seeking uncertainty

Another Tidbit

2012-01-26T10:20:00.000-08:00

Both Matthew and Paul indicate that Peter was married.

Your Church Probably Has a Website

2012-01-25T09:30:00.000-08:00

Official church websites also offer a great amount of information to its members and potential members. In addition to expected information, such as service schedules and event calendars, many offer downloadable sermons, in either text or audio format, and study materials. Some churches coordinate study groups via the internet. The websites offer extended community for members, keeping people in touch with one another outside of church doors.

More on Female Ordination

2012-01-24T10:40:00.000-08:00

You should check out Martha: A Gutsy Woman with Apostolic Authority.

Word.

Uniting and Dividing: The development of Christianity online

2012-01-23T09:46:00.000-08:00

Uniting and Dividing: Development of Christianity Online

The development and increasing availability of the internet has affected Americans in surprising ways. Business, writing, photography, communication, and many other aspects of culture and society take place online. Perhaps one of the less expected contributions the internet has made is to religion, and specifically to Christianity. Like many religions, Christianity stresses community, and although it may seem somewhat counterintuitive, the internet offers community to those who cannot find it in "real life." With the availability of information, the development of online communities, and the resources offered by the internet, Christians are able to assist their practice with the internet, if not use the internet to practice in their own homes.

Christianity's development online would perhaps not have been possible without the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation brought people out of a mentality that told them spirituality and salvation could only be achieved through the authority of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther posited that salvation was achieved through faith alone and proposed what he called a "ministry of all believers." When Luther began the movement, he utilized the newly developed printing press. Christians now had access to the Bible away from the Church. The reformation led to a more individualized religious practice as well as a rejection of traditional authority. The development of the internet, in many ways, parallels the development of the printing press. The internet makes information available to people around the world, as well as facilitates new forms of communication. It is providing a new channel for religion as well.

The internet provides religious information for Christians, making research more convenient. There are a variety of resources available for practicing Christians. One can find scripture online, in full form, from every translation of the Bible. Apocryphal texts are also available online. One can find church history through official church websites, as well as through other societies, such as those devoted to archaeology. The internet offers Christians community groups, official church websites, and learning materials. With all of this available on one's computer, it can have some very powerful results.

Christian online communities can be found for every denomination, as well as for those who would not define themselves as belonging to a denomination or are searching for one. The internet provides a welcoming environment for those who feel that they are outcasts. For instance, a gay man who feels shunned by his Catholic Church may be able to find a community of gay Catholics online. In this way, he can feel like he is still part of the Catholic community.

These communities are also helpful to those who belong to a more mainstream church organization, but don't have one within a reasonable distance of their home. For many people in rural areas, there are few Churches available because of the small populations of the area. A Calvinist in rural Utah may have a hard time finding a Calvinist church, for instance, but would have a relatively easy time finding a Calvinist community online.

Online communities validate Christians' individualities. The particulars of a person's convictions can be supported when they find that their views are shared by others. The communities provide acceptance for those who feel alienated, such as radicals, homosexuals, racial minorities, or simply those who are socially awkward. Online communities are accommodating of everyone's schedules. People who find that they don't have time to attend a Sunday morning service or Wednesday evening study group may find time, between commitments, to log onto the internet and engage in what the internet has to offer their religion.

The internet's contribution to the Christian community is not all positive, however. As people resort to the internet and practice becomes more privatized, the individual can feel more validated in their views, even if these views are of intolerance or hatred. In a sense, this can be moving Christians away from the unity and reconciliation that many have been seeking for hundreds of years. The internet can also lead Christians to feel somewhat alienated. Although community is offered, because there is no face-to-face contact, there is also a sense of isolation that can occur if one strictly practices at home. Because of the convenience of the internet, many people approach this type of practice with a somewhat apathetic outlook. In accommodating one's religion to fit a desired schedule, or fitting it in between certain activities, it seems to lose a sense of sacredness. Listening to a sermon while going about one's daily activities might make it seem less meaningful.

Evil Eye

2012-01-19T09:16:00.000-08:00

The light in your eye... the passage in Matthew (6.22-23) which speaks of light and darkness is better understood in the original language and context.

It reads, "If your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness" (NRSV).

The word translated here as "unhealthy" is literally "evil." The translator chose “unhealthy” because of the connotations of “evil” in the English language. However, if you understand the context, you understand the phrase is different than it looks at face value in English.

An evil eye was a metaphor for jealousy. Recalling courses on both Religion and Anthropology and Jewish Mysticism, I can also submit that in some traditions, the evil eye can even do one harm. Some cultures will mark the faces of beautiful children to avoid the evil eye. Protective makeup and amulets are also often employed. In any case, this passage speaks truth-- jealousy is consuming. When one can be free of jealousy, one can be free to love more openly and embrace God's light. When seen through these lenses, the passage also makes more sense with the passage following, which talks about serving God vs. serving wealth.

Another Tidbit

2012-01-18T09:59:00.000-08:00

Oftentimes the word "virgin" is more accurately translated "young woman."

Popular Christianity

2012-01-13T11:17:00.000-08:00

Many people's problem with God is that they're expecting God to be what someone told them God would be. God turns you into a bird, so you can fly far, far away. God picks you up, kisses your owie, and gives you a band-aid with Batman on it. I think this is the way that most Christians try to represent God: "God fixes all your crap." You pray, God responds... it all balances out. If God doesn't send you the Playstation that you asked for for Christmas, well, you get one in Heaven and that's why.

This is why I loathe modern Christian writers (for the most part): because they freaking sell God to us, like it says somewhere that God is going to save us all from bullies in school and make everything sunshine and cupcakes.

Then come the apologetics (because none of us are rolling in sunshine and cupcakes): "You see," says the Christian Marketing Department, "the bullies burn in a pit of fire and you get an eternity of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in Heaven. It all works out."

The majority of Christian Churches are enormously damaging in many respects. Faith is a beautiful thing, but I don't think that God should be expected to deal with anyone's problems (nor do I think that God is responsible for anyone's problems). The Bible is full of largely contradicting visions of God. Read Genesis, Joshua, John, Acts, and Ecclesiastes and you'll have a million different ideas and wonder why that stuff's all in the same book. Humankind has endlessly been struggling to understand God, so for some Christians to be arrogant enough to sell God as if they can predict that he will save Joe Everyman's family from poverty by magically assigning him a new job after his baptism is the most blasphemous BS to ever fly out of anyone's mouth.

It hurts so much inside of me to see people turned away from God because someone in their past told them something, because their church gave them the idea that Christianity means dogma and an end of rationalism, because they were told that science is wrong… because they were told/inferred whatever.

Maybe that's easy for me to say, because I wasn't raised within a religious household and I have a much more liberal view of God than most Christians do, but I would consider myself a pretty educated person when it comes to religion-- and just in general. My religion is not just some kind of leftover thing that I couldn't shake myself of after sitting through science courses and listening to the rants of my atheist professors (nor is it the result of rants of very faithful ones).

It's hard for me to pinpoint what I believe in, largely because my beliefs are pretty hard to pinpoint. I'm unwilling to make a lot of claims about Truth for a lot of reasons. I refuse to be that person that tells others what to believe simply because I believe it. I don't believe in a lot of the claims that most Christians dogmatically shout from pulpits and hand out in flyers on the street. I don’t wish to rigidly define my own beliefs to that they haven’t room for growth (aren’t we all still learning?).

…But I believe that there was this guy named Jesus, that he was Anointed, preached, and embodied God like no other being. I believe that the Bible tells a story of a history of people, desperately reaching for God and trying to understand God... and I believe that sometimes they misunderstood. I believe that the Bible speaks of a history of people following a certain God, but that certain texts are less historically valid and more corrupted than others. I understand textual criticism and how to apply it to my sacred texts.

I believe that Jesus' ministry holds more merit than any other vision of God given in the Bible. I believe that Paul's epistles are inspired and beautiful. I give the New Testament much more merit than the Old; I think it is more mature in the progress of understanding God.

I don't understand God. I have faith that there is one.

I don't know if there is an afterlife. I don't particularly care.

I do know that there is a world around me. There are many people suffering, many people wealthy, and many people living their lives apathetically.

I have had experiences that lead me to believe that God is loving, forgiving, and has purpose. Unfortunately, I can't really tell people about these experiences. They made God real for me, but they'll do little outside of my own heart.

I don't believe in the fatherly portrayal of God, where God fixes my problems and sends birdies to wake me up on the mornings of my exams.

I believe that God had some play in the creation of this world, but I don't know to what extent that is or if God is still "active."

I believe that the most gracious way to live my life is by praising God in word, song, study, and work. I believe in praying to God, not for God (as if God somehow needs my praise or God'll melt), not for me (because I don't think God needs to give me anything, nor does God owe me anything), but for the sake of my relationship with God… because praying keeps me living honestly with God, keeps me spiritually oriented, and keeps me mindful of the moral decisions I make. I believe in writing about God, because it's how I best share my experience. I believe in singing to God, because it's one of the ways I can best express love and joy. I believe in studying God, because to say I know enough about God is not only arrogant, but disrespectful to my person. I never want to stop learning how to best understand God… I never want to stop learning.

And work.

If there is nothing anyone can take on faith, the most "sure" claim is that this world exists. If there is a God and if God did create it/create us/create anything, then this is it. Beyond it... whatever, maybe… but this is here and I think I can know that much. If there is anything I should be working for, it should be this world because I know it's here and that if God created it, God must have liked the idea of it being around. I think I should be working for humanity and the betterment of it. I think I should be helping people where I can, whether that means being there for others when they are hurting or whether it means giving money to women trying to make lives for themselves in Africa. I believe that that means trying to respect this earth and enjoy nature, whether that means not littering, driving a more gas-efficient car, or giving money to causes which try to save nature.

I'm no saint. I know that. I know that there are a million things I could be doing more with my time, my life and my money. I know that. It's important to at least be conscious of these things, to at least give a crap about the world beyond my own family and social circle.

I am not a starving child in a country with no water. I have a computer, which says a lot more than most of us spoiled white people think it does. I am one of the richest people in the world, even if it doesn't feel that way. For that, I should be grateful.

Really, I'm just following tangents because I've been in that type of mood lately, but crap, I'm sick of people generalizing Christianity. Of course we have to, but I'm about to give up on the "Christian" label and start telling people I'm a... I don't know.

I don't want to be grouped with people that think of God like they think of Santa. I don't want to be grouped with people that blindly follow tradition. I don't want to be grouped with people who spit Bible verses as if they were written yesterday specifically about their physics teacher. I don't want to be grouped with people who have never read the Bible, but think it's "the word of God." I don't want to be grouped with a lot of people.

I want, when I say "Christian," for people to think of the teachings of Jesus... how he healed the sick and welcomed those who society spit at... how he forgave the unforgivable and ate with those that most would not even look at. I'm tired of "Christian," meaning pamphlets with hellfire and gay-bashing. I'm tired of it meaning social conservative and anti-evolutionist.

Just in general, I'm tired of it. I don't even know what else to say. Bleh.

There went Joliene on another Jesus rant.

image from Natalie Dee

Female Ordination: A continuing struggle with patriarchy

2012-01-11T09:41:00.000-08:00

Women’s ordination: a continuing struggle with patriarchy
Introduction

Women’s right to Ordination within Christian institutions has been a continuing struggle since Christianity’s founding. Though there is evidence to support early Christian establishment of female leadership, as Christianity became more mainstream, these rights of women were lost, as in so many institutions. Though women began to be accepted into ministry positions in the 1800’s and women’s rights movements have seen an increase in denominational support of female ordination, there are some organizations which still deny that women are spiritually equivalent to men. An organization of Womanpriests exists as a progressive movement within the Catholic Church as a voice for those who demand a re-structuring of Church clerical positions. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest and most powerful voice of the Christian world and, sadly, still denies the rights of ordination to women. The consequences of the denial of ordination rights to women are far reaching—the conscious and subconscious mindsets created and supported by antifeminist religious positions are damaging to progressive movements and serve to keep people in an archaic mindset that presupposes the spiritual and moral superiority of men, which can be used to support abuse, oppression, and varying forms of mistreatment toward women.

Part I: The Early Church’s acceptance of Women

A large amount of evidence exists both biblically and extrabiblically for the inclusion of women in ministerial positions in the early church. Paul’s epistles, in several places, refer to women in leadership positions. Other early writings and artworks suggest women were accepted into church leadership as well. There is also evidence to suggest that the controversy of women presiding over sacraments extended well into the 7th century. Despite this wealth of evidence, the power of ordination was taken from women centuries ago and is only now begun to be returned.

