore, react. I react harshly and say, "You have no backbone, you talk about injustice, (and sometimes never talk about injustice) yet perpetuate injustice by your lifestyle, you are apathetic and do not understand systems of power, which are so clear in the way you operate." The only problem is, "I am them!"

I react against the John MacArthur's of the world, who say, "God is not concerned about slavery, because slavery is something 'of this world'"! I do not need to give a rebuttle to this statement, since it is not deserving of my reaction, but I can not help myself. John MacArthur went on Larry King and spoke these exact words and subsequently drives a wedge between those who already are disgruntled with Evangelical Christianity, and those who actually follow the words of MacArthur. The followers of MacArthur, i.e. those who attend his church, actually believe that he is attesting to God's Word. I would urge John MacArthur to "only live by the spiritual Word of God", which he claims is what humanity needs to live, because I am fairly confident that he enjoys some of the finest food, the nicest clothes, and lives a somewhat luxurious lifestyle. I do not like to harp on race, but once again, "Why is it so difficult for white Christians to understand that they have directly benefited from social programs in the U.S."? From the numerous conversations that I have been involved, most who identify with whiteness in the U.S., believe that they have "earned" what they have, coming the the next logical conclusion, that which is "earned", is then theirs to do with it whatever they desire. Why are we so ignorant?

Getting back to my own journey, I would quote Miroslav Volf at this point and say, "The exact evil that we are fighting against, robs us of our innocence towards violence and recreates us into the image of violence, making us violent ourselves," quoting Dorothy Suchocki. I understood this perspective when I was a police officer as part of a governmental system which survived as great Leviathan, which feeds upon incarcerating poor people for addictions, but as a Christian leader, I do not want to survive upon others' misery! So, it is important to ask the question, "How vulnerable am I"? How willing am I myself to stand beside others when no one else does? Do I still want a "piece of the pie?" I probably do, and I thank God that I have this recognition, so that I do not venture to acquire these opportunities at the expense of my brothers and sisters. Are these opportunities wrong? Not as long as others have equal access to the same opportunities, but until that time, we should not be pursuing them at the expense of others.

The question now is, "But when will everyone have the same opportunities"? Jesus said that we will always have the poor. Dueteronomy 15:4 in regards to the canceling of debts affirms that, "There should be NO poor among you, for in the land the Lord God is giving you, he will richly bless you." So, the earth has the natural ability to produce an abundance? Why then do the poor not have access to this abundance? Sin? Laziness? Or do the wealthy hoard, pushing the poor farther into the fringes and taking the sweetness of the core for themselves? We have a somewhat abstract concept of unequal disparities between rich and poor and most Christians have a difficult time articulating what the disparities look like in "Real time and real language."

Doesn't everyone benefit from the systemic injustices, which are the natural forms of life in the U.S.? "Should not we all participate, attempting to gain what is rightfully ours?" It is not that Christians do not participate with the abundance of the earth, but we participate in a new way. No longer do we participate in ways which identify with the elite classes who whore the land. I heard Dr. Michael Eric Dyson in a documentary called, Black in America talk about the prophetic voice, "Which stand outside the structures", calling these structures back to their intended vocation. (my words) This documentary brought us to the ghettos of inner city Houston, which could be inner city U.S. to look at the blight and poverty. I always have a difficult time allowing one side, predominantly white America projecting their own apathy

It is not difficult to understand my natural inclination towards revolution and here is what scares me though about veering away from my revolutionary tendencies. I fear then people would not want to think about injustice and say, "See, really Jesus is not concerned with those "social" issues, he is concerned with simply lovin' up some people." "After all, Jesus said nothing about social or political issues." Once again, I want to tell those people that they are the DIRECT recipients of social programs which they have benefited from and have utilized for the past 200 years, which makes them socialists, but simply ignorant socialists. Here is the most dangerous supposition about our lack of understanding regarding somewhat invisible social programs. We perceive God in regards to the earth, since we are directly connected Read David Roediger's, Working Towards Whiteness; How America's Immigrants Became White; The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs.

Click Link for Amazon Books

Here then is the main issue in what I am discussing: Vulnerability. I think that Moltmann knows about this process, since he also reacted against what he thought was Karl Barth's somewhat negative stance towards social action, in favor of a more existential Christianity and instead pursued Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings to gain a more nuanced view towards a gospel of liberation. Bonhoeffer wrote that the Nazi's did not care about Christian's preaching the gospel on Sunday, because it did not affect their programs, but it was only when Bonhoeffer realized that standing with the oppressed, i.e. the Jews, did the Nazi's take notice. Moltmann has also come out of the Enlightenment's, "Myth of human progress", whereby humanity could simply make more logical choices and change the earth.

The theology of the cross completely debunks that myth, because if Yahweh was incarnate into Israel's story, then Yahweh was also found in death in Israel's hope, but hope is embodied in a cross of shame and the Enlightenment does not allow the cross to have an existence. The embodiment of love then is found in suffering, through the death of Jesus on a cross, next to two criminals. Therefore all the other programs and action must be found in Christ on the cross. Too many times though the cross is separated from the incarnation. The incarnation of Yahweh becoming Jewish flesh, is the affirmation of life, the affirmation of Yahweh's faithfulness to his covenant promises. As I read the O.T. prophets, I can't help but think that all the harsh statements of the prophets towards Israel, Yahweh decided that he would actually bear the prophetic injunctions against his people into his own body, then afforded us the opportunity in which we now participate in the bearing of suffering for the sake of humanity, because when all is said and done, we believe that "they (the victims) will rise again" and in that age, again to quote George Eldon Ladds', "the age to come", the resurrection will vindicate the evil suffered and that is The New Revolution.

After writing this blog post, I have decided to write a book, which a certain friend has been suggesting to me. Thanks.

The Neighborhood Marxist: Try and Deport Me!

2008-06-24T13:46:00.001-07:00

It has been over a month since I last posted, so I will give quick update of what has happened over the past month. We had a baby named Paul, I graduated from Fuller, I am still designing a Conflict Resolution Program at the Western Justice Center, and I am continuously attempting to understand what makes me tick. (Obviously a long process) The other day as some friends were over, we started to discuss the implementation of this program at the Western Justice Center and someone happened to refer to me as "The neighborhood Marxist", a title which I happily embrace, since I would err on the side of being a revolutionary. To better explain this idea, I would say that we as Christians follow an "Upside down kingdom", to borrow from Donald Kraybill, who wrote that Jesus flipped the reality of life in the earth upside down, so that heaven, which has always been understood as "that which comes from above", is now overlapping the earth, which is more of a Hebraic understanding of Scripture, i.e. non-Greek. Please, any literalistic people, it is meant as a metaphor. This idea seems very Marxist, since Marx would want a complete dismantling of the hierarchical structures which cause and foster oppression to be 'torn asunder', since this is the only possibility for humans to even realize that they were being manipulated all along.

We must remember that the bourgeois are who Marx, as well as Bonhoeffer, Moltmann, and Cone would agree are the ones doing the manipulating, making the working classes and poor believe that they deserve what they have, or don't have, and whatever the poor receive, damnit they should be grateful! In Germany, Bonhoeffer had stated that the bourgeois, i.e. the elite classes had taken over the church and pushed the poor and working classes out. The apostle Paul had something to say about certain "elite" members of society taking over the fellowship in I Corinthians 11:17-34. Many members of the congregation were hoarding the food and drink from the communion of the saints and therefore the poor or working classes who showed up later, had nothing to eat. Wow, nothing ever seems to change. I do believe that the bourgeois is a large group of people in our society, but specifically who fits the category of bourgeois today?

The ruling class, i.e. the elite would definitely fit into that category. Who though in our churches would be bourgeois? I have been to a lot of churches, including for the first time, Lake Avenue Church for graduation from Fuller. I know some people who attend Lake Avenue and I do know that they are socially aware, care about the community of Pasadena, and invite some of the most "cutting edge" Christian speakers to bring a message of hope, but seriously, even at graduation, the "important people" sat up front, in front of all to see. I think it would benefit some people who are in front of the congregation every Sunday to sit with everyone else when they visit another church. Churches are not "Country Clubs", so they should start reflecting the reconciliatory ministry of Christ, not the "Who's Who of Pastordom". I am currently reading Brian McLaren's, Everything Must Change, but I still don't think our society will change at all until blacks and Hispanics have the opportunities to do what "whites" do.

David Roediger, professor of history at the University of Illinois-Urbana, wrote a book which I am reading entitled, Working Towards Whiteness, How America's Immigrants Became White, The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs, and it details the process by which the immigrant classes from approximately 1880-present, gained access to opportunities through an assimilation into whiteness, over against people of color. Books such as this deeply affect how we in Christianity view God and society, because if we live in the "upside down kingdom", that means that even if we DO NOT know this "kingdom" exists, the systems in the earth are the way towards our understanding of God, not vice-versa. That is why we can not "love God, but not our neighbor". Anyways, I am out of time, see ya'.

Conservative or Revolutionary??

2008-05-27T15:27:00.000-07:00

This is a section of an article taken from Jurgen Moltmann's, The Crucified God and his critique from both sides, i.e. the Conservative and Revolutionary sides, whereby I identify with the second. His critique from both sides is what we in the church need to hear, since both sides have so closely identified with the structures of power, which makes and re-makes God into our image of strength, which will in turn suppress the qualities of Christianity which we perceive as weak, but are imperative to being a Christian.

