the underdog

I was reading in Luke 18, today. I was there a couple of weeks ago, too.

The truth of the matter is that American Christians, especially of the WASP persuasion, know very little about the experiences of the people Jesus came as champion for. Jesus came for the underdog; the socially, religiously, and economically depressed. As a WASP in America, I am part of the social, religious, and economic majority.

This makes things interesting when it comes to learning to live in the way of Jesus today.

haiti

Jeanne blasted Haiti.

I'm beginning to think there is a specific connection to this island nation so full of despair that God is arranging with me.

This is interesting. I did not remember this until now, as I type. Before I met Jen, she was convinced God had called her to Haiti. That perceived call ended up being a part of an experience that nearly destroyed her, but I wonder now, if God is looking to restore what the locusts have eaten.

Please pray for the suffering people of Haiti.

Intersections: Is Postmodernism just a White Thing?

Intersections: Is Postmodernism just a White Thing?

I wrote this in the corner of a book--some EC book, I can't remember which one--over a year a go, but had kind of forgotten about it. This is an interesting post, and some of the comments are definitely worth reading (this is not a plug for my comment).

I think it's about time I express some of my current thoughts, and even journey through and about the whole emergingChurch movement. I'll be thinking about it, and see if I can supply some words here in the next week or so.

part three of 3

3: Did Jesus die to vindicate God's law or to restore broken humanity?

I think the preacher may have misspoke when he said something to the likes of, “Jesus came to restore the Law that we had broken and shattered through sin and rebellion…” However, the thought struck me, and I know that thoughts along this line are somewhat widely held among Christians. The idea that Jesus was somehow persuading God not to unleash the wrath He so longed to release upon humanity is in this camp of thought.
Granted, there is some sense of Jesus appeasing the wrath of God on our behalf—substitutionary atonement. Yet, the Bible is clear that God sent His only son, because He loved the world, and to bring salvation. Jesus said of himself that he had come to seek and to save the lost. The mission of Jesus was quite clear. He had come to bring grace and mercy, because the Father had grace and mercy to express to the world.
Jesus was on a rescue mission, not a “saving face” assignment, which brings me back to the idea of vindicating and/or restoring God’s law. Yes, humanity has been bucking against the Law since it was given; kind of like Saul’s “kicking against the goads”. I like the word picture Jesus used when he appeared to Saul. The goads used to keep the plow animal in line would inflict pain upon the animal if/when it chose to kick against them. The goads were not easily broken. This is even truer with God’s Law. The more we buck against it, the more we are broken and shattered, but the Law stands alone, cold, and unfeeling. God’s Law is never broken. It breaks those who rebel against it, or it grinds them to powder, just as Jesus does.

part II of 3

2: I struggle with the idea of a static God.
for more from me on this subject : Proverbial Paradox

Humanity longs for purpose, meaning, identity, worth.I long for worth, a part to play in the story of the cosmos. Sometimes, it seems that the idea of God reduces rather than enhances the feeling of human, individual worth.

There are really two basic worldviews regarding humanity’s purpose and worth:

Materialism: what you see is what you get.
You are an ape with an overactive brain, and too many emotion chemicals. Real materialism ends in nihilism—there is no meaning, everything is blind chance.

Existentialism / Post-modernism / New-Ageism:
All of these are basically the same. There is no objective meaning to life, or at least if there is, it is ineffable. So, meaning is created. We create it ourselves in our fight against blind nature, or as a part of consensual reality, or through ecstatic (many times drug induced) “spiritual” experiences.

Then there are the Theistic versions of these two:
I will stick to Christian theology, as that’s what I know best. However, from what I can tell, all other theistic religions function basically the same, and non-theistic religio-philosophies are either not-so-new versions of the New Age trick, or an inverted materialism that ends in annihilation; nihilism.

Nihilistic Theism:
In most Christian theology, God replaces the universe as the blind chance in our existence. He starts the story. He ends the story. He inserts and discards us in the story as He sees fit. Our existence or non-existence has no effect on the direction, or the conclusion of the story. We are merely actors speaking our lines in a story determined before time.
This is the basic worldview of Reformed (Calvinist), and Armenianist theology. Nothing we do ultimately affects the PLAN. You can see this in the belief that we truly cannot oppose God’s will. If He wills it, it will come. If we cannot oppose, we cannot consent. We cannot work with or against. We simply are and play our role—the role determined for us. I cannot live this way.