Even before Paul, in the church’s very early stages of development, the church movement extended equality. “Pre-Pauline Christianity… was an egalitarian movement in which women figured prominently” (Young, 41). This was a remarkable religious movement, as the culture in which Christianity developed was highly patriarchal. The Christian scriptures refer to women many times “at a time when customs and traditions held that women were to remain in the background” (Ellwood & McGraw, 360-361). These mentions have more significance when viewed in the light of the times they were written, instead of simply reading them at face value. It is therefore my interpretation that this extension of equal rights to women was part of the essential teachings of Jesus, or these rights would not have been granted in the society in which this movement was rising out of.

Paul’s epistles provide the lens for some of our best visions into the setting of the early church. While there was much diversity in early practice, Paul’s writings mention Phoebe as a deacon and Junia as an apostle (Ellwood & McGraw, 361). In fact, some scholars have suggested that Phebe “was a minister, even as were Paul, Timothy, and others” (Deen, 231), These mentions are perhaps easy to read over lightly, but have strong implications. The fact that women held such positions in the early church is often denied by those at the seats of religious power, even though it can clearly be seen within scripture.

Even beyond scripture, there is a wealth of evidence which clearly shows that women were accepted into positions of priests and apostles. Pope Hippolytus (170 – 236 AD) suggested that Christ’s treatment of and appearance to women clearly suggested that he regarded them as acceptable for apostolic positions. An Egyptian Christian female who died between 250 and 350 AD that was tagged as a priest. Early Christian artwork dated around 100 AD found in the Catacombs of Priscilla shows women celebrating the Eucharist together. Women priests and deacons are found in artwork from the cathedral at Annaba (dated 4th c.), the Catacomb of St. Priscilla (dated 350), and the Church of St. Praxis (dated 820). Women were clearly accepted by their respective communities as not only able to participate in worship, but to preside over the Eucharist and stand in positions of leadership, such as deacon, priest, and bishop.

Beyond the early church, communities continued to let women into leadership positions, much to the dismay of church officials in Rome. Writings exist in which churches (most notably in Ireland) are admonished for allowing women to lead worship. In 494, the Pope wrote a letter to churches in Southern Italy, expressing his concern about women being allowed to preside over the Eucharist and stand in other leadership positions which he said were meant for men. Bishops wrote to the Celtic Church in the 6th century, outraged that they let women preside over the Eucharist and demanding that such agency be taken from those women. The ordination of women throughout world churches clearly continued to be a subject of controversy, even after the standardization of church practice and establishment of Church hierarchy.

While women clearly were supported as Deacons, Priests, Bishops, apostles, teachers, and presiders over Eucharist in the earlier centuries of the Church, these rights were slowly taken from women. What was once an acceptable and widespread practice in the context of church communities became frowned upon, then controversial, then completely unacceptable. Movements such as the early Christian movement “challenge the norms of their society and when their founder dies, in order to survive, the movement usually modifies its more radical views and begins to conform to their society’s practices, especially with regard to women” (Young, 41). This particularly sad truth of religious growth is one that has seen women abused for centuries in order for religion to adapt to patriarchal societies and avoid extinction. However, as Christianity developed power within the modern world, women’s movements began to call back to the teachings of Jesus and the first century church, demanding that their human and religious rights be restored.

Part II: Feminist Movements and the Return of Women’s Ordination

This country’s beginnings have had strongly religious overtones, with pilgrims and first immigrants’ goals in coming to this country being largely based in the goal of obtaining religious freedom from England. The Puritan’s goal was the be “a light on a hill” for the rest of the world, and while in many respects this country has failed as an example to the rest for the rest of the world, the feminist movements’ beginnings in America have certainly liberated many minds. Women’s secondary educations and ordinations were first allowed in the modern world by American churches. The women’s rights movement in this country, which by no means has achieved its ultimate goals of complete equality, has made substantial progress.

Essential to women’s rights has been the availability of education to women. While this country has offered primary educations to women since its founding, college-level educations were unavailable to women until the 1800’s. Since many early Congregationalist (Puritan) ministers had received educations from such universities as Oxford and Princeton in their native country, college educations were valued by many of this country’s founding members (Nuttall, 41). Colleges were being built in this country at the same time as missionary efforts were being extended and Congregationalists involved themselves in the abolitionary movement. As minority groups gained voices within religious institutions, schools began opening their doors to minorities and women. Oberlin College became the first co-educational college, granting degrees to many women, including Antoinette Brown, who would become the first woman minister. Women were, at this time, finally allowed to obtain high quality educations, and shortly after this, were given more leadership rights within the Congregational Church. In 1853, Antoinette Brown was ordained, with many more women to follow (Starkey, 295).

Many other U.S. churches began to follow the Congregationalists’ lead, though not without considerable controversy and schism. In 1976, the Episcopal Church voted in favor of female ordination, though they thereafter lost over a dozen churches. Despite this, the Episcopal Church stood firm in their decision and ordained its first woman Bishop in 1989 (Gaustad, 387). Similarly, in the late 1960’s, Lutherans held an Inter-Lutheran Consultation on the Ordination of Women, in which 2/3 of the groups decided in favor of women’s ordination, though one neglected to enter into official conversation about women’s ordination (Gaustad, 388). While such decisions and conferences are difficult to engage in and often result in disagreement and develop animosities, the conversation is important and has resulted in much progress.

Conversely, the Southern Baptist Convention has become more conservative on its position toward female ordination. While SBC began ordaining women in 1964 and had ordained over 400 woman ministers by the 1980s, with the development of more conservative leadership, in 1984 the Southern Baptist Convention decided that women should no longer be able to hold positions over men. Thereafter, the church began revoking funding and taking membership from those churches which continued to allow women to act in ministerial roles (Gaustad, 389). Such decisions are tragic, though it can be said that some Baptist denominations held firm in their stance in favor of female ordination.

In today’s religious America, many denominations are in favor of female ordination and have joined in the fight for women’s equality. Most notably, Unitarians, Congregationalists, United Brethren, Universalists, Methodist Protestants, Free Methodists, Christian (Campbellites), Baptists, and Free Baptists have ordained women to their ministry. There are doubtless many other denominations which accept women into their ministries. However, Roman Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination in the country and the world, has yet to officially recognize women as worthy of ordination.

Part III: Catholic Church and the Controversy Over Womanpriests

The Catholic Church, in its definition of women, posits that “man is called by the Creator to… position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up” (newadvent.org). Such clearly male supremacist language is offensive and archaic, yet clearly not recognized as such by the RCC. As Mary Daly notes in Beyond Christianity: A World Without Models, “it is still not unusual for Christian priests and ministers, when confronted with the issue of women’s liberation, to assert that God “became incarnate” uniquely as a male and then to draw arguments for male supremacy from this” (Daly in Porterfield, 303). However, despite the Catholic Church’s backwards stance on female ministry and their denial of the evidence for Womenpriests in the past, Women within the Church continue to fight for ordination and a restructuring of the Church.

After Vatican II, many women were disappointed in the lack of progress the RCC was making with regard to women. In 1972, an organization representing 90 percent of sisters and nuns in the Roman Catholic Church, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, was organized in the U.S. (Gaustad, 390). Subsequently, in 1976, hundreds of women organized a “Women’s Ordination Conference to protest ‘a priesthood that is elitist, hierarchical, racist, classist,’ …[contending that] ‘what is central to the historical Jesus is his humanity and not his maleness’” (Gaustad, 390). Despite these efforts, the Catholic Church has been largely unresponsive to these calls for justice.

Since the Catholic Church has staunchly refused to open ordination rights to women officially, certain women within the Church have taken matters into their own hands. In 2002, seven women were ordained Womenpriests, with women being ordained as bishops in 2003. Although these ordinations are not recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church, they follow apostolic succession. The organization of Womanpriests’ goal is to:
“bring about the full equality of women in the Roman Catholic Church. It wants neither a schism nor a break from the Roman Catholic Church, but rather wants to work positively within the church.” (romancatholicwomanpriests.org)

While some of the members of this organization have been excommunicated, many of the women are still in good standing with the Church. As they state, they do not wish to create schisms within the Church, only to have women recognized as equal. They work toward a restructuring of Church into a more inclusive worship.

The Roman Catholic position on female ordination holds deep weight for the progress of women’s rights in the world. As the largest religious institution existing today, their voice is perhaps the most dominant in the world of religion. Because of this, their moral positions on things like women’s ordination have a significant impact on the way that people perceive the world. The Roman Catholic Church needs to take into account the historical record on women’s ordination, as well as the profound impact their moral positions have on people around the world and they ways that people are treated as a result of these positions.

Conclusion

For centuries, women’s rights have been withheld because of religious patriarchy’s claim of women’s supposed moral inferiority. Women’s ordination has remained a controversial issue and is not available to Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations, despite the compelling arguments for women’s equality and the progress that feminists have made in creating a voice for women around the world. Many, if not most, Christian institutions still reject the notion that women should have equal rights to ordination. Until women are granted equal rights in all spheres, including rights to positions of leadership in religious institutions, they will never truly be accepted as equal in the world.

Bibliography
The books I have chosen to use in this endeavor, as well as the websites that were important for my research, are as follows:

Deen, Edith. All the Women of the Bible. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1955.

Ellwood, Robert S. and McGraw, Barbara A. Many Peoples, Many Faiths: Women and Men in the World Religions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005.

Gaustad, Edwin and Schmidt, Leigh. The Religious History of America. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins San Francisco, 2002.

McManners, John. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Nuttall, Geoffrey F. Visible Saints: The Congregational Way. Oxford: Alden Press, 1957.

Porterfield, Amanda, ed. American Religious History. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.

Starkey, Marion L. The Congregational Way: The roles of the pilgrims and their heirs in shaping America. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1966.

Young, Serenity, ed. An Anthology of Sacred Texts by and About Women. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1993.

Roman Catholic Womanpriests: http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/

Threshold Ministries: http://home.earthlink.net/~humanint/site/index.html

Another Tidbit

2012-01-09T09:56:00.000-08:00

Matthew traces Jesus to Abraham, the father of the Chosen People, but also "ancestor of a multitude of nations," which can be taken to include the Gentiles.

Religion Dork

2012-01-05T10:52:00.000-08:00

I was a Religious Studies major. People always ask me what drew me to it and why I did it… often in the same tone as one would ask someone how they got a rash.

It’s my passion.

My view and thoughts have changed. Although I don’t look at the Bible or Christians the way I used to, I’m just as passionate about it.

I can’t foresee reaching a point where I don’t want to go any deeper. I’ll never want to stop learning what archaeologists are finding about first century Jerusalem. I’ll never stop caring what scholars are saying about Jesus now. I’ll never stop being angry at what Christians are doing. I’ll never want to stop considering new angles of interpretation. I’ll never want to stop reading the theological musings of philosophers. I’ll never want to stop reading more apocrypha. I’ll never want to stop considering different translation options.

There is SO MUCH to know about Christianity. Its history stretches back thousands of years. SO MUCH is written down and SO MUCH is NOT written down.

How crazy is apocrypha? What a crazy idea it would be to be writing before canon. How different is Christian writing after canonization? What a HUGE thought shift in the history of a religion… pre and post canon. So what ABOUT apocrypha? How legitimate is any of it? Who wrote the texts? Why? When? Where? What makes them inauthentic? Or perhaps: what makes them authentic?

How can we discern when texts are written? How can we discover the contexts? How much is our knowledge of the history of these cultural groups dependent on the text and how much of the text is dependent on our knowledge of these cultural groups?

What happens in translation? What metaphors and allusions are lost? What mystical meanings are lost? What art is lost?

How does a text evolve throughout the history of its transcription?

How has the body of followers changed? How has the basic belief set changed? How has practice and custom changed? How has clergy evolved? How is the religion different in different regions? What are the variations of the religion that exist? What predictions can we make about the future of these groups? How are these groups interacting with each other? How do they deal with etic perspectives? How are these questions correlated? How do they interact? How many more questions are there? And how many valid answers are there to each question?

What can I say? It’s really just because I’m a RelS dork.

tidbit

2012-01-03T09:59:00.000-08:00

Literally, "Messiah" or "Christ" is "The Anointed." Kings and priests were anointed with oils.

Factory Farms

2011-12-29T10:57:00.000-08:00

Because of factory farms, Americans now have meat available for cheaper than ever in the history of our country. Americans are okay with this (I think) because they don’t actually know what animal production looks like and are happy to remain ignorant so that they can continue to buy cheap meat. We all know that animals die in order that we may eat them and most of us know that the details of it are unpleasant and that farming in this country is a little grotesque. Most people just don’t know how grotesque or how much these animals are really suffering for the entirety of their existences.

I don’t think I’m squeamish about death. I work in the cemetery industry. I see death all the time. Death is natural and necessary. We’d have a lot more climate problems if no one ever died. What I don’t think is in most people’s nature is to willingly, knowingly inflict suffering on others for no better reason than a simple desire that could be met in a variety of other ways.