Whether we are conservative or revolutionary, whether we are satisfied with our society or want to transform it, we all believe at bottom in action and success. We are convinced that we can solve all problems through right programs and actions. As Sidney Hook observes, western society is an officially optimistic society. The built-in values of our life and our system condemn us to activity, success, profit, and progress. If we experience failure, if we are frustrated, then we move on to another place, "where the action is." "What can, what must, we do? What next?" Those are our only questions, for we hate to admit and reflect upon what misery our optimism and our programs of action have inflicted upon other persons and upon nature. The conservatives are proud of the successes which they and their fathers have brought to pass. The revolutionaries want to see different and new successes. They look for "God's activity in history" and want to be "where things are happening most dynamically."
Both stem from the same stock and sit in the same boat. Who is their God? He is the God of action, the strong God ever on the side of the stronger battalions, the God who wins battles and leads his own to victory. He is the idol of mankind's "history of success." This God is power, and only successful faith makes an impression. What follows from the divinity of this God for the humanity of life? Life then means only acting and producing, making and prevailing. This one-sided orientation toward action and success, however, makes men inhuman and represses the other weaker and more sensitive side of life. From this perspective, those who suffer are sick; those who weep and mourn show no stamina. The world has nothing more to say to us. It does not touch us. One can do with the world what one wants. No despair need tear at our hearts. We become hard in the give and take of life. The suffering of others makes no impression on us. Love is no longer a passion, but only a sexual act.
The man of success does not weep, and he keeps smiling only out of courtesy. Coldness is his style. That which his activity demands he calls "good"; that which hinders his success is "bad." The other man is simply his competitor in the struggle for existence. "Survival of the fittest" is his eschatology. Just as he wants to control the world, so also he holds himself under self-control. In short, he who believes in the God of action and success becomes an apathetic man. He takes no more notice of the world, of other men, or of his emotions. He remains oblivious to the suffering his actions cause. He does not want to know about that and represses crucifying experiences from his life.
The God of success and the apathetic man of action completely contradict what we find at the core of Christianity: the suffering God and the loving, vulnerable man. On the other hand, the crucified God contradicts the God of success and his idol-worshippers all the more totally. He contradicts the officially optimistic society. He also contradicts the revolutionary activism of the sons of the old establishment. "The old rugged cross" contradicts the old and the new triumphal theology (theologia gloria) which we produce in the churches in order to keep pace with the transformations of an activistic and rapidly changing society.
We, too, find the memory of the crucified God discomforting. We gladly falsify it by changing the cross into an idol of our driving practical optimism in various crusades. As Douglas Hall has written: "The greatest misfortune would be if Christians used the Theology of Hope as just another religious aid for avoiding the experience of the cross that many in our sector of the battlefield can no longer avoid."In fact, there is no true theology of hope which is not first of all a theology of the cross. There will be no new hope for humanity, if it does not arise from the destruction of the apathetic "man of action" through a recognition of the suffering that he causes. Apathetic existence must be changed into its opposite: an existence of pathos leading to sympathy, sensitivity, and love. There will be no Christian, that is, no liberating theology without the life giving memory of the suffering of God on the cross.
Two hundred years ago, European society was already travelling the optimistic and erroneous path of active world improvement. For the Enlightenment period, the world of nature, principles, and ideas was a reflection of the power and glory of God. If man would only correspond morally to this glorious world of God, then the kingdom of God would be realized! Then in 1755 came the famous Lisbon earthquake, and optimism collapsed, reverting into pessimism and even nihilism.
The corresponding "earthquakes" of our time are not found in nature and physical evil, but rather in history and in inhuman evil. For my people, as executioners, and for the Jews, as victims, it is Auschwitz. As a German I do not have the right to say it, but for the American people, as executioners, and for the Vietnamese, as victims, it may be called Vietnam, not to mention the sad history of slavery between white and black in western civilization. For us who are white, rich, and dominant, it is the cry of the starving, oppressed, and racially victimized masses. For our technocratic society, it may become the silent death of nature, carrying us to destruction. At this point, too, our optimism collapses. What will take its place? Cynicism and apathy?
Allow me to become personal here for a moment. Ten years ago, I went through the remains of the concentration camp at Maidanek in Poland. With each step it became physically more difficult to go further and look at the thousands of children's shoes, clothing remnants, collected hair, and gold teeth. At that moment I would have preferred from shame to be swallowed up by the earth, if I had not believed: "God is with them. They will rise again." Later, I found in the visitors' book the inscriptions of others: "Never again can this be allowed to happen. We will fight to see that this never again comes to pass." I respect this answer, but it does not help the murdered ones. I also respect my own answer, which I gave at that time. But it is not sufficient.
How is faith in God, how is being human, possible after Auschwitz? I don't know. But it helps me to remember the story that Elie Wiesel reports in his book on Auschwitz called Night. Two Jewish men and a child were hanged. The prisoners were forced to watch. The men died quickly. The boy lived on in torture for a long while. "Then someone behind me said: "Where is God?' and I was silent. After half an hour he cried out again: 'Where is God? Where is he? And a voice in me answered: 'Where is God?. . . he hangs there from the gallows…. (Jurgen Moltmann: The Crucified God) Full article can be found on the blog face page.

Leviathan

2008-05-10T14:00:00.000-07:00

This summer I will be participating in a Summer Fellowship at the Western Justice Center Foundation in Pasadena. The Western Justice Center was founded in 1996 and is actively involved in initiating, developing, and implementing programs in society aimed towards the dissemination of violence, through dialogue and teaching. The program that I will be engaged in developing this summer will be designing a Conflict Resolution Seminar for the Pasadena Police Department. Although I believe that I have a healthy critique of the overall function of the police in our society, this program is attempting to teach police officer's how to handle and re-direct conflict within their own department and on various calls for service.

My critique of the police is not necessarily the fault of the police themselves, but the fault of our culture in its individualistic mindset which has subsequently transferred control in society over to the government, who have taken that control and systematically created; Leviathan. In this sense, I am referring to the Enlightenment use of the word Leviathan, used by Thomas Hobbes' book in 1651 entitled: The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, commonly called Leviathan, which has detailed the social contract which must be controlled by a "strong central government", which does not support any "right of rebellion," which was later supported by John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. This is in a sense Hobbes' own hermeneutic of biblical Revelation, in that Leviathan could be a metaphor for chaos in society, which must be put in order by God's instrument of divine order; the state.

This is a summary of Hobbes' Leviathan in his own words this describes his belief about the power of OUR state, please read carefully:

"The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence."

The goal of our understanding of Conflict Resolution then should come from the perspective of "the other". This "other" according to Hobbes should have their wills placed under the dominion of the Commonwealth because in essence, "humans can not be trusted". We then as Christians must acknowledge that out of this belief proceeded modernity and as we continue to move towards post-modernity we be careful to understand that we see "the other" through our worldview and the lens which has been created through the social structure of what Hobbes has detailed above. This "Commonwealth" which Hobbes created is in fact the Roman state wrapped in a new package and presented to humanity as that which will bring the "peace" which we desire. The very peace which we desire can in fact create another system which will justify the suppression of ideas based upon our belief in a "universal umbrella of logic" which will define how we act towards anyone who may disagree with us. To quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer he stated,

"The mistake of Anglo-Saxon thought is the subordination of truth and justice to the ideal of peace. Indeed, such a view assumes that the very existence of peace is proof that truth and justice have prevailed. Yet such a view is illusory just to the extent that the peace that is the reality of the Gospel is identified with the peace based on violence. No peace is peace but that which comes through the forgiveness of sins. Only the peace of God preserves truth and justice. So “neither a static concept of peace (Anglo-Saxon thought) nor even a static concept of truth (the interpretation put forward by Hirsch and Althaus) comprehends the Gospel concept of peace in its troubled relationship to the concepts of truth and righteousness.”

What can not be missed in this concept of peace as quoted by Bonhoeffer is the fact that it was developed on the system of Hobbes', Leviathan which in reality is always extremely violent. So, peace gained at the expense of violence is never the goal of peace. This is what Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said which caused so much controversy. Those who have participated in the system of peace brought by Leviathan have lived fairly comfortably, making the kingdom of God fit into this so-called, "structure of peace". But to those whom were on the receiving end of Leviathan, they were consumed by the "breath of his nostrils"!

Hobbes himself was reacting towards the wars created by "passionate man", his answer was to subvert passionate man with a dominant state. The whole point of the Enlightenment was the develope a "unifying scientific rationale which will allow everyone to agree", but when that didn't work, the state was created as; Leviathan.

So, here is the question, "How do we resolve conflicts?" Any responses are appreciated. Thanks, Love ya' all, Paul

Social Reconciliation

2008-04-20T12:13:00.000-07:00

This picture is from the Iraq Study Group! Scary to "think".

These three men are making universal policy in regard to Iraq, yet none of them speak any dialect of Arabic, nor are any of them Iraqi, and I am only assuming, but I am probably confident that they do not have a firm grasp of Iraqi or Muslim history. How can we in the church learn from these three men? Hopefully, in many ways.

I haven't posted in a while, but it does not mean that I am not attempting to "think through"(Oh, the wonderful Enlightenment) various theologies and existential realities, which deeply affect the elite classes who already possess the means and wealth to be able to determine their destinies. In case you were wondering, my theology will not challenge what the dominant culture has always thought, because I still think that we should continue to build upon the foundation that those who have, should be given more, and if they are not given more, we should develop new ways by which they can gain more. We have continued to sustain the already existent systems through new theologies which have perpetuated the elite to travel and speak and teach, because as long as we are not developing ways by which those who have never had anything, will maybe have these same opportunities to participate in the social systems, we have to believe simply that, "Hard work pays!" This means that after all is said and done, we believe that humans either make "good or bad" personal choices and their lives reflect either of these choices. We in Seminary want to "have our cake and eat it too" because if poor humans are not gaining opportunities through what we are preaching, then are we simply preaching to the elite? Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the German church was a "Bourgeois church", and has systematically pushed the poor and working class out and was full of the artisans and elite classes. If we had a board meeting in our church, would the faces around the table look the same as the one pictured above? If they do, then how the hell can we look down our noses at others, when we are doing the same thing?!

After all Jesus did say in Matthew 25:29, "For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. I love to proof-text, it always works out well for me. In this verse, Jesus meant the rich and powerful of course, because like us they valued "hard work" and the poor will have even what they have taken away from them, since having abundance is a sign of God's blessing and provision, based upon that hard work, right?

If Jesus was around today, oh wait, the resurrection of Jesus and the giving of the Spirit, means that the ministry of Christ is being brought forth in the earth today, right? Who would Jesus address in terms of people putting burdens on other people today? Those darn fundamentalists from the Bible Belt, those darn Dispensationalists, those darn patriarchal perpetrators of male dominance! Isn't fundamentalism developing doctrines, which we believe are "fundamental" to our faith, then promoting them universally? Aren't we all fundamentalists, then? If I do not hold any of the above mentioned gross distortions of theology, then I am safe from God's judgment, because of course Jesus doesn't mean me, he always means them, when he addressed the religious leaders, because I possess a theology of intelligence, a theology which promotes equality, (as long as I am the one promoting the so-called equality), but the point of this entire blog is to demonstrate that if we hold an elite theology, then we are perpetuating the system of inequality all over again, because without developing theology to address the past injustices in which theology was developed to maintain power and control over other people, how can we in Seminary look at anyone else and think we are "right and they are wrong". We who say, "But my theology which has come down through the generations and is a theology of tradition, and please never forget, "It is a theology of Northern Europe!" Can I get some whiteness, oops I mean witness." I actually had a professor at Fuller say, "I don't know why God chose to reveal theology to Europe, but that is what he did!"

When we look around our churches, I sometimes think that the people who maintain power and control in these churches are the same people who would have been powerful outside of the church, which scares me. I believe that we need to seriously deconstruct the fact that our churches and theologies are not developing us to care for others through service, to lay aside power, and participate with the reconciliation of people with opportunities which they have never had before. Wouldn't it be great to see the poor get educated through scholarships which churches provide, instead of building large buildings. Instead of adding a "Wing to the already large Library", we develop a program whereby poor students obtain opportunities to go to college, get free tutoring from graduate students, and this program is also integrated into the School of Theology and Psychology, so that these students and their families can receive free counseling. Just a thought.

Crime and Violence...

2008-04-03T13:14:00.000-07:00

Crime and Violence....

A topic which makes us all wonder what we should do? The answer over the past two decades for most Americans and most Evangelical Christians for that matter has been to isolate ourselves further and further away from where we believe crime and violence will strike, yet we are seeing violence more and more in "our" neighborhoods and in "our" lives and it simply can not be ignored any longer. The LA Times will immediately label any and all violence as "gang related", as they again did this morning, when the LAPD shot and killed a "suspect" (key word), then the paper this morning labeled him as a "gang member". I am in no way justifying the fact that the suspect shot at officers, but the prevailing opinion is, "Kill the gang members and we will live in a safe city." The Christian community is silent about this phenomena of demonizing someone who was just killed, in order to justify the actions of the people who shot him. I know that the police have a difficult job as it was difficult when I did the job, but this labeling of people has to stop, because it makes the person into an object, not a subject who had a family, feelings, interests, and was created in God's image.
Through my studying of sociology, the labeling of people by dominant society has always happened, but we can not ignore the cities any longer.