Existentialist / Post-modern / “New-Age” Theism:
Existentialist equaling Open or Progressive theism; Post-modern being communally, rather than dogmatically driven; and “New-Age” representing mysticism. I find myself in all three camps, barring the Progressive variety of existentialist Christianity.
It’s a mystery. I take comfort in the statement that “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” But, there are times when that makes Jesus look very cold and aloof, almost ineffable. I want God to be dynamically involved in my daily life, not statically faithful to His PLAN.
Of course, what I want has no effect on reality, but I do believe in and worship a dynamic God. Am I orthodox, Biblical? I think so. I hope so. Somehow, someway, God is perfect (un-improvable and un-defilable), yet active and moving. The Bible calls Him the Living God; alive with joy and love and wrath!

part 1 of III

in church Sunday, a series of events and thoughts led me to jot down 3 struggles in my faith and intellect:

1: I struggle with Christian Triumphalism.
2: I struggle with the idea of a static God.
3: Did Jesus die to vindicate God's law or to restore broken humanity?

Today, I wrote a response to #1:

I believe wholeheartedly in the total and complete triumph of God over evil, and in the impending doom of "the world" at Jesus's soon coming return and judment. Jesus is the winner of that victory, and the judge that will enact the required destruction on the Day of Justice.
I follow Jesus as one rescued from the doom of judgment; resting on the grace of mercy under the covering of redemption justice. I do not, however, rejoice at the destruction of the wicked, despite my hope for restoration and justice.
I do not rejoice in that doom, because Jesus does not rejoice in it, but weeps. I do not rejoice in that doom, because it is my doom--a doom I have been rescued from due to no good work of my own. I stand in humble solidarity with those to be condemned, urging and praying that they, too, might receive mercy. Jesus, also stood in humble solidarity with us, and too our doom into himself. He weeps, bleeds for the condemned.
The Kingdom of God is a subversive power, not a strong-arm tactic. My role, the role of all Christians [the Church] is to love--to love God, and to demonstrate that love in relationship to my neighbor; friend, and especially, foe; rich, and especially, poor; strong, and especially, weak. My triumph is the triumph of love over hatred and apathy; the triumph of peace over angst and war; the triumph of joy over depression and death.
The Kingdom of God is here. The Kingdom of God is triumphant. I will work to see the Kingdom reign in every way I know how. I will seek for justice and peace in politics. I will work for harmony and friendship in my neighborhood. I will work for intimacy and trust in my family. I will strive for strength and encouragment in friendships. I will pray and give and live for hope and deliverance in the world.
I will not work, nor pray to inflict my worldview on "the world" around me. I will not demand rights, but I will pray and ask for them. I will not refuse rights to others simply because they offend me, but I will try with all my understanding to work for what is best for all; a world of justice and peace where the truly wicked are condemned and all rejoice at it. Even so, Lord come!

ruminations iv

The mystery does not get clearer by repeating the question,
nor is it bought with going to amazing places.

Until you've kept your eyes
and your wanting still for fifty years,
you don't begin to cross over from confusion.
..................................................................................
Awe is the salve
that will heal our eyes.

And keen, constant listening.
Stay out in the open like a date palm
lifting its arms. Don't bore mouse holes
in the ground, arguing inside some
doctrinal labyrinth.
...................................

Learning to let go.
Forgetting to grasp at God.
Easing into the gentle grip of the One.

Ceasing the idol-making business;
the god-inventing fantasy.
Saying fewer words,
and listening to deeper silences.

But, still I am active
in rest.
Desire is awakened, no longer dulled
by the pressure of attainment.
Need and want are one
in contentment and wonder.

semi-random blog of note

Awakeland (the blog of Seth Worley:
"ah, the blog. it really is a vicious tool used to convince people that they really are the leading characters in their own little movie. i'm pretty exhausted. this whole 'leading role' thing is getting tiresome and starting to make me sick. supporting characters were always cooler anyway, and ensemble casts were always more interesting.
let's quit with the self-righteous blogging. 'woe is me' is old and useless if all you're doing is typing it. i'm tired of all of this honesty and authenticity that only shows itself through the comforts of a website.
see you guys around."

----
just discovered this blog - a fellow coffee-lover it seems.
i really like his thougts here. i feel them myself fairly regularly these days. how do i be all that i am, yet remember that i am not the lead role?
this is the long and sometimes lonely journey of true humility:

I am what I am, nothing more, and nothing less, so help me, God.

i told you so

A good friend is trying to make a difficult decision. Say, she’s trying to decide whether or not to date this new guy. You are opposed to the idea and are somewhat vocal about it. She wavers and waffles, and finally decides to give the guy a chance.