I think people should read up on what the industry of animal agriculture actually looks like in this country. I think it matters.

tidbit

2011-12-28T10:57:00.000-08:00

When Matthew concludes Jesus' genealogy, he divides the generations into groups of 14. Fourteen is the numerical value of David's name.

I Am Religious

2011-12-27T10:10:00.000-08:00

What is religion?

I would say that religion is a system of beliefs and values one has that are related to a history and, most often, a community of others who hold similar beliefs and values derived from that shared history. I would argue that religion is one’s dominant paradigm, whether or not that paradigm can be categorized under the traditional understanding of “religion.” Therefore, political views, atheism, etc. can be considered religions. One’s religion is, more simply, whatever worldview most inspires one’s morality, values, beliefs, and practices. I don’t believe there is anyone who isn’t religiously devoted to something. It’s part of self-identity for most of us.

For me, religion isn’t something that helps me sleep better at night or provides me with some sense of comfort that people who die end up in some kind of Disneyland. My religion is a system which provides a holistic approach to bettering the world and my person. Derived from a history of people seeking to do good in the world (in its better moments), it’s a study of this history, a commitment to justice, and a lens with which to look inward at the kind of relationship I seek to have with myself, others, and the higher order of being. While religion provides me a sense of inner peace and orients my life in a way that enhances meaning, it doesn’t make me giddy.

A Tidbit

2011-12-21T09:45:00.000-08:00

The women included in Matthew's genealogy were Gentiles or Jewesses with irregular sexual unions considered important for God's plan (logos?), like Mary.

Matthew 15 v Mark 7

2011-12-20T10:22:00.000-08:00

Matthew draws from Mark's accounts in many instances. There's are several interesting differences in the accounts, however, one of them being Matthew 15, when a Gentile woman asks for her daughter to be healed. Jesus responds that the children's food should not be thrown to the dogs.

In Mark, whose account is probably more accurate (being that Mark knew Jesus and worked closely with his disciples after Jesus’ death, and also because Mark is the earliest gospel account) Jesus responds, "Let us first feed the children..." (emphasis mine).

Both accounts are harsh and both accounts show Jesus learning from the Gentile woman. However, Mark's version shows a Jesus conscious of the changing paradigm (that God is not exclusively for the Jews, but for all).

Environmentalism as Spirituality

2011-12-16T10:21:00.000-08:00

Gottlieb writes: “The director of one of the groups attacked in the suit was disturbed to learn that he was thought to be involved in Gaia worship: ‘I realized that they were trying to make us look like witches or something—I’m a practicing Methodist, for goodness sake’ (Gottlieb, 147, A Greener Faith).” There is a fundamental dichotomy manifest in this quote.

The idea that Gaia worship and/or pagan/wiccan religion(s) are somehow at odds with Western monotheism seems fairly damaging to me. The woman quoted, in her own way, is also adopting the view that tries to present theism and polytheism as opposing each other. I think that for true progress to be made in the environmental movement, we need to look for the good qualities in all religious systems and try to emphasize the elements that can be used for environmentalism. Part of the values of environmentalism are the ideas of unity with the earth and with other life forms. We should extend that unity to people of other traditions and seek to find value in other systems as much as we seek to find value in trees and soil. Part of how we got to the point we are at in regard to the destruction of the earth is by othering the earth the way this Methodist woman is othering Gaia worship/witches.

Do We Need An Afterlife?

2011-12-15T09:52:00.000-08:00

With or without God, I argue that we do not need immortality. Even if you do believe in a God and an afterlife, there is not a necessity for one. It should not be a concern in one's daily thought, purely because there is no need. The existence of non-existence of Heaven or Hell should have no effect on one's relationship with their God, because the relationship with their God should be based on the merits of their God, not the merits of the afterlife and how many virgins it will bring.

Although the afterlife is eternally nice and God is loving to a degree that the religious desire immensely, for the religious person, God is still very loving in the now. A relationship with God now and a fulfilling life that simply ends is not a tragic thing… because when it ends, you're not there any more to feel sorry that it's over. One doesn't need an eternity to have a fulfilling existence or to have a religiously rewarding life.

Western God

2011-12-12T10:49:00.000-08:00

The dominant Western view of God has traditionally contributed to religious views of earthly stewardship at best, dominance at worst. The Genesis account has most often been interpreted as giving man dominance over women, animals, plants, and all other elements of the earth, with God acting as an external agent, outside of natural order and nature itself. Science and the progress of scientific understanding of our natural world has been positioned against God, as a fundamentally Other way of approaching the natural world and therefore contradictory to a truly religious approach to nature. Therefore, environmental ethics as they are presented by the scientific community are rejected as counter to God and a reliance on God’s wisdom. These views are not only dangerous to the planet, but bankrupt in their moral relevance. A truly ethical approach to the environment should be one of responsibility, connection, and mutual reliance.

Metanoia

2011-12-08T11:35:00.000-08:00

“Anyone who has heard the expression ‘Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!’ is familiar with the Greek word metanoia. Here it is translated to signify a profound ‘change of heart’ or ‘change of mind,’ a transformation in goals and life direction. But for centuries, the term has implied the Christian concepts of good and evil and has been translated as ‘repentance’ or ‘conversion.’ --Marcus Borg

Book Recommendation

2011-12-01T16:50:00.000-08:00

Spong, John Shelby. The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible’s Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

I subscribed to Bishop Spong’s weekly Q & A e-mails for a long time and knew he was writing this book. As a Christian interested in how dangerous Biblical literalism is, I was very interested in reading this. When it was available in paperback, I purchased it. I find his views on Biblical literacy and Christian behavior very much in line with my own and always enjoy his perspectives. This books in particular talks about how certain passages of the Bible have historically been used in damaging ways, why such uses of the Bible are ignorant and antiquated, and how Christians today can embrace the Bible in new ways to be spiritual, engaged citizens. I also respect the research aspect that be brings to his books. As a member of the Jesus Seminar, he is well researched and a good source of information on how this scholarship is relevant to the state of current Christian churches.

Understanding the Bible

2011-11-29T17:12:00.000-08:00

It is easy to think that we can understand the Bible. We can all read, right? There is a layering of meaning within scripture, a multitude of meanings existing simultaneously. While it’s easy to take the words at face value, I don’t believe it to be the best approach to the Bible… especially since (and I presume you are reading an English translation) our translations are profoundly lacking.

Comparative Religious Studies has opened my eyes in a different way to the complexity of religion and its history. It is my experience that has brought me to my own interpretation of faith, just as it is your experience that has brought you to where you are.

I respect endeavors to love God and walk with Jesus. It is my goal to do the same, though I may see this path differently than most Christians.

Should we redevelop the idea of God within the Western philosophical tradition?

2011-11-18T10:22:00.001-08:00

Although Suchocki makes a very interesting point in, "The Idea of God in Feminist Philosophy," I do not agree with most feminist responses to the Western God. Suchocki recognizes the four main feminist responses to the Western God and discusses Mary Daly takes on all of these responses. I would like to consider responses (1) through (3) for my argument.

(1) “Rejection of the transcendence of God in favor of a totally immanent God.” Response (1) turned God the Verb is attractive until it turns into Daly's Self. Once God is Self, it doesn't seem to me that we're in a Western tradition at all anymore, and we may as well disregard it altogether and just begin with Self.

(2) “Replacement of God with Goddess.” Response (2), in my opinion, also seems to go too far. It ends up creating a new religion. In Greek, it is my understanding, words must be gendered, (at least in this case, as we discussed in one of my other classes). Wisdom is female, yet no one seems to care… this is the influence of society. It would by more appropriate to write God/dess, or something of that nature, to make note that God has no gender, instead of simply imposing a different gender on God.

(3) “Reconsideration of the linguistic structure by which we name a reality beyond which we name ourselves as God at all.” Linguistics, it seems, is a similar case. Perhaps focuses need to be changed and we need to understand better what history and tradition have done, but to completely re-write something seems to be either too much or pointless. Religion should not be concerned with "liking" what the text has to say as much as "believing" what the text has to say. Certain things have been taken out of context to the disadvantage of women, and this needs to be remedied. Certain things also have to be given their context in order to give fair advantage to women. However, to rewrite a sacred text or change wordings of documents is not, in my opinion, appropriate, because it then affects the historical validity and integrity of a religion's claims.

It seems to me that most of Daly's solutions don't really end with anything resembling the Western tradition. When that becomes the case, it seems to me that we're not really changing or "remodeling" it to accommodate feminism, but just starting something different altogether. In which case, we may as well not even consider the Western tradition, but just create a feminist religion.

The Look in Your Eyes

2011-11-15T11:28:00.001-08:00

Imagine if in the Eden story, God had handed Adam the fruit and said, "You're going to eat it anyway. Now get the hell out of here."

A long time ago, I went to go see Hankcock with my dear Florencita. Honestly, the movie could have been better. The relevant part of my movie-viewing is something that kind of hit me as I was watching the movie-- just a look, a look someone can give you that says: you are not good enough.

Now, I come from a middle class white family, so I can't even begin to understand how often other people in the world must get this look, but I think that this look is a sad deficiency of those who give it. Whatever insults people throw around, the look in your eyes will always mean more. It's why saying "I love you" is of little value if your eyes don't convey it honestly.

Hateful looks might be scary, but they are about the anger of those giving them. When you look at someone like "you are not a good enough person," it's a judgment. Who wants to get up in the morning knowing that people will look at them this way? Who wants to look in the mirror and know that the face they have to wear every day is one that people see only failure in?

This is both a flaw and strength of my character: I cannot believe that people are bad. I can't. I can't believe in evil. I can't. I will never believe that if Osama bin Laden or Hitler had been raised in my family, had been given whatever therapy or medications they needed, that they would not have turned out the way they did. I cannot believe that anyone is truly evil. I believe in people with disorders and problems; I believe in people who've been abused and mistreated; I believe in people who've suffered too much to be compassionate-- I cannot believe in evil. I cannot believe that these people go through their lives feeling the way you or I do-- I think these people carry enormous amounts of pain (whatever variations and forms these pains come in). While I realize that this results in a certain naivety (Joliene gets cheated on, Joliene gets hurt, Joliene gets lied to), I maintain that it makes me a better person, because I hope I will never give anyone that look.

When you put trust in people, they are statistically more likely to behave more trustworthily. Why is this? It's for the same reason people are more likely to steal from strangers or companies than their family-- no one wants to betray an image of worth. Everyone likes feeling like a good person, right? The moment people start treating you like you're not one, what do you have? I mean, if people think I'm a jerk, I might as well reap some of the benefits of "jerk."

Just like animals can tell when you're scared or angry, so can people read how you look at them. Eventually, just as an animal will believe that there is something to fear when you are scared, a person will start to believe the image you project onto them. How much more likely is a child to succeed in school if their parents say, "you can do it!" or help them, knowing they can do better-- or even yell at them, insisting that they can do better, than if their parents tell them they're stupid?

I believe in a God of process, and because of that, I believe that in any given moment, in any given person, there is a chance to be living better, more meaningfully, more in line with the dao. I believe that in any given moment, a person has potential for good. A goal I have for my life is to embody that-- to treat others as shining visions of God. That begins with the way that I look at people. It begins with communicating that I see in them beauty and inviting them to feel comfort in the beauty of their skins and character.

Imagine if Jesus hadn't died on the cross. Imagine if he'd said, "you're all just going to keep killing each other anyway, I might as well go home." If he'd defended himself that day, if Jesus hadn't believed that people could be redeemed and died for that belief, no one would be talking about him. If Jesus hadn't invited prostitutes and tax collectors to dinner, if he hadn't called those who claimed piety hypocrites, his ministry wouldn't have been radical. Redemption is not for the apocalypse. Redemption is now.

Our beliefs don't move mountains literally, but they can completely change people. When I look into people’s eyes, my goal is to see my mother. If I can truly do that, I'll never make anyone feel like they're unworthy.

Jesus never treated anyone like they weren't capable of being better, like they didn't have a light to bring to the world.

He invited them to dinner.

The Didache and Eucharist

2011-11-10T12:15:00.000-08:00

The Eucharist was also an important part of early Christian practice according to the Didache. The wine is first drunk with the recitation of, "We give thanks to you, our Father, in behalf of the holy vine of David your child, whom you made known to us through Jesus your child, to you the glory into the ages" (9:2). The bread is then eaten ("fragments," as the text refers to them), first reciting, "We give thanks to you, our Father, in behalf of the life and knowledge, of whom you made known to us through Jesus your child, to you the glory into the ages. As this which is fragments, while being scattered upon the hills and brought together became one, so the church shall be gathered together from the limits of the earth into your kingdom, because yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ into the ages" (9:4-5). It is a prayer of thanks, reminiscent of the last supper. The Eucharist was only to be consumed by those who were baptized, though. It was considered sacred, and was only to be had by those who had been made holy in that way.