William Julius Wilson, as sociologist at Harvard and previously The University of Chicago, has written a book entitled; When Work Disappears and has traced the lineage, post World War II, by detailing, a historical study into the economic collapse of inner city neighborhoods in the U.S., between 1950 and 1990, but focusing mainly on 1970-1990, in hopes of looking at ways to bring economic revitalization back to the inner city.

Wilson has detailed how, “outmigration” of higher income families, predominantly middle class and working class black families from ghetto neighborhoods into mainstream society, has caused a definitive disjunction of social cohesion in neighborhood, where people used to form social networks at church, community organizations, schools...after the working poor left, the unemployed poor where left to "fend for themselves." He also points to the fact that unemployed poor are slightly different from the working poor in these same neighborhoods, in that the working poor have greater opportunity to attain economic stability, whereas the unemployed remain trapped within a greater cycle of poverty. Once this “social buffer” between the unemployed poor and the working class poor was removed after the middle and working class families “out-migrate”, and social organizations which once gave structure to inner city life also disappeared, unemployment would continue to increase, through the enlargement of ghetto areas in cities, by people simply leaving those areas.

Statistically, this premise of “outmigration” had been developing through the years, post World War II, but culminated between 1970 and 1990. In the years after WWII the federal government had “redlined” mortgages for homeowners in certain inner city neighborhoods, but favored mortgages for suburban neighborhoods, attracting families to leave the inner cities in favor of the suburbs. “It trapped mainly blacks and certain European immigrants in the inner cities.” The suburbs had greater use of land at this time, therefore many suburban planners made use of lenient zoning restrictions, through “tract housing”, making it difficult for “inner city racial minorities to penetrate.”

How then do we as Christians created jobs, or how do we reconcile the marginalized with the opportunities afforded to the rest of us? This is a difficult question, which I am wanting study and know in a deeper way. The above mentioned statements from Wilson's book was a paper which I wrote at Fuller Seminary about the economic revitalization of cities and how jobs need to be created in cities allowing people opportunities to work. God Bless.

The Black Panther Party (BPP)

2008-03-18T13:36:00.000-07:00

This paper will attempt to show how the lack of economic development in certain neighborhood’s of Los Angeles has given rise to gang problems, but also how the societal labeling of and use of the term “gang” denotes a negative response and invokes fear in the minds of communities in Los Angeles. Instead of looking at the formation of gangs as social organizations and outlets, as originally designed in response as immigration into the U.S. increased, gangs have now taken on a completely different identity which has been consummated by expressing a complete lack of hope in the system. For example to quote from the Founding Father of The Black Panther’s, Huey Newton, he stated that, “The Black Panther Party (BPP) was formed in this country in 1966 as an organization of Black and poor persons embracing a common ideology, identified by its proponents as revolutionary intercommunalism.”[1]
Huey Newton developed The Black Panther Party in the 1960’s as a reaction against the unjust economic, social, and political practices of the American Government, and therefore the Black Panthers developed a Ten Point Program to redress certain issues which were plaguing their communities. (My words) This Ten Point Program is as follows:
1. We Want Freedom. We Want Power To Determine The Destiny Of Our Black Community.
2. We Want Full Employment For Our People.
3. We Want An End To The Robbery By The Capitalists Of Our Black Community.
4. We Want Decent Housing Fit For The Shelter Of Human Beings.
5. We Want Education For Our People That Exposes The True Nature of This Decadent American Society.
We Want Education That Teaches Us Our True History And Our Role In The Present Day Society.
6. We Want All Black Men To Be Exempt From Military Service.
7. We Want An Immediate End To Police Brutality And Murder Of Black People.
8. We Want Freedom For All Black Men Held In Federal, State, County, And City Prisons And Jails.
9. We Want All Black People When Brought To Trial To Be Tried In Court By A Jury Of Their Peer Group Or People From Their Black Communities, As Defined By The Constitution Of The United States.
10. We Want Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice And Peace.[2]
The Ten Points Program was basically drafting a covenant with the African American community in which it integrated their interpretation of the United States Constitution with the Constitutions promise to give its citizens the rights which they deserve as human beings, combined with the reality of life in inner city America, which demonstrably showed massive differences in the above mentioned opportunities. This Ten Point Program reflected the formation of a gang for the positive growth of the African American community, through Black Nationalism, which was a premise that had been defined a few years earlier in the decade by Malcolm X. What then does The Ten Points Program, Huey Newton, and Malcolm X have to do with the problem of gangs in the inner cities of the United States?

I am currently in the process of designing a paper which can address the economic, social, and political instability of the inner cities in the U.S. Through my research I started to attempt to understand how the evolution of gangs in the U.S. have direct involvement with the lack of economic development and lack of accessibility to the resources of society. The Black Panther Party originated as a social organization, a "gang" per se to address these issues. What if "gangs" still had a voice in society to address their laments about the inequality felt and experienced? My last blog post said that gangs do have a voice in society and Wow; "IT IS LOUD AND CLEAR!"
The Black Panthers simply utilized the U.S. Constitution as the document to which gives them the rights afforded citizens of the U.S., such as "Jury of peers", i.e. those who are from the same class, race, ethnicity, economic background as the person being tried. This would be the logical conclusion of the word, "peer". Logic of course is only utilized when it benefits the ruling class. The U.S. Constitution also gives citizens "the right to assemble", which we in the Church hold dear to our lives. Rome would not allow its citizens to assemble in more than twelve at any given time, which in essence were pre-modern "gang injunctions." Rome (Caesar) didn't like competition, for more on that see the Trial of Jesus at the end of Matthew, Mark, or Luke. I see many of these movements today very similarly to the Zealot movements in the New Testament, and Jesus called many Zealots to be his followers. He must see something in their heart which reflects the heart of God in relation to injustice, but would bring the kingdom of God, not through violence, but through the cross and resurrection.

Anyways, I find many of these causes start because people are extremely frustrated with the injustices, but I am finding more and more that God deeply wants to bear the injustice into the body of Christ, which means that we as Christians participate, but we have another voice, which wants to transform the person and the structures to reflect God's love. God's love is demonstrated in the incarnation of God's self becoming flesh and living with the oppressed, marginalized, and poor people. God though transformed humanity so that the anger and bitterness felt by said oppression did not destroy the people who were oppressed.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said that "Racist hatred destroys the blacks to whom it is projected onto, but it also destroys the whites." I find that once though we back away from directly naming issues, such as structural racism, many say, "Oh, good, now I can get back to the peaceful life."

[1] Newton, Huey: The War Against the Panthers: A Study of Repression in America: Doctoral Dissertation: UC Santa Cruz: 1980.
[2] Newton: War Against the Panthers.

Excuse me, Sir

2008-03-07T12:32:00.000-08:00

I have to post a short response to an incident which happened last Friday at our Fuller Seminary Book Store. We have been attempting to raise money and awareness about the crisis of orphans in Africa through a Men's Basketball League called Hope Sports. Hope Sports is a non-profit basketball league, which first and foremost connects people with sports so that we can participate in a mutual activity together, and secondly takes all the proceeds and gives them to Mosaic Church which in turn gives them to Breath of Heaven Children's Village in Zambia, Africa. The whole aspect of aid to Africa is a Pandora's box which I will not open at this time.

Anyhow, on Friday the Hope Sports jar is on the counter of the Coffee Shop as most jar's for charities are located. Inside the jar were dollar bills and other change. In walked a customer who was not a Fuller student and asked if someone could re-fill his water bottle, which they obliged. As soon as the employee turned around the customer reached into the jar and took a handful of money, put it in his pocket, took his refilled water bottle and left. This story is not to display the horrible deed of stealing money designated for an orphanage, because in my opinion this man is just as desperate as anyone for money.

So, you ask, "What gets you annoyed?" The fact that it was witnessed by other Fuller students who were sitting inside the Coffee Shop. Some of the students pointed it out to the employee after the man was long gone. I told this story to another person and he stated, "Well, did you want the students to grab him, what if he had a gun?" I will address the first part of his answer about "grabbing him and the second part about "a gun" in the next paragraph. Why, does it have to be either "Do nothing" or "Attack him violently?" There is a middle ground, which is confront him about his actions, speak kindly to him, maybe simply point out that the money is not his, say to him, "Excuse me sir, may I speak to you?" Address him with terms of respect, but pointedly so that he is aware that someone saw his actions. In all honesty, if Christianity is social, why are we so afraid of other people? Sometimes people commit crimes because they want someone to notice, to notice that he exists. Oh, how odd, someone would do something like that for attention? Yes, it happens all the time in inner cities across the country.

Gang violence is a perfect example. Why though do we assume that everyone in a city carries a gun? Has anyone besides myself and I don't count actually ever seen anyone ever with a gun? Seriously, I have NEVER seen anyone with a gun, outside of being a police offier. I know that guns exist, but where? Maybe it is fear which is perpetuated by the media and the police department which keeps people ignorant about gun violence, and keeps people doing nothing.

Let us look at how we as a society have abandoned the inner cities, as we chose to live comfortably in the suburbs, i.e. white flight from the '70's and '80's, excluding people due to skin color, economic status, or both, and by building "Housing projects" for them to live. So, the next generation growing up in poverty will gain the necessary attention by committing acts of violence. It would have been more efficient for the government to have allowed groups such as the "Black Panthers" to exist, since they predominantly were a political organization, speaking about issues of racism in the cities. Since people have no voice, violence creates a voice which we ALL hear "Loud and clear!" People from affluence gain attention by becoming elite and getting an education. Either way, in God's world both when misdirected (gangs as violent or education as elitist) cause the social death of any society. I heard a great quote by Hernando De Soto an excellent economist, not the explorer who said that, "Capitalism is first and foremost for the poor of society, not the elite, because the elite already have money."
Anyhow, just some food for thought. As my friend Corey Paxton said about this incident, "Just Do Something, anything!"

Bye Fuller Bye Bye...

2008-02-20T16:19:00.000-08:00

Last quarter at Fuller! After this quarter I am officially finished with my theological studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. I have stated, "As soon as I am done with Fuller, I can finally start studying." Being forced to study certain disciplines at Fuller has been difficult, since it involved pretending to be concerned about issues which I am not concerned. I think Seminary spreads people too thin, since it is completely impossible to study everything, so why not focus and study a certain discipline. This is considered a "concentration." I am convinced though that merely studying does not change behavior, nor does it make anyone more loving. Also, merely seeking God does not allow people, outside of study to be able to engage culture contextually, because they won't know how various traditions have engaged the culture in the past; learning, then acting accordingly. Merely following culture could develop into a civil religion, where we simply reiterate the Christendom model.

Kelly Brown Douglas, a marvelous female African American theologian has written in her book, "What's Faith got to do with it?" Black Bodies/Christian Souls that our Platonized Christian traditions have caused our faith to demonize the black body. Separating the "flesh from the Spirit" can cause us to believe that our human flesh is evil, which is not what Paul meant in Romans. She has contended that this Platonic thought influenced Christendom and is therefore a damaging force in Christianity, because if the cross is the dominant paradigm of our faith, then if the cross should be demonstrated by societal power, it could become a part of this civil religion. We could then use the cross as justification to sacrifice that which we have demonized, which is usually found in "the other". Kelly Brown Douglas also points to Augustine as the one theologian most influentail in developing Platonized Christianity into a Christian dogma, through the Nicene/Chalcedonian confessions. She points to the fact that why is the life of Jesus not discussed in the Nicene Creed? Her answer is that Jesus' life doesn't matter in Platonized Christianity, because "the cross" had become to dominant symbol of promoting power of other people.