You have the privilege of being right. He’s a prig, a snot, a jerk, a player—he makes meat pie out of your dear friend’s heart, and she is sitting with you now. She has moved beyond sobbing, and is taxiing to the runway of “bash the man for all he should’ve been worth”.

It’s temptation time for you.

…

“I

told

you

so.”

…

Out it comes, and you probably didn’t even think about it. You just said it, because you had the right to. Here she is tugging at your heart because of a stupid decision you warned her against. You warned her!

“So, what’s the big deal?” you ask. The big deal is that you’re playing a part just as perverted and evil as the player/jerk/snot/prig. You are a jerk. (Don’t be offended, I’ve been this snot-faced loser myself, far too often. My idiocy has helped teach me the lesson I’m conveying.)

Here is you friend: embarrassed (she remembers what you said), miserable (her heart’s been ripped out and served on a platter), and desperate (rejection is fun, until you realize it’s real). Here she is, and you’ve got nothing better to say than “I warned you,” or “I told you so?”

Actually, could you say anything worse? Here’s the moment for compassion and encouragement, empathy and hug, and you’re exerting your power over her. “Hey, it hurts doesn’t it? Yea, if you just would’ve listened to me, everything would have been ok. I know what’s best for you. You should always listen to me, because I’m so much smarter than you. Next time, you’ll listen to me won’t you?”

No, you don’t say all those words, but you get the point across, and she answers back, “I know, I should’ve listened to you.” And now, isn’t she so lucky to have you as a friend. She feels so comforted and encouraged knowing now that you know everything, and are more than willing to hang it over her head.

Sounds pretty bad, eh? Yea, that’s because it is bad. I’m in the process of learning to swallow that insidious expression of pride and power mongering. What good does it accomplish besides making me feel good and powerful in the midst of another’s embarrassment and/or misery? God is capable of answering us with “I told you so” at every stage of our existence, every moment of our despair. Yet, He never does. He quietly restores our broken heart and let’s us choose to trust Him as He sets us on a path toward joy. Let’s be imitators of God.

mr. potter...again. he's just too cute to go unpictured on a day like today. i feel lame posting pictures of my cat, but look at that silly face. how do you not post that?

on the topic of cynicism

from my journal 30.8.04

My issue = cynicism

Cynicism is an enemy of sincerity, it rejects sincerity and wars against it. Sincerity requires faith and faithfulness. Cynicism has faith in nothing, and is faithful to nothing, not even itself.

A ripe cynic doubts the sincerity of his own cynicism and destroys all beauty. An inquisitive heart seeks beauty--this is the truly open mind. Cynics live only to cast doubt and destroy faith. Cynics aren't doubters, but work to develop an atmosphere that fosters unbelief and pessimism. A cynic sees no solutions, looking only for problems.

objectivism sucks (the life out of you)

this is part of a letter i wrote recently

Cynics are good for a couple of things—desecrating beauty, and stumbling around looking for wisdom that they’ll never find because it’s sitting on their doorstep. Reason can disassemble beauty in a way, and you have let your mind do it. However, the beauty has not changed, you’ve simply screwed your eyes shut to have a more logical universe around you—darkness and purposelessness are most logical.

As for Objectivism, I think the best rebuttal is CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce. Self-centeredness leads to the implosion of personality. A person concerned only with expressing his or her own self has no capacity for joy (which is ecstatic, outside of self), no capacity for discerning beauty (which is always other), and no capacity for intimacy (which demands an orientation into the other).

In The Fountainhead, the protagonist (Roark) is an ideal of Objectivism. He is a man who lives only to create the buildings in his mind. People hate him because he refuses to compromise. People also simply avoid him, because he is a non-person; his personality is consumed within himself, and he has no capacity for simple friendship. Rand tries to pain a picture of friendship and romance for him, but it reads shallow to me. He makes a couple of friends that are semi-ideals of Objectivism, and a romance flares with an Objectivist in the fires of being perfected. Roark and his “lover” do not love each other. Often, their feelings are more of spite or even hatred, but they love themselves within the other. They bask in their own beauty as reflected by the other. This is not intimacy.

I think it’s a very simple case to prove that we are inadequate in and of ourselves. To live a life based on self-worship is a life devoted to increasing inadequacy—what is logical about that?