Reinstating the Eucharist as a meal prayer, instead of part of the liturgy, increases its value as a ritual. As a thanksgiving prayer, the Eucharist embraces community value and becomes familial, whereas using it as a liturgical prayer, it becomes dryly ritual. The breaking of bread around a table implies the community that the prayer is trying to express-- the community of Christians sharing the agape meal.

One of the lost traditions mentioned in the Didache is the agape meal. It is implied by chapter 10, titled "Agape Thanks," which begins, "But after being satisfied you shall give thanks thus." It continues to speak of "food and drink". The agape meal was shared by the people, including the unbaptized. People would confess, share knowledge and faith, and enjoy each other's company. Somewhat like a potluck, people would bring food and feed those who perhaps hadn't much of their own. The spirit of giving was present and the tradition created an atmosphere of loving and giving in these early times. The loss of such a beautiful practice is depressing.

The agape meal embodies the spirit of Christian community. People brought food to feed the poor, gathered to enjoy one another, shared faith, praised, prayed, served, and confessed. The people were in the spirit of giving, serving, and loving. Charity needn't be asked for, because it was abundant.

Although many modern churches have managed to do wonderful things with their money, authority, and numbers, none could hurt from instituting teachings from the Didache. By looking at the mindset of early Christians and trying to adopt it, as well as adapting Baptism and Eucharistic practices to be more similar to those described in the Didache, and perhaps reinstating the agape meal, the Christian experience would not only have a revived validity, but a revived enthusiasm.

Phew, I talk too much. Shut up already, Joliene.

The Didache and Baptism

2011-11-08T10:01:00.000-08:00

The Didache not only outlines behavioral expectations, but rituals as well, including a method for baptism that leaves room for whatever resources are available. This passage, which describes how to baptize, shows that certain methods were preferred, but also makes the case that the spiritual significance of the event was far more important than the actual logistics, since they allowed for so much variability:

”You will baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you may not have living water, you will baptize in other water; but if you are not able in cold, in warm. But if you may not have either, you will pour out water onto the head three times into a name of Father and of Son and of Holy Spirit.”

The person being baptized was also to fast for one or two days before being baptized, as was the one baptizing (as well as any others able). The Baptism was clearly a spiritual process that required mental preparation.

Fasting before Baptism would be a wonderful way to prepare oneself for the event. The focus provided by a fast would put one in a positive, devoted state of mind for such an occasion. In this way, the Baptism truly becomes a complete cleansing. The mind, body, and spirit go through the cleansing together, and the process becomes that much more meaningful.

The Didache and Sin

2011-11-07T14:10:00.000-08:00

The second portion, or "Second Commandment," of the Didache concerns physical practices. It details sins that one is to avoid, such as "murder," "adultery," magic," abortion," steal[ing]," "(cult) prostitution," etc.. (2:2) and then goes on to make the general statement that one should "not desire the things of your neighbor." Again, this is a type of active practice that requires one to have a peaceful, unselfish mind. Verse 4 warns the follower not to lie and encourages integrity in words and action. It requires a general mindset that is found throughout the gospels.

Hopefully in today's world we have enough common sense to avoid most of these guidelines. However, some, like "magic" or "abortion," don't have as bold a line drawn as do "prostitution" and "murder." Although our government still argues over where the lines go for these issues (Partial Birth Abortion? Death Penalty? Online Downloading?), perhaps religion could help guide us if it were more simply laid out. A simple catechism like the Didache, so short in length, seems like it asks so little. It says so many beautiful things that perhaps if something like this were the little handbook handed out, instead of little orange New Testaments, there would be much less confusion. Of course, the Didache is part of the movement found in the New Testament, and would be incomprehensible without the gospels. Hmmmm….

The Didache and Tithing

2011-11-06T09:57:00.000-08:00

The Didache is a beautifully written document, quite obviously written by people inspired by their faith. The message of love permeates the text and within the first few sentences, its instructions are to "love God who made you, and secondly, your neighbor as yourself " (1:2). This love of one's neighbor is not a simple, caring gesture, but to treat them as highly as one desires oneself to be treated. The catechism requires respect and compassion for humanity. Although at first glance, this seems simple, it requires us to wash away the residue of the number of times we've heard it-- perhaps then we can grasp the largeness of the request. It even extends this love to enemies, and "those who are persecuting you" (1:4), providing the insight that if one "love[s] those who hate you, you will not have an enemy" (1.6). The type of love that the Didache asks is not passive. It requires a constant giving nature. The text also says that "the Father wishes that we give to everyone out of our own (freely given) gifts" (1:11). Charity is encouraged, but in the following paragraph, it warns against those who would take charity without need. Early Christians were concerned for those whose mouths needed feeding and whose backs needed clothing, and to take this money without such need would result in imprisonment, examination, and reimbursement (1:13-14). The way these ideas are instituted today are perhaps insulting to the original tradition.

What has today become tithing is not what the humble Christians of 50 CE would have expected. Elaborate stained glass windows, while they can be treasures and landmarks, should not be required out of the pockets of average citizens. Many churches require or at least suggest a 10 percent annual income contribution from its members. Although a church has to fund itself and pay its staff and fees, there are certain lines that should be drawn. Requirements like that should not be made, especially when, in some circumstances, a family may not have the ability to pay without sacrificing something else. In a situation like this, Sally's shoes are worn and the church is getting new windows. This is not the type of collection that the Didache outlined. It outlined a more charitable attitude, giving to those in need, such as the homeless, starving, and downtrodden. A formal gathering place should be secondary to humanitarian issues, to real charity issues.

More Didache Love

2011-11-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

Remember that Didache thing that I was talking about a while back? Yeah, well I have a theory that it should be read... and utilized, because, hello... it's important. It's a catechism written 10 years after Jesus' crucifixion. I mean, I don't criticize modern Christianity (or, I do, but I don't criticize its intent), but we need a better understanding of Ante-Nicene Christianity! Seriously, guys, it's not even that long. It's simple, unifying, and beautiful. And it's useful.

The Didache is relevant!

Although modern churches have deviated much from the Didache's message, the early catechism can be utilized today. With fundamentalism on the rise, perhaps the Didache can be the example of Christian fundamentals as they were seen by Christians in Paul's time. The text clearly sets out its guidelines for early Christians. As time has progressed, emphases and interpretation have changed. Today, although we do see some resemblance to the practices, the message seems to be somewhat of a blur. Concerning Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Agape Meal, a more Didache-like institution of these practices could create a more open church environment. Calling back to the Didache and making it a more integral part of the Christian experience would not only be more honest to historicity of the tradition, but create a more welcoming practice.

Female Ordination

2011-11-04T11:28:00.000-07:00

For centuries, women’s rights have been withheld because of religious patriarchy’s claim of women’s supposed moral inferiority. Women’s ordination has remained a controversial issue and is not available to Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations, despite the compelling arguments for women’s equality and the progress that feminists have made in creating a voice for women around the world. Many, if not most, Christian institutions still reject the notion that women should have equal rights to ordination.

The consequences of the denial of ordination rights to women are far reaching—the conscious and subconscious mindsets created and supported by antifeminist religious positions are damaging to progressive movements and serve to keep people in an archaic mindset that presupposes the spiritual and moral superiority of men, which can be used to support abuse, oppression, and varying forms of mistreatment toward women.

Border Immersion Video

2011-11-03T12:56:00.000-07:00

Border Immersion Day 5

2011-11-02T12:54:00.000-07:00

9.17.11

Theology of Bodies

Bodies that matter vs. Bodies that are disposable

Salvation vs. Justice

Brown bodies are disposable. Poor bodies are disposable. Sick, disabled, addicted, female, 4-legged, fat, out-group, dirty bodies are disposable.

Bodies that matter: Wealthy bodies, healthy bodies, straight bodies, powerful bodies, Christian bodies, male bodies, eloquent bodies, tall bodies, fit bodies, angry bodies...

"We are given these stories to lean from and unpack, not replicate." --Penny

If the Bible is the word of God, then God is a schizophrenic.

We should approach the Bible with wonder and to wonder.

Border Immersion Day 4

2011-11-01T12:52:00.000-07:00

Penny: "Where is the presence of God in my privilege?"

Genesis is a story of increasing diversity.

"For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, 7 then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers for ever."
--Jeremiah 7:5-7

I feel my spirit.

Border Immersion Day 3

2011-10-31T12:50:00.000-07:00

Rick Perry... If people have no health insurance, should we just let them die?

Immigration... let them die?

The migrant experience is such that they always feel homesick at home.

We think about the presence and absence of God. My process theology views don't work that way.

The women from Chilpancingo are like Mary, watching their children crucified by an unjust system. We re-crucify God when we ignore humanity's pain.

Comfort in discomfort. Jesus' ministry gives us comfort, but Jesus' ministry was also to make us feel uncomfortable. The discomfort that we feel is God working within us. Jesus wanted us to give up our comforts, which I think extends to our spiritual comfort. Our spiritual discomfort is important and challenges us to strive for justice.

Perhaps we should feel comfortable with our discomfort.

Lee: "I know what is right and this is not right."

Still small voice.

We had a meeting with Dan Romero, a retired minister who now works as an immigration lawyer, all pro-bono.

Immigrants pay money into federal taxes more so than local taxes.

John F. Kennedy: A Nation of Immigrants

Two or three times, Latinos have been swept up and deported in waves throughout history.

Code words: "Illegal alien." Illegal connotes criminal. Fact: being here illegally is not criminal in U.S. law. It's a federal civil matter.

Judges in immigration are appointed by the justice department.

More immigration judges are women.

Refugees are legally entered and received.

Asylum = already here/at border. There is a quota.

The waiver process takes about a year and a half (if you want to be excused for the time here illegally and the 10 year penalty). However, you may not be granted the waiver. Three visits to the office are required.

What is fair?

We don't have the right to horde the resources of the globe. We should be working on bridging the economic divide.

Gendered Language

2011-10-28T09:53:00.000-07:00

One of the topics hot in circles considering religious translations is always the idea of gendered language. Radicals like Mary Daly completely restructured tradition and took feminism to points which can arguably be damaging, but the debate seems relevant.

A lot of people believe that “He” language is simply a reflection of the times which certain documents were written in. This is, of course, true. However, in cases of texts like religious documents which serve as important spiritual sources for many people and in the case of modern writing, is it important to eliminate gendered language?

I admit that I’m often surprised when I see an author throwing a “she” in there in an attempt to be more inclusive. While the fact that it jumps out at me should be cause for me to consider the effects that gendered language has had on me, it generally only seems to me an obvious and conscious attempt of the author to give fair time to the Other. As in forms of positive racism, I have to ask to what extent it’s useful. While using “she” seeks to include the sex generally left out of history until more recent decades, when used in ways that are not direct references to a female, it only contributes to a view of humanity as gendered in circumstances where gender is completely irrelevant. Just like we can’t eliminate racism by continuing to note it in situations of complete irrelevance, it does no more good to note gender.

While that “she” jumps out at me in my reading, I recently noticed that “he” does as well. I’m currently reading America Unlimited by Eric Johnston; upon running my eyes through the words of the first page, “he” could have been bold or underlined, it seemed so overly used. Of course the book, written in the 40’s, would have made absolutely no attempt to say “Americans” or “one,” and so it didn’t. My mind, accustomed to reading academic books penned in more recent years by scholars progressive enough to use ungendered (is that a word?) language more often than not, my mind now sees uses of “he” and “she” as quite equally ridiculous.

The first page of America Unlimited elicited a knee-jerk reaction in me—What do you mean he? Are we women so incompetent that we can’t understand politics or the economy? (The funny part is that the copy I’m reading was originally my grandmother’s.) While uses of “she” jump out as well-intentioned positive sexism, uses of “he” jump out as archaic and ignorant. My sexist radar soon subsided as I reminded myself of the copyright date on the book, but a little red string in my head reminded me to mull over the implications of that experience at a later point.

While I once thought that a removal of gendered language was a task a little pointless, thinking that simply educating people on the contexts of works prior to shoving them before them to read would remedy the situation, I now think it quite necessary. Regardless of whether I know that language is gendered because of its context or the limits of the original language, the use of unnecessarily gendered language apparently does affect my experience, whether I notice it or not. It’s only been the absence of gendered language that has allowed me to notice this.

So that is my argument for removing unnecessary gendered language from scripture and writing in gender neutral language. Thank you and good night.