I too continually struggle against my own projection onto "the other", because it is easier to project our anger, frustration, and insecurities onto other people, whom we consider lower than us, than to deal with them, face the reality in our life, and in turn as Miroslav Volf says in Exclusion and Embrace, "understand God's truth inside the reality of our life." I think that this is a beautiful statement because reality is "frickin' difficult sometimes!" We must face that we have objectified people, not treated other human beings as a subject, meaning that they think, feel, and desire to be treated as human beings and that I continually place my own desires for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (or property) above my understanding that "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it." (Psalm 24:1 and I Corinthians 10:26) Of course I am speaking out of my own experience, but I use the term "we."

In one of my classes today I referenced racism in regards to societal factors which do not allow the poor to participate in activities which cost a lot of money, therefore many of the poor are relegated to activities which incorporate much more communal living. I was told that I was "wrong" on three different points in regard to economics. I embrace being wrong and it being pointed out, because I said, "Finally, someone cares enough to say that I am wrong or that I bring up a good point."
I can't pretend I didn't chuckle a bit though, because in Scripture I see those who exclude others, especially as a result of wealth being one day "shut out" themselves from the eschatological kingdom. We need to start looking at the activities in our lives to see if our daily activities reflect communal living or not. If they don't, then we should start to question whether our benefits are from God, or part of my human greed. If I am participating in communal activities, even if they are small, this is a great start towards the inclusiveness of the kingdom. If my activities simply reflect greater cultures obsession with wealth, I should reflect upon this so that it does not draw me away from the eschatological kingdom in the here and now. (N.T. Wright)

The Bottom Billion

2008-02-12T11:08:00.000-08:00

Does God think differently than we do? This is of course a simple question. LOL. I am reading a book entitled The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier in which it details that 1/6 of the population of the world lives in "extreme poverty", which is below $1.00 a day. Extreme poverty is something which plagues our world, because the reality is that "it kills". The people who live in extreme poverty will die. In the 1800's, pre-industrial revolution, much of the world, especially Europe lived in extreme poverty. The growth since the 1800's until now has increased in the developed nations, at least in the U.S. Twenty-five fold. From 1820 to 1998, the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 1.7 percent per year with per-capita income rising from $1200.00 per person to $30,000 per person. African nations did grow, but only about .7 percent per year. (Jeffrey Sachs, The End of Poverty) The two fastest growing economies in the world today are China and India, not the U.S., so this does mean that certain nations can grow their economies that were previously poor, also note that China is still Communist, but has embraced a globalized market, so it does not depend upon democracy as President Bush would have everyone believe. Always with the rise of a global market, there is a corresponding rise of global abuses, drugs, sex-trafficking, slavery, human rights abuses. Many in the U.S. will decry these real abuse's in China, but don't address them in our own nation. (Just a side note).

As I am finding out, economic growth in certain nations, is so dependent upon the neighboring nations. If a country in Africa is "landlocked", they are not able to export, nor import resources, (capital) because their neighboring nations, either will not let them, or they charge high tariffs, to allow goods to travel through the repective nation. Having a "United States", has helped in the transfer of goods and services to neighboring states. Could this have been done outside of the Civil War, I do not know. I struggle with this issue, because it seems as though war destroys, but also sometimes brings economic prosperity to a nation, but I CAN NOT support the killing of people, so I am stuck. I therefore do believe in the partnering with foreign nations to keep investments in the economies of poorer nations. Africa has the greatest amount of natural resources on the planet, so to see African nations being exploited for those resources causes me pain. This is why I entitled this post, "Does God think differently than we do?"

The World Bank has charted numerous statistics which detail economic issues involved in our world, but the most telling in my opinion is life expectancy, since the ability to function, i.e. work, live, have a family, enjoy the life God has given us, is reliant upon being alive, another reason that war is anti-Christ, since it takes away the one ability humans have to be in relationship with each other and God, life itself.

If you click on the World Bank link above, it will bring you to a map which shows the Life Expectancy at Birth/2002. In red are the nations where life expectancy is 55 years old or below. The African nations have the lowest life expectancy in the world today. There are numerous reasons why some of these African nations have low life expectancy, HIV/AIDS, disease (malaria), no clean drinking water, poor sanitation, no economic growth (food). I sometimes get angry because of after European nations left Africa, post-colonialism, the African economies now had to begin to survive without the assistance of Europe within the structure of a European market. It is the great paradox of colonization.

What strikes me is that Jesus said in Matthew 20:16 "The last shall be first and the first shall be last", but this ending statement of Jesus' was in reference to a parable which involved the economic practices of a landowner. (Click on link to read the parable, I would love to know what anyone else thought) There is much debate over whether Jesus is saying that the landowner had a right to do "whatever" he wanted with his money (denarius) or whether Jesus is using the parable to show that it is unjust in paying someone so little for doing so much work (greedy). Either way, I believe that God sees things differently than we do. God will one day "wipe away the tears from the eyes" of the poor and afflicted and has prepared them a place in the "bosom of Abraham", while those who had everything in this life will not be invited to this place of rest. It should cause us a little discomfort in not knowing who God will justify.

Image of the Institution

2008-01-31T12:19:00.000-08:00

I have been thinking a lot lately about something I have entitled, "The Image of the Institution", which is not a title that I developed but is something which Scripture has developed through the biological process by which God made humans. I believe that God designed humans to be social beings, but our social standing is only determined through our relationship with other humans, institutions, culture, etc. Whatever I follow, I mirror it, which was the original design for creation to follow its Creator and mirror God, i.e reflecting his sustaining presence. Jeremiah 2 was God's call for Israel to return to the covenant faithfulness of Yhwh, but Yhwh had a specific claim against Israel by stating in Jer. 2:5 "...they followed after worthless idols and became worthless themselves."

As I follow a certain structure, that structure shapes and forms my thinking, until it moulds me into its own image. Miroslav Volf, a theologian at Yale has written in Exclusion and Embrace that "violence robs humans of their innocence and will re-make us into the image of violence, creating in us a propensity towards violence". Volf's thoughts are not developed in a laboratory per se, but have culminated in the fighting which he was involved in the Balkan's. My own thoughts concerning violence have also been shaped and formed by attempting to fight violence with force, and thereby being overpowered by the sheer magnitude of that violence, and becoming violent myself.

Consider the concept of race in the U.S. Whenever we say the term, "White", it must always be in relation to "black", since whiteness was a concept constructed in the U.S. to determine for political and social reasons who would be accepted into the elite society which had been developed over against the Africans who had been kidnapped into the U.S. Once this concept developed, there no longer was any thought whatsoever about using these terms, "White or Black". Society developed a term which in turn has created us to think in categories which were constructed because of prejudice. Are we then to simply accept the categories as normal? I believe the answer is yes and no. Yes, we affirm human beings as being those designations, because that is what we now are. But we also say no, because when it perpetuates the racial inequalities, we must stand against that. The problem will be that when we stand, others who have benefited, i.e. white dominant society may stand against those who decry racism. After all, this is what got Jesus killed.

We are created as beings who are transformed into whatever it is that we follow. Christianity should therefore engage the way we think about life, sociology, politics, and our relationships with one another. I think that if reconciliation is not at the core of our theology, something is inherently wrong. If we are not desparately concerned with facilitating opportunities for human beings to participate in the beauty of God's creation, then we may have a theology in a laboratory, not as a missionary. The apostle Paul's theology for the Greek world was developed in the Greek world, therefore, our theology needs to be developed as we engage God's creation. The Platonic thought of the Greek world is alive and well in Western culture, so we as Christians need to develop a theology which engages our hyper-sexualized society, by affirming our dignity as human beings.

Maybe because I moved so much as a child and young adult, I developed an ability to have a fluidity in my understanding the sociological constructs within our culture very well. I understand how environmental factors produce people to think in certain terms and their thinking can definitely be changed, but not unless humans are given the opportunity to connect with those we consider "the other". I have also been wanting to stop forgetting about the power of the Holy Spirit in the conversation of change. God's Spirit empowers humans to stand against oppression, because as I have already found, unless God is moving in our midst, we will be created into oppressive people, even when we are attempting to liberate people from oppression.

Why We Fight

2008-01-15T14:59:00.000-08:00

So, I watched another amazing documentary last night, probably the BEST documentary I have ever seen, entitled Why We Fight. It takes place during the Iraq War (Oh wait, that war is still going on) and it traces the history of the past fifty years involving military conflicts in foreign nations and why we have been involved. It shows also a dramatic "conversion" of a man, a former NYPD Sgt. and also a Vietnam Veteran, who lost his son in the 9/11 attacks. Throughout the documentary it showed how he supported the Iraq War, even to the point of having the Marine Corp place his son's name on a bomb which was dropped in Iraq on April 1, 2003. This man supported the troops, until one day he was watching the news and they showed President Bush at a Cabinet Meeting, where he stated, "The 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War do not have anything to do with one another." The problem with that statement was the fact that Vice President Cheney had drawn a definitive link approximately one year before between 9/11, Al-Qaeda, and Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction." The man who lost his son said that he was so enraged about his son's death that he simply wanted vengeance, he wanted as many dead bodies as possible, and if Iraq was the culprit, we needed to "kill them!" His attitude and heart were turned by the end of the documentary to feelings of sorrow over his "blind" support for the war. He said that he is from the "old school", which in my opinion means unquestioning allegiance to the state, which promises to secure safety, as violently as necessary. Don't worry, Rome did the same thing. (Oh, wait, they don't exist anymore.) In theological terms we might call those who seem so different from us "the other". Today it may be Iraqi's and how does God interact with "the other", i.e. those who do not claim allegiance to our God? I believe God calls out to them and desires that our's and their vengeance, anger, and acts of violence be expressed in a language to him. He is continually seeking those who will cry out to him in times of fear and anger, those are "the other".

These feelings are normal for an act of aggression, such as the 9/11 attacks. People are confused, scared, and unsure why anyone would hate us, and they wanted answers. The problem is they were not spoken to with compassion, but were told, "This is why people hate us, because we are free and you are not." I had to research the history myself in order to understand the violence in this country.
This documentary (biased, as all documentaries are) traces the history of our interaction with Iraq and it's massive oil reserves from the 1950's onward. It showed how we used Saddam Hussein and showed Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam in the 80's, shaking his hand when he was our friend, over against our enemy; "Iran". This documentary even showed a clip from Osama Bin Laden who said that he did not like Saudi Arabia "using" the U.S. to maintain power against Iraq, during the time period when Iraq attacked Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. Osama either felt as if the U.S. was being inevitably drawn into a conflict in the Middle East, or he thought that Saudi Arabia as a Muslim Nation should not be making deals with the U.S. (It was not explained either way in the documentary)

Saddam became enemy #1 when he attacked Kuwait, because he was one step closer to possibly taking over Saudi Arabia and therefore controlling the Middle East's two largest Oil Reserves.
How does any of this have to do with "freedom". Well, it actually does. We as Americans define freedom as security, i.e. security as defined over the last forty-five years as the U.S.'s "Industrial Military Complex", which was a phrase coined by Eisenhower at the end of his term in office. In order to continue to secure our own freedom, we must establish our imperial agenda in countries where we know we can dominate. The "no standing armies" from our Constitution was also mentioned, which having "standing armies" in foreign nations would violate our own Constitution.
We never "attacked" the Soviet Union or East Germany during the Cold War years, because it would not benefit us to attack a nation which has the power to fight back. Cheney was quoted as saying in this movie that at the end of the Cold War era, the U.S. is now has the foremost power in the world and we must preserve that power.
There is a theme which dominates the discussion, even today, and that is of "power". If we have all this power, will it ever affect another nation? If it does affect another nation, are we concerned about their freedom? We as a nation have accepted the bloody revolutions fought over how this country would be governed as perfectly normal. If we have so easily accepted this premise, then it becomes very easy for us to #1, make sure we as a nation never again experience those revolutions, and #2 believe that other nations must experience blood before they can be "free."