The greatest human urges are left completely unfilled in an Objectivist lifestyle. Honestly, I doubt anyone has ever lived that lifestyle. Rand’s forward to The Fountainhead expresses sincere gratitude to her husband, a task that is wholly non-Objectivist. She expresses her reliance upon him as an other to help her be and write to her greatest potential. This is certainly more than loving her own reflection in her husband. She was loving that part of him that was wholly distinct, the otherness of him. Love is impossible without distinction.

the best coffee

downloading a spyware buster...

i thought i'd let y'all know that i've found some great coffee.
allegro is a bulk coffee available at Whole Foods. it's fair trade, shade grown gourmet whole beans. the prices are good, too. so, you can enjoy a great cup of fresh coffee for a good price, while doing a little bit to help farmers in developing nations and save a bit of rainforest. how can you beat that?

my favorite so far is the Guatmala-Anitgua. the Mexico is nice, too, and i haven't tried their version of Kenya yet, which is my usual fave.

cheers.drinkup!

my list of influential books

working on my profile a little. i still have this nagging vanity that someday my blog will be widely read. what a schmuck, eh?

anyway, thinking through my "favorite books" just became painful, so i switched to "most influential". this is still difficult, for a few reasons.

1) several of my favorite books do not make this list, which troubles me. why do i like them so much if they don't seem to have had all that much influence on my life? of course, i can answer that, now that i think about it. a lot of my favorites, tell me what i want to hear, and reaffirm what i already am and think, so the influence is small. or, they were just great stories that i took a lot of pleasure in reading.

2) my influential list is almost 100% Christian, and skewed drastically to the non-fiction works. of course, as a follower of Jesus, books by fellow pilgrims should influence me, but i like to think that i'm open minded. seeing that "secular" books have had such little influence on me is mildly troubling, and the non-fiction skew makes me feel boring.

3) finally, some of the books that make my influential list are not all that "cool", and some even rank kinda low on my own favorites hierarchy. this, too, hurts my vanity. oh, the fickle self-image of a schmuck, what shall i ever do?

but hey, i just remembered a fiction trilogy that influenced me deeply : The Song of Albion by Stephen Lawhead. this trilogy began to teach me more deeply the value of a story, and moved me far forward in the rich, earthy variety of Christianity i seek to embody these days--alongside my mystical nature (that paradox is a whole cunundrum of its own).

these are the hands that built america

Jen and I watched Gangs of NewYork last night. I found the movie disturbing in many ways, but insightful in a few, as well. And of course, ending with a stellar U2 song definitely helps it. It was a good movie, but I don't think it would be correct to say that I "liked" it, if that makes sense. However, it did inspire some writing, and may inspire another post if I get around to writing it before I forget. If you want that other post, nag me with comments or something, if I fail to produce, since I know there are like millions of readers out there...

Anyway, before the writing, some random news. I got myself a copy of A Grief Observed today, so I can read it again and mark it all up, rather than trying to read my friend's copy again without marking it.

On to the writing......................................

Building America

In the end, a dollar, but whose face?
These days, we call it liberty, the aim of their guns,
but who took the bullets in that name?

I am sedated,
I am unsung.

The war machine hides behind many masks,
but most readily devours the poor.
$300 will buy your boy and oil the gears.

I am easy,
I am untried.

"For the Union", "For the Reich", industry must churn on,
and whose face wins behind a smoking barrell?
Whose glee, whose grin at the flag of victory?

I am inflated,
Iam unconcerned.

The aim of their guns, and the bullts in my face--
my $300 will not be enough.
These are the hands that built America.

july/august reading

July 2004

The Telling Ursala K. LeGuin

The Brothers Karamazov Fyodor Dostoyevsky

August 2004

Heretics G.K. Chesterton

Angels & Demons Dan Brown

A Grief Observed C.S. Lewis

Prophetic Evangelism skimmed Sean Smith

I really enjoyed Dostoyevsky. It's heavy and heady reading, but he makes such astute observations. One read of such a monster of a classic cannot do it justice, but I don't know when I will ever get around to reading that tome again.

The Telling was good sci-fi. A humanistic spirituality is expressed. The plot is not particularly engrossing, but the telling is quite good. It's all about the stories we live and have lived and will live. The best spirituality is based in stories, not dogma.

Lewis is amazing. This short journal/book is refreshingly raw, yet exquisitely insightful. I will be returning to this one again, soon, before my friend needs it back. Hopefully, some good posts will come in response.

And then there's Chesterton, what a card! He makes life so palatable, and so swiftly and conclusively condemns the mushy headed pluralistic tolerance of our day. "Be a man. Make a decision! If you're just going to wallow around in opinions, stop wasting oxygen and get it over with. Otherwise, get on with the business of living." {not a real quote}