Feminist link for the day: Tough Times for Mistresses

image from Married to the Sea

Book Recommendation

2011-10-26T10:17:00.000-07:00

Eck, Diana L. Darsan: Seeing the Divine Image in India. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

Christian Jochim used this book in his Traditions of India course. Eck manages to talk about Hinduism in a very respectful way. While she documents traditions and elaborates on the belief systems, she also manages to convey he profundity of the Hindu experience and make her facts come together such a way that it seems to create a Holistic view. It is also very accessible from a Western perspective and manages to tie in similarities so as not to make the Hindu traditions seem completely Other.

Border Immersion Day 2

2011-10-25T11:02:00.000-07:00

9.14.11

On one of the border walls (because there are so many), construction was stopped because the contractor was using undocumented workers. Seriously.

On one of the border walls, there is this:

It says:
"The cross of the migrant Jesus
Abused by the police
Betrayed by the coyotes
Persecuted by Border Patrol"

The Bible tells us to, "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God." Is that what this is?

We met with some women from Chilpancingo. This is their community:

The women are/were factory workers. They are made to take constant pregnancy tests and fired if they are found pregnant. They have clocks attached to a tie on their wrist, so if they leave their work station to go to the bathroom, they don't get paid. Women wear diapers to work because of this.

10,000 families (families, not people) live in this shanty-town. It is being bull-dozed to make space for a canal.

Border Immersion Day 1

2011-10-24T14:12:00.000-07:00

9.13.11

Notes

"I am your servant, O God. I live to do your will."

Bring your whole self and open your whole self.

You live in a different world than everyone else and the same world as everyone else.

Struggle with the presence or absence of God.

"Mexico: so close to the United States but so far from God."

Mexicans are the disposable people of the United States. They are not treated like other immigrant communities. After we welcome their workforce, we have pushed them out into the poverty of communities in Tijuana.

A story: San Diego police would go to a hotel in town and insist that the owner open its rooms and show people's documents. They told the owner, "If you don't, the next time you need us, we won't come." How is that good law enforcement?

Recently, a Puerto Rican was deported to Mexico because he didn't have a passport. People are harassed because of how they look. Puerto Ricans are citizens!

Lest we get all upset that our stories are biased, the police department and Border Patrol will not send officers to speak at Centro Romero.

On the plus side, Police in San Ysidro are very quick on crime. It's a safe place.

Each year, 85,000 to 90,000 victims of sexual trafficking come through Tijuana. Prostitution is illegal, but there is a Zone of Tolerance in the city. People pay $10,000 to $25,000 for young virgin girls. Girls are kidnapped or sold by their families. The U.S. is the second largest market for sexual trafficking. Germany is 1st.

I think to myself: Why did I get this life? There is no cosmic justice.

Your life is not good or bad because of anything deserved or undeserved. You can improve your life. You can hurt your life. You don't control it any more than God.

God is what connects us. Not more or less. God will not make your life better or worse except to help you connect and feel connected to whatever world you live in an whichever people are surrounding you or your mind.

We watched a documentary called Maquilopolis which was about the factory workers, most of whom are women, in Tijuana. The factories pay them horrible wages, they work 6 12-hour days per week in poor conditions, and live in a shanty-town which is heavily polluted by the factories (against NAFTA policy). U.S. companies are supposed to dispose of waste outside of Mexico, but they simply dump it in the water supply.

NAFTA made it hard for Mexico to compete with the larger global sources of agriculture. Since Mexico was a primarily agricultural country, many of it's citizens lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA. The Tratador de Guadalupe also led many legal workers to be pushed out of the US and displaced them in the border region of Mexico. This is a reason that the maquiladoras rose in the border region.

NAFTA violated the Mexican Constitution (mandated its change); the Mexican Constitution guaranteed land ownership to Mexicans. No foreigners could own land before NAFTA.

The Mexican government doesn't care/likes illegal immigration in the US because it brings money back into Mexico.

Part of the problem is that after NAFTA did so much to destroy Mexico's agricultural industry to the benefit of the US, Mexico and its government can't offer it's citizens work that can sustain their families. Most migrants want to be in Mexico, but they need to feed their families. Many Mexicans are here out of necessity.

There have been more deportations in the Obama administration than in the entirety of the Bush administration.

Someone asked, "What happened to Obama?" I think Obama wants to demonstrate compromise, but instead has been stomped on because the Republicans aren't willing to compromise.

I think Obama's political naivety has a lot to do with what happened. It's why he got elected and why he shouldn't have been. Sorry, I voted for him, but I would rather have voted for Hillary. My main reservation was his lack of experience.

When Obama came into office, he didn't clean house. He didn't replace the people that were put in place by the prior administration, which is also part of why his administration looks less liberal than many anticipated.

Obama's campaign was ideological. His presidency lacks the political strategy that seasoned politicians have.

Tomorrow

2011-10-22T13:59:00.000-07:00

The Power of Names

2011-10-21T10:39:00.000-07:00

Most people who have studied ancient history understand the power of naming. Even today, many Jews avoid spelling out the “name” of God. The Bible uses coded names for God, unpronounceable and powerful to those who understand Hebrew. Even in today’s society, first names and pet names are limited to those in circles with the “rights” to use them. It’s our own form of esotery. In Genesis, God gives Adam the power to name the animals, re-enforcing Adam’s status at the top of the food chain. Oftentimes, the possessed will use Jesus’ title as a power play. In using that title, they disrespect it.

Ecotheology

2011-10-20T12:24:00.000-07:00

How are issues of economic, racial and gender justice related to ecotheology?

The earth is manipulated and taken advantage of just like these minority groups. The same mentality is applied… those with the power deserve the power because it was given to them and is a sign of God’s approval. As long as this is the mindset, instead of justice and compassion-oriented service to this world, those with power will continue to widen the divide and work to the disadvantage of minorities and the earth.

My Plan for Being Cooler Than the Pope

2011-10-19T10:49:00.000-07:00

If I could live anywhere in the world, I would hella live in the Palace of Versailles because then I’d be cooler than the Pope. Hello Ratsinger, the Palace of Versailles is way cooler than the Vatican, you are getting shafted. That just creates a window of opportunity for me to be cooler than the Pope by living in the Palace of Versailles. If I were cooler than the Pope I think I could have my own country or at least like a commune or something. And hello, I could fit everyone in my palace.

Notes on Prophecy

2011-10-13T10:33:00.000-07:00

People today and throughout history have interpreted prophecy in very different ways. Today, it seems to be applied to just about everything. Even in Jesus’ time, people applied prophecy to his life and used it as history.

Jewish prophecy is unlimited in many ways. Most of us think of it as being applicable to very specific future events, but prophecy texts are typically deep insights into the human condition and are often metaphorical. Prophets understand people in ways that transcend time, which means that their writing lives and can generally be applied to humanity again and again as we make mistakes and triumph in ways which speak to our downfalls and merits as a species.

Prophecies are not predictions of specific, time-sensitive events, but commentaries on humanity which effectively predict many things. Such writings should be used as critiques of our tendencies that can help us avoid the kinds of behaviors that get us stuck in cyclical failures. They are keen observations of humanity, society, and our predispositions, framed in future tenses to show us where such tendencies get us.

Why Should We Philosophize About Religion?

2011-10-11T12:36:00.001-07:00

From some religions' perspectives, it seems as though perhaps we should not philosophize about religion, but simply believe in what religion tells us to believe. However, religion is philosophy in many ways, and in order to fully understand it, we need to understand the concepts it attempts to explain. Evil, free will, and experience have been such daunting subjects that to simply accept someone's "version" of them is probably disrespectful to our own intelligence. Religious ideas are complex, abstract, and hard to grasp, and to even read a religious text seems to require us to philosophize as we read.

Although there are certain philosophies present in religion, there are "hows" and interpretations open to the reader/observer. To philosophize about religion also gives weight and understanding to religions other than one’s own (including atheism/agnosticism), giving them meaning on an intellectual level, while also critiquing them in an attempt to understand them for what they are worth.

The philosophy of religion is growing for these reasons. In an atmosphere that attempts to facilitate understanding and tolerance, perhaps philosophy is going one step ahead and providing insight.

Arrogance of Absolute Truth Claims

2011-10-07T13:36:00.000-07:00

Mankind has endlessly been struggling to understand God, so I think it offensive and arrogant to shove one’s personal religion in the face of someone who is quite happy with their own. Really, if a Muslim came up to you, read you some stuff from the Quran, told you that you were stupid for being a Christian, and that your morals were bankrupt and would land you in Hell unless you were willing to claim Mohammad as the paramount prophet, how responsive would you be?

It’s ridiculously naive to think that any of us, especially those of us who are not fluent in the original languages of the Bible, can truly understand its message, especially now that we are some 3500 years after much of it was written and completely absent of the Bible’s original context. Of course we have endeavored to find the historical context of these writings, but so little is available to us. Even for those scholars who can read Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, it’s incredibly difficult to discern what kinds of intricacies and poetic structure was used in scripture, what kinds of allegory, puns, metaphors, etc. that simply don’t translate into English or the year 2011.

One of my goals as a Christian is to faithfully embrace the mystery that is God. While I seek to understand scripture as fully as I can (I am majoring in Comparative Religious Studies and intend to enter seminary), I will never be able to define God or God’s will in any kind of certainty… I can only have faith. Therefore, I should be respectful of whatever faith claims other people have, so long as they are not damaging anyone, imposing themselves on others, or interfering with my faith practice.

The Time

2011-10-06T10:39:00.000-07:00

It seems that no matter the decade or century, people always want to believe they are at the dawn of something new. Just as people today believe that Jesus will return within the next 50 years (such a theology isn't Biblically supportable and arose within the last 100 years, but we'll table that), people in the first century believed their time to be unique as well. Living under the rule of Roman occupation, they were waiting for someone to come and free them once again. Jesus didn't turn out to represent that kind of change, but he was certainly a figure of renewal and reformation.

Scholars today recognize the time of Jesus as part of "the axial age," a relatively small period when religious movements made drastic changes away from ritual and esoteric practice and teachings and toward inclusive practices and philosophies. During this period, Hinduism made progress away from Vedic principles and the Bagavad Gita arose; the Buddha's following created a new religious movement directed toward inward harmony and outward peace; Mohammad's movement created Islam; Jesus brought about change in Judaism and planted the seeds of Christianity. Something happened globally in human consciousness, whether coincidental or not. Religion, as it existed for centuries, started to look very different. Christianity was part of that.

Transiently Useful

2011-09-30T16:22:00.000-07:00

“Each new epoch enters upon its career by waging unrelenting war upon the aesthetic gods of its immediate predecessor. Yet the culminating fact of conscious, rational life refuses to conceive itself as a transient enjoyment, transiently useful. In the order of the physical world its role is defined by its introduction of novelty.”
--Alfred North Whitehead, from Process and Reality

Animal Agriculture

2011-09-28T10:31:00.000-07:00

Animal agriculture contributes more to global climate change than any other factor. Think about that the next time you get on your high horse about your hybrid (I’m sorry, San Francisco is full of too many pretentious people who believe consumerism is the path to saving the planet… ugh!). None of us belong on a high horse. I am a vegetarian because I care about the environment.

I have genetically high cholesterol. After I switched from cow’s milk to soy milk, my cholesterol dropped significantly. My doctor told me I should write a book. A friend of mine who is a surgeon also recently went vegan for the sake of her (and her husband’s) cholesterol. The effects of hormones and genetic engineering on animals produced in this country haven’t been adequately tested. Asthma, diabetes, allergies, and a plethora of other problems plague children’s health today. It’s entirely likely that much of this is because of what we’re eating. I went vegan for the first time two years ago for Lent, and after 40 days without animal by-products, I had no more back pain, a ton more energy, and I felt so amazing physically that I committed to trying to keep a more vegan diet. I am a vegetarian for my health.

The biggest reason for my vegetarianism, however, is animal treatment. Oh, sappy, sappy me, right?

I think people are good. I think if people saw the way that survivors of Hurricane Katrina are still living, they might help out. I think if people actually sat down and ate with a homeless person, they might me more inclined to help them out. I think if people knew gay people intimately, they probably would agree that they should have the right to marriage and to raise children. I think if people knew what went into the majority of animal agriculture in this country, they wouldn’t want to contribute to it. The way that animals live on factory farms (which is 90% of farms in the U.S.) is effectively torture. They’re genetically engineered so that they can’t be healthy animals. They grow too quickly and are so heavy that their limbs break under their own weight. Their beaks and appendages are clipped so that they won’t explore. Their light exposure is messed with so that they are sleep-deprived and gorge themselves out of fear so they can fatten up as quickly as possible. They’re crammed so tightly into their space that their bodies are full of sores, they often flight with the other animals, and sometimes they’re so squished that their feet don’t even touch the bottoms of the cages (thank goodness, since their feet have sores from them?). A huge percentage of factory-farmed animals die even before their early, scheduled deaths because of their living conditions (or they die in transport), and they’re killed in ways that lead many to a slow death (although I suppose slow is relative, since most of these animals are bred so that their genes are so unhealthy that they can no longer live to the once-natural life span their species once had). Factory farms are terrible.