We should not fear.

2008-01-02T15:48:00.000-08:00

So, I listen to talk radio sometimes. Not Rush Limbaugh or Michael Medved, but Calvary Chapel. I do it mainly because I am naturally a curious person, but sometimes I do not agree with what I hear on the radio from Calvary Chapel. I know that sounds harsh, but hearing about how angry God is with creation simply makes me squirm. When Calvary Chapel initially was founded it was to attract hippies and outcast's to Jesus Christ, but I do not hear that message from them anymore. I was listening to a sermon today from Calvary Chapel, Pasadena and I only heard the end in which the preacher said, "...and the reason that heresy entered into the church was a direct result of women..." What about Marcion, the Gnostics, Pelagius, none of them were women and they were the causes of great amounts of heretical teachings in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries?
I am making a judgment call because I did not hear the context of what he was saying, but in all actuality should it really matter that I didn't hear the context, I mean are you kidding? The preacher then reiterated the I Timothy passage which prohibits women from teaching and says that the context does not matter, i.e. I Timothy was a letter written about Ephesus issues with the temple goddesses and the goddess Diana, but simply that the Bible is the Word of God and it does not change. For more on those issues, N.T. Wright has written about them, and if you only want to read the I Timothy section, scroll down to point # five: click here to read.
The Calvary Chapel Pastor then said, "Men today need to stop being afraid and speak the truth, because it is the Women's Liberation movement which has caused most of the problems today." I also named this blog, "We should not fear", because in my humble opinion fear drives people to preach these sermons. They probably are truly afraid that if they do not hold to what they believe in a strict, literal, interpretation of Scripture as the Word of God, people will fall away from God. I think that if people obey God, NOT out of love for him and all the amazing actions which God has initiated in creation, but instead through an obedience, derived out of fear of "losing control"; life will eventually overwhelm people and the control which they believed they possessed will overcome them. So, the main issue is control, i.e dominance. I hope this makes sense.

What I hear this pastor preaching is that, 'These are simply the Absolute Truths of Scripture, never to change, never to be contextualized within our world, but applied in strict obedience, because God is concerned with obedience.' Of course I am being somewhat facetious in my above mentioned statements, but I still find it perplexing how the concern in churches is not to proclaim the gospel, that our God assumed the flesh of humanity in the life of the Lord Jesus the Christ, then absorbed into his own body the violence of humanity exhibited towards God, died the death of a criminal on a cross, forsaken by humanity, and through the resurrection from the dead was vindicated by God, proclaiming that death has no power over God.

Why is that not the message which we proclaim in our churches. Why are we not talking about living intentionally as the community of faith: sharing, loving, learning to trust each other, and learning to trust in the grace which God has given to us for each day. I heard another person on Christian radio question a caller when the caller talked about how consumerism has created us to believe that we can purchase anything we desire. The Christian radio announcer did not think that being able to buy anything we want is NOT a Christian principle.

In reference to speaking though about the Absolutes of Scripture, I believe we must focus on the particularities before we focus on the universal. It is important to God that our unique qualities which are created by our world be affirmed in Christ. I do think that the dismantling of our worldview needs to take place so that we do not interpret Scripture based upon my own sinful humanity, but we interpret in light of the community of faith. Stanley Hauerwas has a quote which my friend Michael DeFazio quoted on his blog, which says, "In Hauerwas' book "Unleashing the Scripture", where he argues that the first task of the church in America is to get the Bible out of the hands of individual North American Christians. This is admittedly hyperbolic, but his point stands: people are not capable of rightly hearing Scripture on their own - none of us are, "scholars" and "laypeople" alike - not least because we need each other to discipline our sinful tendency to see what we want to see, what will confirm our present convictions, what will prove our arguments."

This is why I enjoy the teachings concerning "The Historical Jesus", because understanding the history of Jesus enables us to understand how deeply affected God is by our world, "good and evil".
"The historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Christ (kerygmatic, meaning New Testament proclamation) must once again be brought into unity." (James Dunn) I will close with one last comment by Jurgen Moltmann in "The Crucified God" which I have been reading and enjoying immensely.

"His preaching was literally the same as that of John: "The kingdom of God is at hand", but the content of his preaching of this imminent kingdom was different. The kingdom does not come as judgment, so that one must anticipate it in one's self through repentance in order to endure. Rather, anticipated by the word of the gospel which Jesus preached and his living offering of himself to the poor, the sinners, the tax-collectors, it comes as the unconditional and free grace of God, by which the lost are sought out and those without rights, and the unrighteous, are accepted. It is this different and new righteousness of God promised and demonstrated by Jesus which separates him from John the Baptist and his repentance movement in Israel."
Moltmann, Jurgen: The Crucified God: The Historical Trial of Jesus: page 130: Fortress Press: MN: 1993.

Therefore, our proclamation of his resurrection must be stated from the "I"- "Thou" encounter, which means that we do not say, "He said...", since we would only speak of someone who was dead in that manner, but we proclaim the life of Jesus in the present. Jesus saw the past, present, and future in his own life. This is why we believe that Jesus opened the kingdom of God here and now. Anyways, I do not think that the pastor at Calvary Chapel is intentionally preaching something which he does not believe, but his "belief in belief in God" has transcended the present day call to embody the life of Jesus. "The only way to live with the hope in the present is to believe that God will justify in the future." (Miroslav Volf)

The Letter itself

2007-12-19T15:10:00.001-08:00

(Martin Luther King, Jr., Leaning on a Lecturn: March 26, 1964: Library of Congress)
This letter speaks volumes about the cause of MLK, Jr.: it is long, but extremely interesting.: Hope you enjoy, Paul M. Pace
*LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL*
April 16, 1963

University of Pennsylvania, African Studies Department

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 09:49:35 -0800 (PST)
From: "Arthur R. McGee"
Subject: Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Message-Id:

Aren't we just one happy family??

2007-12-11T14:29:00.000-08:00

This quarter of school work is finally over. I finished two classes, one was entitled Race and Identity in Paul taught by Dr. Love Sechrest and the other was Systematic Theology II, The Reconciliation and Healing of Persons taught by Dr. Ray Anderson. Both classes were amazing and I always find it amusing when two classes complement each other. The first class, Race and Identity in Paul talked about Paul's understanding of ethne (ethnic identity) in the 1st century and from that position we then attempted to understand our ethnic identities in this century.

In order to do that we must attempt to understand race as having in many ways replaced the language of ethnic. People in the 1st century were separated by geography, ethnic identity, and class, but the premise of race had not been developed yet. Race is a social construction developed mainly in the U.S. to determine for social and political reasons who was white and who was not. African-Americans during the writing of the Constitution were not considered "whole" persons, so race became a deciding factor of how we determined who had the "inalienable rights" which we claim so dear in the country.

From this discussion, we would then look at the New Testament, Paul's writings and attempt to understand the conflicts which he faced in unifying this uniquely diverse church in Christ. He faced many of the same issues we today face within our homogeneous churches, and how then can our churches which represent the "coming new age", not reflect this "present evil age" in which we live. How can we work towards unifying the body of Christ?

Galatians 3:28 of course is the main verse that we used where Paul says, "Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no male and female". Many churches have claimed that within this statement Paul is doing away with ethnic identity, but Dr. Sechrest claims that through this verse he is in actuality doing the opposite by affirming identity, but attempting to form a "third race" of people, i.e. the church as a non-homogeneous entity. Paul firmly believed in ethnic identity, but would not claim ethnic identity over against love in and for Christ. If we are honest and look around our churches, we will come to the conclusion that what we believe Paul was saying in these versus "may" determine the identities of our churches also.

The "neither, nor" in these versus was also only used in the Jew-Greek; slave-free; but not in the male-female statement. Paul used a "no" in that statement which has been interpreted as a possible dismantling of the societal and cultural "roles" which men and women have been given. Paul may be referencing Genesis 1.27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
Paul did not want to say that we are not "sexed" beings, meaning we still possess a sex, (male or female). Paul also believed himself to be "of Israel" (Romans 11.1), but as James Dunn has said, "To say that Paul was simply Jewish is yes and no, because he does claim the heritage of Israel, but not the boundary markers which makes one Jewish, i.e. circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath." This makes what Paul says not fit neatly into our modern presuppositions of what we think the New Testament is saying. With all that said, what does Paul mean by "neither Jew, nor Greek" in Galatians 3.28?

I will leave this question to be answered by anyone who reads my blog, since I am not sure if anyone does anymore.

MLK, jr.

2007-11-21T10:22:00.000-08:00

So, I did it again, I wrote another rap. The framework for this rap is derived from wanting to give credit to Martin Luther King, jr. for initiating the Reformation. October 31st is Reformation Day, so I decided to write a poetic/rap honoring the leader of the Reformation, MLK, jr. I know some would say that actually Martin Luther was the leader of the Reformation, but I have not seen how Luther's, "Justification by faith alone" creates a willingness to "bear the cross" and follow Jesus. It seems that justification by faith alone makes people rely upon a "belief in 'belief in God'", which is somewhat dangerous, since then I can believe that I am justified as long as I "believe in God" (whatever that means). Sanctification for Luther was somewhat non-existant, therefore, we need to rely upon others for the process of sanctification.
Hope you enjoy! Also, I am not finished, so it ends abruptly. Thanks.

Alabama, jim crow, why can't we know
Speakin’, preachin, walkin’ ridin’ comin’ all up on ya’
Wasn’t what we thinkin’ it was just too much for ya’
Holdin’ the torch, lightin’ the flame’ this ain’t Ellis isla’
Marchin’ on the capital, up town down town, does it matter to ya’

Blame game, no name, I know we ain’t the same
CIA who’s to say, I wouldn’t it past ‘em
Drinkin’ over there why they gotta’ stare?
What he was speakin’ they didn’t want to hear

In a non-violent protest he spoke of the injustice
Laid it out simply so we could comprehend it
Didn’t want to offend, but he couldn’t help it
Lyrical, beautiful, the man was a miracle
Lyrical, beautiful, the man was a miracle

Just as an outcast what he say come to pass?
Pushed aside marginalized, for redemption, pay the price
Civil Rights, civilized, beatin’ so unrecognized
Couldn’t walk couldn’t write snuffed out, prime of life

Proclamation to this nation, isn’t this God’s creation?
Holdin’ in the tension, livin’ the crucifixion
Incarnation for the mission; speakin’ of God’s whole vision
Segregation for the Christian, societial humiliation

Hearin' in that Southern drawl, we gonna' make you crawl
Stand tall, don't fall, in the South what gall
Usin' all that violence, law and order, Common Sense
Lovin’ on the people, white, black, it was the call

Hearin’ the oppressed, never did he dismiss
Articulate, communicate, why there so much hate?
Be for, not against, MLK crushed the fence
Holdin’ people in chains, walked with ‘em in their pain

This rhyme, no time, he paid the price for the climb
Up hill, slowly, white pride, apartheid
Speakin’ with confidence, trustin’ in intelligence
Callin’ people in the street, this cause is gonna’ defeat

Lookin’ at all the hate, who do they incarcerate?
Racialized, close your eyes, don't want to here their cries
Children of innocence staring through that prison fence
Make no sense, penniless, spiritualize my witness
Sit down, don' t rise, know your place, demonized
Liftin' up, head high, blood comin' out your side

Who cares, who’s there, projectin’ out, societies stare

The words are here, the marks we bare, why ain’t life fair?

Does God care, can’t you hear, what’s that, sirens blare

One more time, don’t resist, hatred collapsed in a brutal fist

Simply askin’ for the equity, promised in this democracy

Inalienable equality, who me? It Couldn't be that I'm free?

When will freedom ring? When will we "hear the people sing?"

Where, oh, where is our Martin Luther King?

Construction of Race in the U.S.

2007-11-13T17:41:00.000-08:00

This academic quarter at Fuller Seminary has been very enjoyable. One of the classes which I am involved this quarter is a class entitled, Race and Identity in Paul. It is taught by an incredible professor, Dr. Love Sechrest. This class has facilitated my ability to research the issue of race within the context of the New Testament, where I have learned that the term "Race" is a social construct within the walls of this country, whereby the political society needed a term to determine who was white and who was not, for purposes of 'land rights', voting, etc. This gives new meaning to the Declaration of Independence, since it states that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
"Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?" Therefore, the governed have to agree to the power instituted within the structure of the Government, but if certain human beings are not considered equal, then the entire Declaration of Independence does not apply to them.
This started me thinking about Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote another book which is not so well known, entitled Notes on the State of Virginia where he was seriously wrestling with the issues of slavery, but does not concede that Africans should in any way be considered equal to whites. It does not seem difficult to understand how Jefferson as a European white Enlightenment thinker would believe such a lie, yet many within modern Christianity look at Thomas Jefferson as the greatest Christian of all time, even though he was a Deist, not a Christian. He believed in God, but Jefferson's God does not involve himself in the affairs of humans, but allows humans to "run the earth". Jefferson has approximately 25o slaves by the early 1800's, and signed a bill to end the importing of slaves into the U.S., implicitly knowing that the value of slaves would rise, i.e. laws of supply and demand, then Jefferson sold his slaves to creditors to free himself from debt. Jefferson in his earlier career had wanted to end slavery, but his career as a politician would never have maintained such a bold move. Without actively moving towards justice, we as humans will become entrenched in the environment in which we live, which is what I believed happened to Jefferson.
Since this is now well known concerning the construction of race as a politio-social development of late modernity, how does this affect our theology concerning the engagement with God's creation? Should then integration, i.e. the church as another race of humans be something which we are pursuing, or should we merely let segregation continue?

Jesus to Luther or Luther to Jesus??

2007-11-05T14:45:00.000-08:00

Reformation Day was on October 31 and if you are like me, you had no idea that Reformation Day fell on Halloween, nor did you know that there was a Reformation Day. I spent Halloween by handing out candy to children, not mulling over how Martin Luther "discovered" God's grace. How on earth did Jesus make it without Martin Luther? Anyways, I am definitely not against traditions and to think that someone does not possess traditions is simply silly. We are shaped by our traditions, whether formal, informal, or tacit, the traditions of our churches can not and must not be ignored. See that is the point of the Reformation; not ignoring traditions which place dogma upon humans shoulders which prohibit them from understanding, comprehending, or seeing God in his glory. Therefore, Reformation Day should be spent thinking of ways to "Reform" our culture, our world, and our relationships.

Martin Luther of course did not "discover" God's grace, he discovered that some traditions, i.e. religious society was prohibiting people from experiencing God's grace. The problem in my opinion has become that we somehow believe Martin Luther had a "pure" interpretation of Scripture and understood God more than others. This again is to ignore the earlier statements that no one is free from traditions and it shapes our thinking, our lives, and how we interpret the mission of God in the world. Luther was deeply flawed and ignorant (not knowledgeable) in his worldview concerning certain groups of people. I do not ignore these aspects of his life, but I seek to understand why Luther made the comments he made.

In one such discussion, someone stated that "Luther was a product of Europe at the time he lived." This is true, because we also can not separate our culture from how we think concerning culture, but if culture is racist and I follow the culture is that satisfactory with God? Jesus was so angry at the end of his life because he knew what God's truth was and the ones to whom he had extended grace, failed to see that he was also extending to them, an amazing opportunity for life. Jesus said, "I will die on a cross to display this life". In many ways this happened with Luther, whereby he extended God's grace to a group of people to whom he believed God wanted to give life, but when they rejected his offer, he took up his humanity and derided them. Luther was an amazing person, who failed as we do, but in his failure, we must learn to live the life of Jesus.

Gas Station Football

2007-10-23T13:30:00.000-07:00

The other day I was pumping gas at a Mobil in Pasadena when I noticed two teenagers standing on the curb watching me pump gas. I looked at one of the teenagers who was smoking a cigarette and his friend said, "I know, he (the smoker) shouldn't be smoking near the pumps", which is something that had never crossed my mind. I was thinking to myself that he was filling his lungs with something harmful to himself. I said to the one smoking, "You shouldn't smoke since you look like a 'baller". Now, of course I had no idea if he was good at basketball, and yes, I was making an assumption, which I did believe was true, but immediately he smiled and said, "You know I can play 'ball." I did not have a basketball, but I did have a football in my car, so I reached in the car, took out the football and pointed him, to "go deep", at which point he took off running across the "empty" section of the parking lot, catching the pass in stride. His friend had decided to cover him, so he took off running also. They threw me back the football, then I threw a pass to the other teenager, then they started throwing passes back and forth in the parking lot. When they were done, they ran back over to me, handed me the football and stated in the most respectful gesture I have ever been given, "Thank you sir." I felt a little shameful that they called me sir, because it hold such an ideal of respect, I am not exactly sure why I felt like that?

In my mind I was thinking that I need to develop an organization where opportunities are created for teenagers who "hang out" at gas stations. The problem is not engaging in dialogue, that is the easy part, as I am sure most Christians engage strangers in conversation, but how to invite those "strangers" into our worlds is more difficult. I also have fear, because obviously I don't know these people and I have a wife which I of course need to consider, but I was thinking of creating an organization whereby people who may not have had opportunities are given the abilities, which have been granted to others. In honest reflection, I can say that it has not been my own "hard work" which has allowed me to participate in everything God has created, but it has a lot to do with the fact that I am part of the dominant culture. I want that to change.

Gangs of the Church!

2007-10-14T17:21:00.000-07:00

Personal Update: I am currently in my "almost last year" at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA. It has been and continues to be a wonderful journey. I have personally gained some marvelous insights into the inner workings of human development and interaction, as well as, processed my own faith journey, seeing how the "faithfulness OF Christ" has allowed me to experience God's amazing grace in difficult times. Kelly and I have taken on new responsibilities and we share our daily lives with one another, whether at home, at school, or at work, each area of our life overlaps one another.
So, enough about me. Anyways, I am currently doing some research on the appeal to gang life in the U.S. It is funny how some people can not understand why gang life is appealing to youth in our country as well as other countries. The question that I have encountered is, "Why do people want to join gangs?" To merely say that it is a "breakdown" in effect of the nuclear family does not encapsulate the overall appeal of gangs. Gangs are formed by a bond which transcends what only families can offer. Gangs are outlets for people to be able to freely express their anger, conflict, and sense of abandonment which they have experienced at the hands of other human beings. The Church is called to be that outlet for the anger, conflict, and therefore the reconciliation of being abandoned by other human beings.
When I was a police officer, the community offered within the Police Department, although sometimes extremely unhealthy was still more appealing than the community offered in the church, because meeting once a week could not provide the basis for dialogue which I needed as a human being to survive. If someone asked me the question, "Sum up Christianity in one sentence", I would have to say (although I do not believe it is possible to sum it up in a sentence) that, "Jesus liberates our language in order to express everything which is in us, so that we can be at peace with ourselves, others, and God." Without this language we can never experience healing, freedom, and release from sin. Gangs offer a language to others which may only be understood by other gang members and although unhealthy is still appealing to someone to know that they have a "brother or sister", i.e. another gang member who will die for them. Until gang members understand that God himself took their anger, rage, and death upon himself, and manifested it in the body of Jesus, i.e. THE CHURCH, what appeal is for them to walk in a different lifestyle. This is not the job of individual Christians to display this to other, but the vocation of the Church.

Fixin' what ain't "broke".

2007-10-02T10:04:00.000-07:00

The longer I am a follower of Jesus, the more I understand that Jesus continually invites us into his "space". When I use the word space, it is defined as the ministry in which Jesus himself is doing. The word "doing ministry" is thrown about in Christian circles, as if somehow, we are called to "do ministry" like I am fixing a car. "If anything is broke, we fix what is broke", whether it is people, churches, whatever. I have to confess that I have fallen into this paradigm, whereby I think that I "fix" whatever I need to fix.

This causes Christians to insert and assert themselves into the space of others, but never invite others into their own "space". I think that this happens because we have objectified the subjective, meaning those things which truly feel, think, change, reason, and love are not invited into our lives, but in some ways are objectified, things which we can control and attempt to fix. I think we should also use different language in Christianity in terms of our language of "brokenness". Human are created in the image of God, so maybe we should start there, (Genesis 1 &2) instead of Genesis 3. It also happens because we are shaped by our surrounding culture of the nuclear family and suburban living, this is the reason that it is so hard to communicate effectively to people we don't know, meaning make friends with people we don't know. (This is why so many people go to college, for the social networks)

Take for example the story in Exodus of Mt. Sinai, when Moses was on the Mountain receiving commandments from God, the Israelites, instead of focusing on the "subjective", Yhwh himself, they focused on an "object" which could be controlled, i.e. the golden calf. (Exodus 32)

The reason that I have been thinking about this concept is because I sometimes keep people at distances, because it is safe for me to do that, an invitation implicitly involves vulnerability, the possibility of rejection, so a lot of times we do not invite others to participate with us. Maybe if we started with this understanding, "Humans are going to hurt one another, whether on purpose or accidentally." Our churches have in many ways dulled our senses, they have created us in their image, which is an image of complacency, and image that says, "If there is no conflict, then I am becoming more like Christ."

I am also a person who continuously invites others into my space, so I continually have conflict. Sometimes I convince myself that the conflict is because of my sin or anothers sin, but then I think, "Jesus had so much conflict it is unbelievable, and I can be relieved." I still believe that these invitations into my space need to go further into the depth of God's care, love, forgiveness, and reconciliation though. Anyways, these are simply thoughts about what following Jesus should maybe look like.

Where is the language of pain?

2007-09-20T08:55:00.000-07:00

I have recently been reading a story about what has been termed, "The Jena 6", who are six African-American youths and I say youths, not because they are under sixteen, but because they are teenagers, who have been charged with an assault against a white teen in Jena, Louisiana. The reason that the African-American teens assaulted the white teens is due to he and his friends hanging three "nooses" on a tree; a tree which has an unspoken rule that it is only for "Whites". One of the black teenagers asked the Principle if he could sit under this tree, whereby the Principle stated that he could sit anywhere he wanted to sit it is "free country". The African-American youth sat under the tree and the rest is history.