Do I believe it’s wrong to eat animals? No. Wait, what? That’s right; I don’t think it’s wrong to eat animals. Look at our teeth; we obviously evolved to be omnivorous, though most of us should be eating fewer animals. Look at the natural world. Animals kill and eat other animals. We are animals. I don’t think it’s wrong that people eat animals. I think it’s wrong that we are effectively complicit in their torture. Factory farms breed animals that are not only genetically grotesque at this point, but live short lives of intense suffering and are slaughtered inhumanely.

Found at an Orthodox Monastery

2011-09-26T11:11:00.000-07:00

This quotation was found on the Facebook page for a Romanian Orthodox monastery in the Bay Area and was sent to me by my friend Flo.

"Do not say, as the divine Jeremiah tells us, that you are the Lord's temple (cf. Jer. 7:14). And do not say that 'mere faith in our Lord Jesus Christ can save me.' For this is impossible unless you acquire love for Him through works. For in what concerns mere believing, 'even the demons believe and tremble' (James 2:19)." -- St. Maximus the Confessor, "Four Hundred Chapters on Love" (I, 39)

I can't get over that quotation. Too many people use their religion as an excuse to be crappy and then confess. Religion shouldn't just be about finding solace and coming to peace with your faults. Religion IS about those things, but more than that, it's about fostering selflessness and the kind of compassion that Jesus was trying to build within his community. I think it's tragic when people use religion solely to service themselves. I can't find a self-servicing Jesus in my scripture.

God Thought

2011-09-25T16:20:00.000-07:00

I think of the ways that people try to praise and understand God, and poetry comes to mind. No matter how beautiful a poem is, how much more beautiful is the person who made it? How much more complex that person is to contain the poem and so many other things... physical, emotional, and spiritual. That person has sound and form.

What about a tree and what a tree means?

And what about the totality of the world?

I think about all of everything and how God must be so much more wonderful than the totality of every wonderful thing in this world. I think maybe “God” is the wrong word, but I also think that it might not matter.

Right Christians, Wrong Christians

2011-09-24T10:32:00.000-07:00

While communities view religious texts differently, there is a great deal of ignorance on the part of many Christian communities. There are many Christians who could tell you little to nothing about the context within which their sacred texts were written and have less knowledge than that about the complications that arise in translation processes, not only because of the differences in language, but because of understanding the context.

Much of the disagreement has to do with different interpretations and selective readings of sacred texts... to an extent, every reading is selective because of how much contradiction there is within scripture.

The reality of the world is that there are many people who will never change their paradigms... they are raised in worldviews that I would consider damaging. I would have little success arguing with people in communities like those, where minds are made and people blindly obey leadership and completely trust voices of authority uncritically. I don't have a solution, though I would definitely have arguments with these people, hoping that some logic might get through...

My "solution," though it isn't really one, is to raise my own voice. I choose to engage in dialogue and participate in furthering the causes which I believe in... hoping that for those whose minds are not made up, or at least are not so set in stone, the voice that I raise will be persuasive. I hope that the voice of my church will be persuasive, that people will hear our message and hear it as a more holistic, spiritual, and just answer to the soul and the world... I believe that the worldview my church perpetuates is working toward a better world than the ones that others seem to be holding onto. I hope that in our actions and that in walking our own path, that becomes apparent to people.

I guess that I see living by example as most effective; that's what Jesus did (as well as some arguing). Interventionary action is necessary in groups where their actions become violent and destructive, but it's never very effective to try and break up causes that people truly believe in... you make them victims and yourself the villain when doing so.

meh.

Journal from Annual Conference 2008 (?)

2011-09-23T11:59:00.000-07:00

While today's portion of the annual conference was oriented toward, well, orientation, I found some things worth remembering.

I expected to be in a less luxurious environment. We're in a cabin with rooms like a Best Western or something. It's nice, but now I think I'd have preferred a bunk or something. The surroundings, however, are gorgeous. It's wooded yet coastal. There are deer everywhere.

I was coerced (read: asked) to write down the minutes for the first gathering. I'm glad I agreed because I ended up scribbling down some things for myself.

The speaker was awesome, though as is often the case, the theology (or at least the language) swung a little too traditional for me, though I was all about the general socialist-leaning message.

My brain took some tangents as she asked us to try to love Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney...

I feel like so often, in conversations with conservative American Christians (not my denomination's brand of Obama Christians), there reaches a point where Mr. Believer says, "Well, you just don't understand." Of course, that's not what is meant. What is meant is that the Christian argument (subject to the circumstances, of course), generally based in scripture (ignorantly, but not quite the point) or dogma, doesn't transcend their paradigm. Their reality is this: there exist Heaven and Hell, a fatherly god who loves you (yet is willing to disown you), and a Jesus who magically defied death and floated up to the aforementioned Heaven in an act that somehow saves you too from death if you simply believe that it does. This cosmology is accurate in the minds of a huge percentage of American Christians, however insane it may sound to the rest of us. They've arrived at this worldview by carefully following a tradition of ridiculousness perpetuated by some ego maniacal and undereducated men who think that the ability to read English at a fourth grade level somehow qualifies them to interpret collections of literature (not even originally written in English) so complex and diverse that multitudes of scholars cannot decrypt all of it. Nonetheless, believing themselves divinely inspired, they make noise in Hitler-esque fashions and convince people to believe ridiculous things.

If I can come back from the tangent from my tangent, I had a small point. These people, with their ridiculous worldviews, have the gall to tell us that we can't understand because we haven't accepted Jesus or we don't have faith or we're misled by the devil or some crap like that. So it seems to me that if these people have the right to dismiss us as incapable by virtue of being "heathen" and tell us that we're going to Hell even though they love us (because "love the sinner, hate the sin"), we should have the right to call them ignorant (because love the stupid people, hate the stupidity). There's a point past which tolerance helps breed injustice. We can all agree on that. Liberals could stand to be a bit less tolerant of religious people.

So yes, I can love Dick Cheney, but I still think he's a jerk.

OKAY.

Then I bought a pound of coffee from Beneficio.

Then I walked back to my cabin, surrounded by nature and bundled up with a cup of decaf in my hand. When I thought life couldn't get more awesome, a deer popped out on the pathway about 10 feet in front of me. Again, when I thought life couldn't get more awesome, she trotted off, closely followed by a fawn not 2 feet off the ground.

Sometimes I really have to love life.

Early Christian Practice

2011-09-22T10:42:00.000-07:00

The Christianity that the Didache outlines is somewhat different from the practice that prevails in the church today. Although the same Christian morals are promoted (to a certain extent), many practices have been more clearly outlined, perhaps deterring from the intent of early Christians. Bi-weekly fasts and agape meals are no longer practiced, and the practices of baptism and the Eucharist are changed. The Didache suggests that baptism may be performed in a variety of ways, by whatever means are available to those baptizing. Baptism today is more strictly performed, with a certain process preceding it. The Eucharist, also, has become a more strictly practiced ritual. Today wine is not shared with the entire parish (at least not in all churches), and the blessings given are not entirely the same. Although the bread is only supposed to be given to the baptized, anyone attending a service may take the offering. Although certain practices have lasted through time, they have changed in some ways.

The Didache was written to bring a sense of togetherness to Christian practice and to define early Christian practice for a wealth of new converts. The document reflects the development of the early church and the mindset of early Christians. The outlining of their practices also serves to show us how much church practice has changed since apostolic times. Because the Didache is such an early document, we can see it as having enormous importance, both from a scholarly and spiritual perspective. Its teachings can supplement those found in the Bible and can provide insight into the times of the early Christian church.

Why Isn't the Didache In Our Churches?

2011-09-21T10:41:00.000-07:00

The Didache is a work that, it seems to me, should hold more importance in the practice of modern Christians. Being the earliest dated catechism of the church, it reflects the practices of early Christians and shows how Christians closer to the time of Christ understood their religion. Correct Christian practice is outlined in the document, as well as mention of early Christian beliefs and mentalities.

Scholars suggest that the Didache was written between 46 and 50 AD. Such a claim is supported by some of the language in the text, which may not have been found had it been written at a later date. The way that baptism, Eucharist, and election of clergy are spoken of suggest that practice had not yet been universalized in the church. 6.3 speaks of idol worship, which also suggests early authorship. The church today does not practice 2 weekly fast days, but this text suggests that 1 or 2 fasts are encouraged a week, noting which days are to be fasted on. Mention of the agape meal, a shared meal of thanks and praise, also would support an early date. Many other passages lend themselves to such a conclusion.

The Didache was seemingly written to maintain a "correct" practice for early Christians, who were not always well organized. It outlines church practice, such as baptism, Eucharist, and election of clergy, as well as less official practice, such as how one should treat one’s neighbor, what types of temptations to avoid, and signs of a coming end of times, which it seems they thought was rather close. It was, more or less, a Christian guidebook, outlining practices and beliefs to supplement scripture and teachings. Its message seems to correspond with Acts, outlining similar practice and expecting an apocalypse. It could, perhaps, be seen as a response to the massive conversion described in Acts, helping to define Christianity for those new converts.

The way of life, as described by the Didache, is one of love and compassion. One should love and devote themselves to God and love humanity. The Didache asks Christians to live selflessly, "bless those who are cursing [them]", and "abstain from fleshly and bodily desires". It compels Christians to give to the poor, to live humbly and without concern for material possession, and to continually worship God (and no other gods).

Heaven

2011-09-20T16:13:00.000-07:00

Dare I say it?

I think heaven is irrelevant. I don't think or care much about Heaven, because I think a focus on it leads one away from the spirit of Christianity.

I was reading an article today in Harper's (an old one, because I'm behind), on Jesus without the miracles. Like, the types of Christians who see Jesus as this amazing human being and strive to emulate his humanity, and the types of Christians who see him has a miracle worker who makes it possible for us to go to Heaven. This guy was the former.

So much focus is on Heaven that it's like a freaking selling point (as is Hell). I think it's silly because Heaven should have nothing to do with our motivations. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't work miracles and that he isn't our salvation. I don't think Heaven matters for the way I live my Life. I think Jesus' teachings and example matter. We should be emulating the humanity of Jesus, not just thanking him for saving us.

I think the afterlife is a damaging concept, because it takes the focus off of the here and now. Off of the environment, off of how we treat the world at large.

So, if I go to Heaven when I die, that'd be nice, but if I just stop happening, then that's okay too. That is my motivation; if this is all there is, then this is all there is. I'd better do a good job and do what is good for Goodness' sake.

Where Are My Mother and Brothers?

2011-09-19T11:06:00.000-07:00

The gospels tell an account of Jesus' disciples interrupting him one day to tell him that his mother and brothers had come. Jesus asks who his mother and brothers are and answers that it is they who hear the word of God and live it.

It's a nice sentiment-- family is universal. True compassion requires us to expand our ideas of "family" and "neighbor." These themes arise again and again in Jesus' ministry.

However, it's dawned on me that other passages refer to Jesus' family having a negative reaction to his ministry. In fact, most references to Jesus’ family (after he began his ministry) do.

Is it possible that Jesus doesn't want to talk to his family?
Is it possible that Jesus is criticizing his family for not hearing God's word?
Is it possible that Jesus' family was coming to stop him?

More of This

2011-09-18T10:34:00.000-07:00

The views of God and Nature put forth by process theologians present a more helpful view of God and the world than traditional religious views tend to offer. When the classical view of an all-powerful, masculine God is rejected for a view of a God of Process which operates through nature and humanity, the responsibility of maintaining this world is put into the hands of people and creates a much more logical, useful worldview for environmentalists. When God is no longer an abstract, perfect God, humanity is responsible for the events of creation and destruction, maintenance and neglect.

“God cannot (really cannot) force people or the world to obey God’s will. Instead, God works by sharing with us a vision of the better way, of the good and the beautiful. God’s power lies in patience and love, not in force.” –C. Robert Mesle

Why I Go To Church

2011-09-17T10:31:00.000-07:00

As far as I’m concerned, church is about doing. I joined church because I believe in the power of numbers– numbers to do justice, numbers to create music, numbers to hold people up when they fall, numbers to shout at the government, and numbers to shout with the government. I can read the bible and ponder theology in my bedroom. A church isn’t much more than a chat room or a telephone call if it’s not rolling up its sleeves and making this world a better place. Christians may disagree over what actions make the world better, but if we’re not acting on our convictions, we are not Christians.

Why I Hate Popular Christianity

2011-09-15T16:06:00.000-07:00

[Certain/Most] Christians' claims are largely dependent on a naive trust in authority. I find something fundamentally wrong with that and I think it’s why Christian education is important (of course, within the tradition). Once pre-critical naivety subsides, Jesus absent of context, history, and contemporary parallel, seems completely irrelevant and disintegrates into blind, pointless faith.