It seems to me that the Principle has a responsibility to be aware of what is taking place at his high school. Was the Principle aware of this "rule", was he aware of the racial tensions? We have such an individualized culture that when these African-American youths reacted with rage and anger, (which I am not condoning), at three "nooses" being hung from the tree, after the African-American youth sat there, we can not understand his reaction. We in white suburban America say, "He should have contacted the Principle, he should have contacted the police." The Principle is the one who told him to sit there. Did the Principle set him up, knowing what would happen? Is that too far fetched? It is so difficult for people to understand how human beings function from a physiological perspective (adrenaline, tunnel vision) and from a historical perspective (slavery, dominant white culture), that when these situations do take place, we think it seems so "inhumane".

In our higher education institutions, i.e. Academic Universities and Colleges, there are numerous professors who will teach classes aimed at understanding the African-American experience, Western Culture, and Religion, yet in high schools, these classes are definitely lacking. We are not cultivating humans to develop a language in order to express grief, doubt, fear, anxiety, of which were all feelings associated with this situation, on both sides. Our culture has created humans to react with anger, rage, contempt, and violence, then when they do, we wag our fingers at them and act with disdain that they reacted violently. The U.S. reacted extremely violently after 9/11, this situation is NO DIFFERENT!!!! We expect individuals to react differently than this Nation, but in reality God believes forgiveness is for individuals and for Nations. The hanging of the "nooses" IS a violent crime, because violence does not have to be something which is actualized, it can be something which only creates a violent reaction in another. (Uh-Oh, that means that the white students "need" to be prosecuted in this case).

The goal of reconciliation to remember rightly, and remembering rightly surely needs to be done in this case. We need to remember that the Principle told him to sit under the tree, that at other points in the African-American students' lives they had been ridiculed, insulted, and possibly suffered assaulting themselves. In order to remember rightly we also need to know the story of Jesus Christ. Dr. Ray Anderson of Fuller Theological Seminary has said that the fullness of Jesus' humanity and Deity was found when he cried out on the Cross, "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabacthani?", "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Why are we as Christians not developing this language in other humans? Probably because we don't have this language ourselves. The Civil Rights Movement with Martin Luther King, Jr. was exactly that, to form a language which had not been know before. It is in the heart of God for humans to finally speak about what is in them, it frees us from bondage.

Jesus forgave because it is in the heart of God to forgive and offer this gift of forgiveness to all humans, all nations, the entire cosmos. Through this offer of forgiveness, we are then brought to a position of stability, forming our identity in the one who has deeply loved and given himself for us, therefore calling Jesus followers to do the same for others. Reconciliation is part of the world to come, when God will "set right", the injustices done against humans, why not do it now?

"Remember" to Reconcile

2007-09-11T12:15:00.000-07:00

This is the longest time between two posts, since I started blogging. I have been writing a paper on Forgiveness and Reconciliation, but in the midst of writing the paper, I took a break and watched The Bourne Identity. There were so many aspects to this movie which I missed the first time I saw it. I never truly understood that the reason Jason Bourne could not remember anything in the movie was that he had to forget his life in order to be able to function. I have been thinking about remembering, since I also read a book entitled, The End of Memory, by Miroslav Volf, who talks about how and why we need to remember rightly in order to be healed and reconciled. I have known through my own experiences that this is true, because without proper remembering, the past recreates itself in my present, dictating what my future will look like. I also sent an e-mail to Miroslav Volf at Yale and he responded within one day, so I gained more respect for him than I had before, which was difficult, because I have much respect for him and his writing.

When I became a follower of Jesus, after about the first six months, I started to look at my past, and realized that I wanted to reconcile with people to whom I had offended. Jesus had removed the shame from my life, so that I was able to look at my past and understand that not everything which I had done was my fault. I myself had been a victim of oppression, anger, and violence, which robbed me of my innocence to violence, and created me in the image of violence.

When God appeared in the midst of the depression which encompassed me, he freed me from the power that evil held over my life. It was through this encounter with Jesus that enabled me to feel again and at times I was overwhelmed by the emotion that forgiveness brought.
At some point though, my faith became institutionalized and I no longer had to remember rightly, forgive, or reconcile, because following Jesus became only about attaining a 'spiritual' perfection, i.e. "living rightly".

Forgiveness needs to be social, if for nothing else, because when forgiveness is received by another human to whom we have offended, and we are reconciled, it gives me the ability to see clearly that I am truly forgiven by God. Unless we have reconciliation with other humans, forgiveness with God will always be questioned.

Connecticut Connection

2007-08-30T11:34:00.000-07:00

Kelly and I just returned from a too short trip to CT. As we were in CT, it brought back so many memories from having worked there from 1995-2005, before venturing to Pasadena for Fuller Seminary. When I was back in CT, I had many conversations, but I started to think after riding with my former partner in police work, "Who will embrace the message of the gospel?" I talked with many of the police officers and came to the realization that it is very difficult to truly follow Jesus and work within the system of the state. It made me think who the gospel, i.e. 'the good news' of God's kingdom proclamation is proclaimed to. The ones who have no hope in this world, God is giving hope to. There is so much turmoil though in the lives of humans, it sometimes makes me think, "Where is God?" I think that the stories of Jesus need to become real in the lives of Christians, first on the personal level, then in the corporate level of the church.

Kelly and I had lunch with my mom and her mom in downtown Hartford. Hartford, CT last year was rated as the seventh most violent city in the U.S.. Not a good statistic for a city. There is a huge amount of New Urbanism going on in Hartford, with the design of the downtown area, being built for the sake of foot traffic, where people can walk around in the city, interacting with the cultural milieu of Hartford.

Many of the quandaries we face within the structure and system of the church I believe have less to do with "spiritual" issues, or inner dynamics of church life, but have to do with the structure of suburban life. The suburbs do not produce an environment of interaction or engagement with the culture at large. I could probably open my garage door, drive my car to my work, leave work, drive my car back home, close my garage door, and never interact with another person, other than my family members.

There is a new Community College in Hartford, we toured called Capital Community College. The ethnicity of the college is representative of the ethnicity of Hartford. I was excited to see this College, developed in the middle of downtown Hartford, and I could feel the excitement of the students at this new college. It is always exciting to see students who are contributing to the development of the city in which they live.

"Freely you have received, now freely give." (Matthew 10:8) I have thought that this verse meant only 'spiritual' gifts, but it means whatever we 'possess', we 'possess' it from God, who has liberally extended all things to us, now we should liberally extend all to anyone who has need.

Preseason College Football: Rutgers #16

2007-08-18T11:44:00.000-07:00

Last season, Rutgers University, the State University of New Jersey, made its first football Bowl appearance in 137 years, playing Kansas State in the 2006 Texas Bowl to an impressive 37-10 win. Although Rutgers last year was in the competition for the BCS, with an 11-2 overall record, after beating sixth ranked Louisville, they eventually lost to West Virginia, knocking them out of contention. Rutgers has returning running back Ray Rice who adds an incredible speed dimension to Rutgers' overall program. Head coach Greg Schiano had previously said that he wanted to make Rutgers football better by recruiting from within the state of New Jersey, because New Jersey (in my words) is a "hotbed of athletic talent". Of course I am saying that because I went to high school in New Jersey, and the level of competition is phenomenal.
Rutgers opens the season on August 30th against Buffalo. While the competitive level of the teams Rutgers plays in the Big East is definitely lacking, if they continue to win, they will be able to move into either a tougher conference or play better teams.
For the entire season to honor Rutgers Football, I have changed the border font to the closest color to Scarlet, since Rutgers are the Scarlet Knights.

prophet to Prophet...dust to Rain

2007-08-15T12:26:00.000-07:00

The book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew Scriptures has absolutely transformed so much of what I think about Jesus. As I read Jeremiah, chapter 2 always grips me and I end up never reading much past it. I did an in-depth exegetical study of Jeremiah last summer, where I understood Jeremiah from the perspective of the historical context of which it was written.
So much of our Old Testament study within the Western Church is done through allegory, or spiritualizing what O.T. scriptures are saying, but I do not believe that justice is done unless the historical significance is thoroughly discussed. What is Jeremiah the prophet saying in our day, because the word spoken is not that different from what Jesus spoke. As James Sanders has said, "The false prophet never speaks of love for the enemies of God," which is true of the false prophets in the book of Jeremiah.
We read Jeremiah sometimes from such a "personal" narrative that it loses the overall effect that it was written to an entire kingdom, i.e. the southern kingdom of Judah. At the time Jeremiah was narrated by Jeremiah to Baruch the scribe, Israel was the northern kingdom and Judah the southern kingdom. Approximately one hundred years earlier in 722 B.C., the northern kingdom of Israel has been lay ed waste by Assyria and the capital city, Shiloh has been destroyed. Important to note, because when Jeremiah starts to bring a prophetic word in approx. 627 B.C., the word is that Judah is worse off, because she has seen the destruction brought upon her sister Israel, and yet fails to turn from following after other gods.
The main sin of Judah was that she placed hope in Ba'al, the god of fertility rather that Yhwh. Ba'al is the 'god of rain', which in a Middle Eastern climate is important.
That is why I can never get by chapter 2, because Yhwh is crying out in his heart that he loved Israel/Judah when she was in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. In a place where they cried out to Yhwh, "Do not let us die and he continually provided." The wilderness is not a spiritual place where we go to dwell, such as Monasticism, but it is where we live continuously with Christ. It is a place where our every breath, and sustenance is provided by Yhwh. When Israel developed the kingdoms, she no longer had need for Yhwh, until she realized that Ba'al was in all actuality not actually a god, because it could not bring rain. Fear caused Israel to want a king in the first place, but the heart of Yhwh was that they be 'wilderness' dwelling people. The kings by their very nature kill in order to maintain their land and way of life. The translation today would be "Sojourners and pilgrims". Anyways, if you get a chance also read Jeremiah 30-31, renewal of creation themes, as well as Climax of Covenant themes. Jesus started a "wilderness movement", or else why would the gospel have been proclaimed to "all" nations? In many ways, the Church over the past 2000 years has done what Israel did in wanting a "kingdom" where they no longer cry out to Yhwh, but kill in order to sustain what it has.
The life of Jesus completely embodies what Jeremiah is saying, which would make sense since it is the "Word" of God, i.e. the Logos.
Word! Peace!

WOW, it's cold!

2007-08-09T17:01:00.000-07:00

What's the temp. tonight? Oh, about two degrees. Good thing that I wore my thermals under my uniform. The apartment complex was unlit, but the suspects car was parked in the numbered spot for the complex. Do you think he is still here, I asked my partner? Ya, I know he is here. The apartment complex is leased to his girlfriend, but he is inside. How many warrants does he have? Three. He always runs; always, my partner stated.
I walked around the back of the complex, alone, in complete darkness, with my thoughts and the mist from my breath. Time was 11:00 p.m., and I should be off right now, instead of working this overtime. I could hear my partner knock, announce, "Police!" and begin a half hour conversation with the suspects girlfriend, as I stood freezing, watching the back door, in case the suspect decided to run. He has run every time we looked for him, but maybe the extreme cold kept him inside.
Finally, reluctantly the girlfriend let us inside, after denying for a half hour that he was in the house. As we searched her home, I could feel the sense of intrusion which we brought into her life. She was staring coldly at us, wishing we would drop dead.
As I walked into her bedroom, there was an eery sense that I was not alone. The other officer was checking another room. I slowly unlatched the button on my holster and drew my handgun, with a flashlight in my left hand a gun in my right hand. I walked over to the closet and I could hear the slightest sound of breathing behind the doors to the closet. I yelled, "Don't move!!" I opened the closet door and found the suspect crouching in sheer fear for his life. He was actually shaking, like a scared child, who was separated from his parents.
I did not let down my guard until I ordered him out of the closet and handcuffed him, but I truly and deeply felt sorrow for him, because his life was racked with fear, anxiety, and pain. This same person six months earlier during the summer had engaged me in a car chase, endangered my life, as well as countless others, to avoid arrest. Yet, all that faded into the past for me at this moment, because when I saw him shaking, every ounce of my being, identified with his fear.
As soon as he was caught, he immediately started to cry, because it was a time of release for him. I sometimes had to not look at him to avoid crying myself and all he could do was apologize to us, as if he was sorry for our inconvenience. He no longer had to hide, he no longer had to lie, he no longer had to fear. Although he was arrested, he was met with compassion and mercy, for I do not believe that God sees us as differently from one another as we see our situations.
As I study the life of Jesus, I realize that Jesus almost never brings Israel's past into the picture, except to show that the kingdom of God has dawned. Jesus is incorporating the past, to show that mercy is now extended to all, that the poor have entered into the "good news" of the kingdom, and that forgiveness is here. Jesus has an incredible way of integrating Israel's entire narrative into the culmination of his own life, I absolutely love this about God. God bless.