Jesus is presented to most Christians as a figure mostly unlike historians would say he is. The popular version of Jesus is(/can be) psychologically damaging, but is also culturally irrelevant because he is removed from his historical context (and thus, largely interpreted through an ignorant framework).

Doctrine is given to most Christians before they see the gospels. Given this framework within which to interpret, Christians are denied the opportunity to learn the "gospel" in a more logical way. Doctrine dominates/molds the Christian mentality by denying the Christian body the right to critical analysis of their scripture. This not only perpetuates an ignorant Christianity, but leads to many people falling away from the Christian tradition. Jesus without his context is, I think, insignificant. If our only knowledge of religious claims is simply because someone in authority told us, these claims immediately lose their relevance once our childish trust in authority is gone. If one does continue to believe in these things past the development of critical thinking, I would seriously doubt that person's ability to make reasonable, responsible decisions. *cough* Christian right *cough*

Biblical literacy should not simply mean that the Bible has been read and that passages have been memorized. It should mean that available resources have been used to supplement the material, so it can be understood to the deepest extent possible. History, archaeology, biology, literature... all frameworks should be applied to best understand its themes, context, and relevance. An interdisciplinary approach should be taken when studying the Bible, instead of simply taking it at face value (Let’s note the stupidity of doing so, since the Bible is, in fact, a translation that cannot fully translate over both language and history). Human advancement is in vain if we cannot use the brilliance of our species to understand that which we like to say has the most meaning.

Dogmatic theology and defensive responses to the enlightenment are seemingly what currently categorize Christian beliefs. This strikes me as tragic. If we love the Bible, we should seek to understand it as thoroughly as we can, which means delving into it from every angle, to understand it as it best makes sense, to use the best intelligence of Humanity to understand that which Humanity has been trying to understand since its birth.

The scholarly approach to scripture is absent from mainstream Christianity. The lay community is given no plausible alternative to the popular image of Jesus. This unfortunate truth is, as I see it, the core of the problem. If scholarly research could make it into Sunday school, perhaps Creationism wouldn't be seeping into public schools.

::::::::::::::::::::

image from toothpaste

Crap, I Like Yoga

2011-09-13T10:18:00.000-07:00

One of the oddest phenomena in America since the 1960’s (admittedly before this, but not truly picking up until the 60’s) is Americans’ infatuation with Eastern religion. Scratch that. Romanticized Eastern religion.

Americans seem to think that Buddhism is as simple as meditation, a belief in an oversimplified version of karma, and respecting life. One of the ways you can identify the ingenuity of ignorant fans of Buddhism is their explanation of karma as “what goes around comes around” or their mention of others’ bad karma. As one of my professors so aptly said, “if you really believed in karma, you wouldn’t have brought it up.” Karma has more to do with the order of the universe than irony or bad luck.

While America has one of the best education systems, this country is amazingly ignorant of much of the world… and amazingly noisy about subjects they know little about.

One of the funniest things I hear from people is how PEACEFUL Buddhism is.

…

Yes. And?

Ya know, your birth religion (presumably Christianity) is peaceful, too. You’re just not as familiar with Buddhism’s history of violence because your culture wasn’t living in the midst of it– because our country is too ethnocentric to tell you about the atrocities of the world that haven’t touched our country.

People seem to miss the rampant sexism of Buddhism, generally not mentioned by American Buddhists. After all, it’s not good propaganda to say, “Hey! Inferior female! Bow to me and then I want to tell you about Buddhism!”

Yes, meditation is nice. Did you know that Christians practice meditation, too?

The moral of the story is that people are ignorant and romanticize other traditions as they demonize their own. No tradition lacks a history of violence or injustice. No tradition is without great spiritual wisdom and value. The grass is just greener on the other side.

Short Notes

2011-09-12T11:19:00.000-07:00

Luke is an apology to a Roman magistrate.

Matthew is doctrine.

Mark is a story.

John is an apology against Docetism.

Rapture theology comes from a Biblical passage that is about imprisonment.

Too many people think, when studying scripture, "God will reveal all." It's a very Protestant idea that's all fine and dandy when it's about Biblical layering, but we need to note those layers. The history and linguistic nuances are part of those layers. God might show you unique ways of experiencing scripture, but God's not going to teach you history and Greek.

William James

2011-09-11T11:10:00.000-07:00

"So long as we deal with the cosmic and the general, we deal only with the symbols of reality, but as soon as we deal with private and personal phenomena as such, we deal with realities in the completest sense of the term... The world of our experience consists at all times of two parts, an objective and a subjective part, of which the former may be incalculably more extensive than the latter, and yet the latter can never be omitted or suppressed. The objective part is the sum total of whatsoever at any given time we may be thinking of, the subjective part is the inner "state" in which the thinking comes to pass... Yet the cosmic objects, so far as the experience yields them, are but ideal pictures of something whose existence we do not inwardly possess but only point at outwardly, while the inner state is our very existence itself, its reality and that of our experience are one."
--William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

Possession

2011-09-10T10:31:00.000-07:00

We should note that in possession stories, the possessed names Jesus. Naming was a power play in those times and the power of naming can be seen all over Biblical writing. Whether or not people were actually possessed, we may never know. It’s possible that these people were otherwise ill. It’s possible that they were simply so hostile that Jesus’ people assigned such behavior as possession, since ancient understandings of the world allowed for such supernatural occurrences. Again, whether any person as an individual chooses to believe that such things actually happened as interpreted by Biblical storytellers, we can see that it doesn’t need to affect the way we understand the stories. That Jesus healed and listened can be taken from the story, whether or not he calmed a hostile man or exorcised a demon.

Gospel

2011-09-09T11:44:00.000-07:00

The term gospel is a military term. It is often translated as "good news," which is accurate, but neglects its connotations. If we look deeper into the word's context, we find that, in its original military context, it was used by military runners as in, "good news, hostilities have ended." If we look at this with lenses of the Jesus movement, we can take this as a sign of the new covenant. Hostilities-- whether with the Gentiles or with Jews who failed to live up to law-- were over. Jesus' ministry can be seen to include and forgive people in ways which the religion, as it existed in the past, did not.

Book Recommendation

2011-09-08T15:30:00.000-07:00

Walters, Brent S. ed. Didache: The Unknown Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. San Jose, CA: Bibliographies, Inc., 1991.

I learned about the Didache in Brent Walters’ Catholic and Protestant Traditons class. After this class, I ordered a copy of this book that he edited. I find the Didache a helpful tool in discerning what early Christianity looked like, as it is the earliest Christian catechism.

Transiently Useful

2011-09-06T11:01:00.000-07:00

“Each new epoch enters upon its career by waging unrelenting war upon the aesthetic gods of its immediate predecessor. Yet the culminating fact is conscious, rational life refuses to conceive itself as a transient enjoyment, transiently useful. In the order of the physical world its role is defined by its introduction of novelty.”
--Alfred North Whitehead, from Process and Reality

Temptation

2011-09-01T12:24:00.000-07:00

We should note that the Markan account of Jesus’ temptation is very simple. Later accounts expand, whether by inserting cosmological explanations into the text or by referencing other accounts which have not survived. We must remember that in early Christianity, many Jesus stories circulated and several were written and passed through communities. Of course, very few documents survive the centuries, so most of what our biblical authors reference is lost to us today. We have to understand that they faithfully conveyed the stories of a man they respected and that these communities had no interest in sensationalizing the life of their leader. They did, however, see and understand the world differently, which we should constantly remind ourselves of.

In studying these materials, we need to have faith—the same kind of faith that Christians throughout the generations have had. These people were as meticulous as we are now and took great care in preserving the life story of Jesus, preserving their rituals, and respecting those aspects of the world we know are out of our hands. They would not knowingly misrepresent their leader any more than we should knowingly pass on stories which can be damaging outside of their proper contexts. Their stories are true for the world that they lived in and true for us today if we can understand their lenses. We need to have faith that while certain aspects of the gospels will never be understood (simply because we can’t go travel back in time to witness Jesus’ ministry), we can derive much information from the gospel texts about the Jesus of history and the ministry that spiraled into today’s largest world religion.

Bright Eyes

2011-08-31T11:06:00.000-07:00

"Because I don't know what tomorrow brings,
It is alive with such possibilities.
All I know is I feel better when I sing."
--Bright Eyes, from "Method Acting" off of "Lifted, or Keep Your Ear to the Ground the Story is in the Soil"

I'm King of Selling This

2011-08-30T14:35:00.000-07:00

The God of Process Theology offers a constructive framework with which to approach the environment. Seeing God as acting within all forms of life, we can understand the value of life and respect them as having equal rights to existing and flourishing. In viewing all forms as actual occasions, we can see ourselves in community and act in mutual respect and compassionate service toward all other life forms.

“On this planet, we are probably the creatures most capable of perceiving and responding to God’s vision of a different, better world. God’s primary avenue for liberation is through responsive human hearts. We can wait for supernatural miracles, or we can roll up our sleeves with God and get to work.” –C. Robert Mesle

The Feminist Movement

2011-08-29T16:16:00.000-07:00

While women are still not on equal standing with men in many, if not most spheres, women have made significant progress in this country in obtaining rights. Again, churches adopt either a strict adherence to tradition and rules in these matters, or nurture the aspirations of its members and support their progress in obtaining new goals. Many conservative churches still ascribe more restrictive, “traditional” roles to women, maintaining that a woman’s place is in a home. These churches typically don’t allow women into positions of ministry and often restrict them from any real leadership. While churches are often still the dominant voices against equality for women, it should be noted that Oberlin College was the first to admit a woman in 1847 and that Congregationalists were the first to ordain a woman in 1853, both events taking place before women had obtained voting rights in this country, due to the open and nurturing attitudes of churches, which were on the forefront of equality movements.

Coming Soon

2011-08-28T16:15:00.000-07:00

Church in Lahaina:

A Letter to the Christian Marketing Department

2011-08-25T14:21:00.000-07:00

I was writing a response to someone's livejournal, and it started turning into a rant... so I just made it a rant. Here it is...

Many people's problem with God is: they're expecting God to be what someone told them. God turns you into a bird, so you can fly far, far away. God picks you up, kisses your owie, and gives you a band-aid with Batman on it. I think this is the way that most Christians try to represent God: "God fixes all your crap." You pray, God responds... it all balances out. If God doesn't send you the Playstation that you asked for for Christmas, well, you get one in Heaven and that's why.

This is why I loathe modern Christian writers (for the most part)-- because they freaking sell God to us, like it says somewhere that God is going to save us all from bullies in school and make everything sunshine and cupcakes. Then come the apologetics (because none of us are rolling in sunshine and cupcakes): "You see," says the Christian Marketing Department, "the bullies burn in a pit of fire and you get an eternity of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in Heaven. It all works out."

The majority of Christian Churches are enormously damaging in many ways. Faith is a beautiful thing, but I don't think that God should be expected to deal with anyone's problems (nor do I think that God is responsible for anyone's problems). The Bible is full of largely contradicting visions of God. Read Genesis, Joshua, John, Acts, and Ecclesiastes and you'll have a million different ideas and wonder why that stuff's all in the same book. Humankind has endlessly been struggling to understand God, so for some Christians to be arrogant enough to sell God as if they can predict that God will save Joe Everyman's family from poverty by magically assigning him a new job after his baptism is the most blasphemous BS to ever fly out of anyone's mouth.

It hurts so much to see people turned away from God because someone in their past told them something, because their church gave them the idea that Christianity means dogma and an end of rationalism, because they were told that science is wrong… because they were told/inferred whatever.

Maybe that's easy for me to say, because I wasn't raised within a religious household and I have a much more liberal view of God than most Christians do, but I would consider myself a pretty educated person when it comes to religion. My religion is not just some kind of leftover thing that I couldn't shake myself of after sitting through science courses and listening to the rants of my atheist professors (nor is it the result of rants of very faithful ones).

It's hard for me to pinpoint what I believe in, largely because my beliefs are pretty hard to pinpoint. I'm unwilling to make a lot of claims about Truth for a lot of reasons. I refuse to be that person that tells others what to believe simply because I believe it. I don't believe in a lot of the claims that most Christians dogmatically shout from pulpits and hand out in flyers on the street. I don’t wish to rigidly define my own beliefs so that they haven’t room for growth (aren’t we all still learning?).

…But I believe that there was this guy named Jesus, that he was Anointed, preached, and embodied God like no other being. I believe that the Bible tells a story of a history of people, desperately reaching for God and trying to understand God... and I believe that sometimes they misunderstood. I believe that the Bible speaks of a history of people following a certain God, but that certain texts are less historically valid and more corrupted than others. I understand textual criticism and how to apply it to my sacred texts.