Personal doesn't always mean me

2007-08-06T16:22:00.000-07:00

This is a personal update. I like to usually keep my posts close to my heart, which are not personal stories, per se, but a testimony towards the proclamation of the gospel, lived and embodied in the universal church of Jesus Christ. Amen.
With that said, I simply want to say that being at Fuller has transformed not just my thinking, but the expression of what I think. We don't usually have to tell people they need to live out what they preach or think, because we do it so naturally. If we live in fear, then we will act in fear. If we live in love, then we will act in love, it is the natural outworking of either the Spirit of God or as Jesus said, "Being of this world".
Fear is the antithesis of faith, and is probably the greatest contributing factor of why I blog. I believe that fear drives people to do horrendously evil things. I am guilty of evil and have lived in much fear for most of my adult life. I see a lot of the reasons are because I believed that Christianity is only an inner war, raging in my own heart, pulling me one way, when I deeply want to go another. As if God were neurotic like humans. We then say, "Well, it is all grace anyways", as if grace somehow enables humans to sin, when in all actuality grace enables humans NOT to sin.
I am reading another Miroslav Volf book called, The End of Memory and I will incorporate his three books; Free of Charge, Exclusion and Embrace, and this book into a paper that I will be writing entitled; Forgiveness as an Ethical, Social Movement. Volf writes that in order to forgive we must remember rightly, which means that we must allow the perpetrators of violence to speak, because only through their words, may we understand that they too are/were victims of violence. Forgiveness can also then bring redemption and healing to their lives, because one day we as Christians do believe God is going to set the world right, which means violence, will be truly known for what it is, and we do not want to be on the side of violence.
Volf says that we can live "active peacemaking" in this life, because we believe that God is a God of justice and vengeance, which is why God is a God of love. God sees things for what they truly are, we see things one dimensionally. This is why as Volf says, "we seek the truth, but do not possess the truth", because Jesus himself is the truth. I hope everyone has a chance to read Volf, it is truly life changing.

Jesus loves me, but he can't stand you!

2007-07-31T14:58:00.000-07:00

If we boil it down, isn't that what we think, let's be honest!
Is the cross radical enough, or do I need something else?
This is an important question, because I believe that it should form and shape everything we think, then do. We as human beings are influenced easily, desiring to protect what is mine, maybe allowing others to some crumbs, but keeping the larger portions for myself. After all, God wants to bless me? Really, does he?
Will God bless anything that I do, simply because I do it? Isn't this recreating God in our image? There is a saying which goes, "God created us in his image, then we returned the favor."
The attitude of God bless us has profound ramifications, because first it creates an idea that whatever I do is God's will, secondly my will shapes God's will, not the vice-versa. We are supposed to be making disciples of Jesus, which means that a disciple follows Jesus, but where is Jesus going and what is Jesus doing? Well, Jesus is doing whatever I am doing? This is one of the reasons that we don't pray, because it really doesn't matter, because Jesus is blessing anything I do.
There was an argument recently involving the U.S. Government in saying that Chaplains could no longer pray in the name of Jesus, which incensed some Christians. Why would this affect Christians, I have no idea. The name of Jesus is not magic. First, the temple of God is not individual Christians, but the body of Christ himself. If we are brought into Christs body, what does this mean? It means that I as an individual make up a part, but not the whole of the body, therefore, I have to be participating with God, i.e. the body of Messiah to be doing, whatever it is that Christ is doing. If Christ is not fighting a war with Islam, then "I" as an individual believer have to make a decision to either participate with the structures and systems of the world, or participate with Christ, to redeem the structures and systems of the world, not through active participation with violence, but bearing the violence as the body of Christ, which will in the end bring liberation to the oppressed. I can not make Christ be whatever I want him to be.

Does this even need a title?

2007-07-26T16:48:00.000-07:00

A picture is worth a thousand words, in my case maybe two thousand, but I think that this picture speaks clearly of what my blog represents. Participation!
This entry is actually a dialogue where I was attempting to explain why I appear sometimes to be critical of the existent systems.
--My critique of so many practices in the U.S. and the U.S. church is because there are sinful structures in need of redemption, which prevent people from knowing God and I think that is wrong. Whoever said, “Ignorance is bliss”, was right on cue. When I am ignorant, I live in a bubble, ignoring the pain and difficult circumstances which surround our everyday lives. Scripture speaks of humans perishing for lack of knowledge, which is defined as ignorance. People need creative outlet’s to use their giftedness to draw others unto themselves, and in the process drawing humans to God. That is what reconciliation is all about. There are hundreds of organizations that we can partner with to participate with God’s reconciliation of humanity. Humans need Christians to be able to truly love them and honor anothers’ giftedness and unique abilities. We need to honor others, for their dignity is human, because we know that they are created in God’s image, but that image has been twisted, perverted, but is still good. I don’t know many people who would say that Tiger Woods is not a gifted golfer, or that Mozart was not a gifted composer. I believe that ALL humans have this giftedness, the problem is that we as a culture only recognize gifts which suit our own perspectives, for our own entertainment. Most humans have gifts, which by our cultural standards do not fit a paradigm which is relevant to the context of our society, but I believe God sees things differently. I personally have a gift for creative poetry, usually exhibited in either poetic rap music or creative writing. How many people in the Church care about rap music? If I am a gifted expository teacher, I would be loved and embraced, because it fits a predetermined category of giftedness, which we say fits the paradigm of scripture. I believe that we must look LARGER and outward. Teaching, prophetic gifts, apostolic gifts are God given and desperately need to come to life in the context of the Missio Dei, i.e. the Mission of God in the world. We are all missionaries, calling structures, systems, people back to the original vocation for which God intended.

Sports is a great way to connect with people from diverse backgrounds. I don’t need anything but people, a basketball, and a hoop. WORD! PEACE!

Play the game called, "Where's Jesus?"

2007-07-21T12:28:00.000-07:00

A field of opium poppies in Myanmar (formerly Burma)

I just finished the class, Reactivating the Missional Church taught by Alan Hirsch this past week. He wrote The Shaping of Things to Come and The Forgotten Ways.
Hirsch continually spoke of the statement, which I believe was Karl Marx who said that "Christianity is the opiate of the masses." For all those familiar with Opium this is a powerful statement, which I believe seriously needs to be re-examined. Opium is a powerful narcotic, with 90% of the worlds supply being cultivated in Afghanistan, by Opium Poppy farmers. Opium is used in pain killers, such as Percocet, Oxycontin, and numerous other Codeine like drugs. Opium is also used for Morphine and illegal drugs such as Heroin.
With that said, this illustration is not pretty. When Hirsch was talking about this many of us studying theology in Seminary immediately wanted to ask questions, such as "Does this mean that we don't call ourselves Christians?" I personally think the term Christian is dynamic, because, first of all it is not mainstream, and secondly it immediately begs the question, "What does that mean?"
What does the term Christian mean? In the early Church it, as Hirsch was attempting to explain it meant something radical, subversive, exciting, dynamic. It meant that the promises of the covenant with and to Israel were now fulfilled in one Jewish man from Nazareth, crucified on a Roman Cross, yet proclaimed as risen from the dead. Hirsch was saying that somehow in our Church life, this proclamation has gotten buried in traditions and rituals.
Hirsch believes that our Christology, (Christ centered existance) determined our Missional existance, which then determines of Ecclesiology (our Church existance). The Missional aspect is what is lacking in our lives. To be a Christian means that we are 'sent people', living in and among people, declaring in everything we do that Jesus is alive and Lord over ALL things.
The Western Industrialized Church has forgotten this message, because it has spiritualized everything so that people can not contextualize the message that God is in Christ reconciling, and Christ is in us reconciling. We therefore must live and embody the gospel to those whom Christ was sent. We can no longer hide in our jobs, our churches, our suburbs, pretending everything is completed.
I believe that in the U.S., our suburban, individualized, family centered lives have worked against the message of Jesus, because, "HOW can I learn to engage the culture if I only am speaking with family or close friends?" It will never happen if we continue to live separated.
It was an amazing week long discussion and I wanted to let you in on the dialogue.

CATHOLIC or catholic?

2007-07-16T14:55:00.000-07:00

I thought that studying the mission of the church was appropriate for responding to the Pope's comments this week. He basically said that humans are saved through baptism into the Church, the one Holy Catholic Church. He is going backwards from Vatican II, going against the liberal strains of Catholicism and becoming less ecumenical, by reasserting the Apostolic Succession, which is said to directly form the Catholic Church. (Jesus to Apostles to Bishops form the Catholic Church) Catholic of course means universal, with Christ as the cornerstone, forming the temple, i.e. one universal body of Christ. It was never intended to be a reassertion of the institutional structures which existed before the death and resurrection of Christ, but a community of followers of Jesus. Jesus' teachings seem to be clear about this formation. The Church of course should look different in various cultures, but need to remain true to its vocation as 'sent people', i.e. people participating in the Mission of God, who is already at work.

These next quotes are from a class called, Reactivating the Missional Church with Alan Hirsch.

What the Catholic Church is saying is, “bow down before us and this is the only place for you to be saved.”

Coming to Jesus is not an opiate, but it should make us come alive, make us start to think, feel, reason, love…………..It should make us excited. The Church must not though work to subvert our imaginations and bring us captive to its model, its authority, its leadership, not necessarily though bringing us closer to Christ; it can and should, but we need to de-construct as leaders the presuppositions, i.e. those things which we have assumed in our traditions for so long. Then people will be able to connect incarnationally with the gospel message. We must live the Word of God, which is not the Bible, but the message of the gospel, the "good news" that God has taken on human flesh and lives with and among us. We do not need to become something, before God dwells with me. That to me seems as good news.

“Poverty of imagination”-we can not think of new ways of reaching community, reaching people beyond ourselves. We are going to have to do things differently. Church will look differently for people. There is not one model.

Constantine is still the Emperor of our imaginations

The Pantheon in Rome meant: they would conquer another nation: and if a nation defeated another, they would say, “My God is stronger than yours”: I will take your god and put it in the pantheon which is Rome: I will acknowledge your god, but mine is stronger: Constantine still did this, but he simply thought that the "Christian god" was the god who was strongest. Do we still do this today? My God is the true God, therefore I will conquer your god, make him subservient, then we will be able to live together, as long as you acknowledge my God is the strongest God.