I believe that Jesus' ministry holds more merit than any other vision of God given in the Bible. I believe that Paul's epistles are inspired and beautiful. I give the New Testament much more merit than the Old. I think it is more mature in the progress of understanding God.

I have had experiences that lead me to believe that God is loving, forgiving, and has purpose. Unfortunately, I can't really tell people about these experiences. They made God real for me, but they'll do little outside of my own heart.

I don't believe in the fatherly portrayal of God, where he fixes my problems and sends birdies to wake me up on the mornings of my exams.

I believe that God had some play in the creation of this world, but I don't know to what extent that is or if God is still "active."

I believe that the most gracious way to live my life is by praising God in word, song, study, and work. I believe in praying to God, not for God (as if God somehow needs my praise or God'll melt), not for me (because I don't think God needs to give me anything, nor does God owe me anything), but for the sake of my relationship with God. Praying keeps me living honestly with God, keeps me spiritually oriented, keeps me mindful of the moral decisions I make. I believe in writing about God, because it's how I best share my experience. I believe in singing to God, because it's one of the ways I can best express love and joy. I believe in studying God, because to say I know enough about God is not only arrogant, but disrespectful to myself. I never want to stop learning how to best understand God. I never want to stop learning in general.

I'm no saint. I know that. I know that there are a million things I could be doing more with my time , my life and my money. I know that, but I think it's important to at least be conscious of these things, to at least give a crap about the world beyond my own family and social circle.

There are a number of things in my life that I wish had not happened.

…But I am not a starving child in a country with no water. I have a computer, which says a lot more than most of us spoiled white people think it does. I am one of the richest people in the world, even if it doesn't feel that way. For that, I should be grateful.

I don't want to be grouped with people that think of God like they think of Santa. I don't want to be grouped with people that blindly follow tradition. I don't want to be grouped with people who spit Bible verses as if they were written yesterday specifically about their physics teacher. I don't want to be grouped with people who have never read the Bible, but think it's "the word of God." I don't want to be grouped with a lot of people.

I want, when I say "Christian," for people to think of the teachings of Jesus... how he healed the sick and welcomed those who society spit at... how he forgave the unforgivable and ate with those who most would not even look at. I'm tired of "Christian," meaning pamphlets with hellfire and gay-bashing. I'm tired of it meaning Republican and anti-evolutionist.

Just in general, I'm tired of it. I don't even know what else to say. Bleh.

There went Joliene on another Jesus rant.

Meek and Gentle

2011-08-20T13:32:00.000-07:00

"Fortunate are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth."
--Q11

"The most famous passage in this Sermon on the Mount has always been translated as "the meek shall inherit the earth." Actually, the Greek word proates means "gentle but strong" and connotes strength that is under control and tinged with a spirit of caring."
--Marcus Borg

If I Were to Translate the First Line of Genesis

2011-08-15T13:02:00.000-07:00

In one of my classes, we discussed the first line of Genesis and the words and letters in Hebrew that form it. Based on my understanding of Hebrew and the intentionalities of words and letters, if I were to translate the first line of Genesis, it would read as follows:

In a beginning of this thought, the Divine created mother earth and the beyonds and word to tell of this creation.

My Intolerance

2011-08-13T10:14:00.001-07:00

I've become rather intolerant of pretty much everyone that's talking about religion. I guess I've gone back and forth between sympathizing with both sides (conservative and liberal) and now I'm rather angry at them both.

I'm sick of religious conservatives that believe it's their God-given (quite literally) right to go around enforcing what are quite clearly religious views on the general public. Whatever they might say, this is effectively converting people against their will. Whatever one might say about the abortion debate, the difference involves taking a certain cosmology for granted. "Because the Bible(/God) says so" is a poorly reasoned excuse for anything, especially when it's entering the public domain. If we're going to say in America that people should not be aborting babies, maybe we shouldn't be telling someone that quite possibly doesn't believe in God (or believes in a different one/s) that the reason they should keep the child has anything to do with God. It's not an effective argument… and if one is so concerned about life, I would fully expect that person that's marching around with pictures of fetuses to be devoting energies to helping the mothers care for those children, as well as to fighting poverty and hunger. While we're at it, maybe they should be using less PETA-like methods of trying to get people to keep children.

I'm also sick of religious conservatives that know nothing about the content of the Bible. If you believe it's divinely inspired, read the whole thing. If freaking GOD wrote a book for humanity to read, shouldn't we READ it???? Don't just let your pastor paraphrase it for you!!! Read it. Learn it. Learn to support your views about how to live out your tradition. If you believe that violence can be justified, find those passages where it says otherwise and learn to deal with them. Get your story down. Quit reiterating what other people tell you and do some work yourself. God deserves a little more effort.

I'm sick of religious liberals being just as selective in their religious interpretation as the conservatives. Claim the Bible or don't. Know it, know what passages need explaining or flat-out need to be thrown out as antiquated and wrong (just as we've changed certain laws in this country). Either learn the history, the apologetics, and the scholarship, or shut up because the "Jesus loved everybody" argument is winning with no one who's read the entirety of the Bible. If we are claiming "Christian" we need to understand the tradition and learn to be honest with the history... we've been jerks, guys!!!

...It's like slavery or something. Maybe it's a bad analogy, but hear me out. Just because I didn't enslave anyone doesn't mean that I, as a member of the body of American people (and especially white American people) don't owe something to the African American community. Just saying, "We won't do it anymore" doesn't help African Americans climb out of the hole that we threw them into and doesn't help them deal with the very real discrimination that they still face. This is why we have some things like affirmative action, certain awareness programs, and it's why we learn about the Civil Rights movement every 15 minutes in public school. It needs to be done. We owe them that because of HISTORY.

On that note, it doesn't matter that I didn't go on a crusade and rape, pillage, and colonize... but I do have to own up to that history. Everyone knows that I didn't trek to the Holy Land and kick people out of their homes, but part of recognizing that I completely disapprove of a huge chunk of my tradition's history is trying to weed the remnants of it out of the tradition. We need to understand why things like that have happened, find the sources, and own up to their negative influences on history... and take steps to disown that history by teaching how wrong it was/is. If you're going to be selective about your Bible reading, then go at it and weed the crap out that we really believe is unGodly. If you believe Biblical authors were people writing about God, then let's edit the text and cut out where they went wrong or add explanations about that shameful portion of our history, like we have to do in textbooks about this country.

So, when the conservative Christians start making noise about how we need reform, maybe the liberal ones should start yelling loudly, too-- not with a bunch of fluff about how we love the world and are tolerant. Tolerance is not unique to liberal Christianity... we need to start advertising the aspects of the tradition that are. No one cares if Jesus loves you if you don't know who Jesus was or what else he had to say.

Gosh, I wish people would start getting their hands dirty. The liberals should be able to use the Bible as well as the conservatives. The conservatives should know where the contradiction-arguments lie as well as the liberals. Both sides should know where the love and wrath are. Both sides should be making their arguments in all spheres. We shouldn't just leave the philanthropy to the liberals and the politics to the conservatives.

And the people that think religion is the root of the world's evil? OMFG, what a selective and poorly-constructed argument!!! Patriarchy has done a lot of damage, but we're not trying to get rid every "masculine" impulse in men, so as to avoid war and sexism in the future. We're not saying men don't belong in public office and should no longer be allowed to influence children. White people have done a lot of damage, but we're not trying to interbreed the whites to try and diffuse the white-ness. We're not telling them that they can no longer visit India or Africa, lest they start colonizing. Science has created a load of damaging weapons, but we're not trying to ban all scientific research and production of weapons. We're not sterilizing the scientists.

People that think "religion" (as some ominous body) is to so largely to blame are isolating it as if it is can be somehow separated from its partners-in-crime (ie-- money, political bodies, men, and weaponry). Religion has not done any more or less damage than any other ideology or harmful cosmology, whether or not it has a spiritual dimension to it. As if one can separate religion from racism or patriarchy or nationalism or power structures! It's as absurd as saying that video games are solely responsible for youth violence, when we all know that it is in combination with music, movies, advertising, male aggressive tendencies, bad parenting, overlooked psychological disorders, bad gun control, socialization, defects in public education, ETC.

sifa;owihf;obh;oiughouhogifhg;h

Commentary: Possession and Temptation

2011-08-12T09:59:00.000-07:00

One of the struggles of Bible study is coming to terms with the reality that we cannot and likely will not be able to really know what happened in many circumstances. The Bible speaks again and again of supernatural occurrences, many of which we can easily understand scientifically in today’s world. Most of the time, we can look at those passages and see that the point of the story is seldom the specifics of what happened as much as the “moral of the story.”

Much of today’s understanding of “belief” is fundamentally flawed. The Greek word translated as “belief” in English is not belief that, but belief in. Believing in Jesus’ ministry should not be centered around the specifics of what Jesus physically did. Whether we believe Jesus actually performed miracles is irrelevant to what his ministry was about. Jesus didn’t do great things to simply prove that he could in a petty effort to boost his or God’s ego (I should hope). In that sense, it doesn’t matter whether or not those acts are historically true, because belief in Jesus is not belief that he did those things, but belief in his ministry and his person. Each of Jesus’ acts can be seen as challenges to the ineffectual requirements of the religious institution or acts of radical compassion. Belief in Jesus is better understood as belief in what was behind his acts, not the acts themselves.

Whether or not we can perform miracles in today’s world, we can try to offer healing, compassion, and understanding.

Successful Social Actions

2011-08-11T10:09:00.000-07:00

The recent decision toward legalizing gay marriage in the state of New York exemplifies how the actions of smaller communities which nurture and support its members, adopting ideals of inclusivity and acceptance, steadily grow into larger efforts that can have huge results for the larger community and the more general public. Though it is true that some religious groups are among the staunchest opponents of gay marriage, it is also true that some of the loudest cries for equal rights for LGBT persons are from religious institutions. Conservative churches, including many Evangelical churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and others, work within strict frameworks which prohibit gays and lesbians from marriage and often even community participation (effectively shunning them for their sexual orientation). However, on the other end of the spectrum, Liberal Churches such as the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalist churches, have been “nurturing” the gay rights movement and its members for years. Many churches have been holding ceremonies uniting gays and lesbians for years, despite the unofficial status of such unions. These institutions act in family models for the LGBT community, providing an extended family which offers acceptance, support, and help in the achievement of the goals of LGBT members, a major goal of which is the right to marriage.

I Am Temporal

2011-08-10T12:23:00.000-07:00

Preface:I am reading a book on process theology (derived from Whitehead’s process philosophy, which you may or may not be familiar with). Process theology is hard to explain, not only because it requires a familiarity with religious language used for centuries (while it also turns such language on its head and completely redefines much of religious language, most notably the term “God”) but because it requires a degree of familiarity with science and nature. It’s like the high culture of religion, but without the pretensions. Or something.

While I will avoid trying to explain process theology, I’ll try to explain some of what’s going on in my head (if I haven’t lost all of that exciting bubble that happened right before I decided an introduction was necessary… crap).

Here is a quotation (which makes more sense if you understand process theology, but whatever):

“We have bodies and hands that can reach out and pull a trigger or grab a child. God does not. So we can overrule God’s freedom in ways that God cannot. God is everywhere and everytime. God can make freedom possible for an entire universe, moving it through an evolutionary process to create a universe of experience. We cannot. We are only here and now. Our powers are ours, not God’s. And God’s powers are God’s, not ours. God cannot overrule our freedom.”

Taken out of its context, this quote could be taken to mean that God acts somehow “consciously” as a controlling force in evolution, which is not so. Just to clarify.

I guess what’s going through my head right now is the crazy reality that something always exists (I’m calling this “God”). There is always an energy bouncing between the tiniest elements of existence. It has these elements reacting to each other in enormously complex ways that are both predictable and unpredictable. Through an amazing domino effect taking literally an infinite amount of time, they have led to me and my temporal existence.

What’s amazing about my existence, though it’s so much more temporally limited than many other existences (actual occasions), is that I seem to have consciousness. While freedom extends to every particle of the universe, I can make choices which take into account how those choices will affect the future and an emotional reaction to things. I have morality. Thus, what makes my existence quite spectacular is how I can use this “morality” to guide my decisions and choices in ways that can have lasting consequence and understand that in each moment of choice. I can try to orient the world, in whatever small way, toward a reality that is pleasurable and meaningful to everyone else and whoever else might come after.

But holy crap! I only have 50 or 60 years left! In the grand scheme of things, my existence is a tiny blip, but in the grand scheme of things, my existence has weight because of the magic of consciousness which somehow manifested out of the chance freedom of every little element bouncing around before I came into being. I am a miracle in that I am a possibility out of a bazillion possibilities and I have the capacity to understand that. I understand that not only in a way which can lead me to be remarkably grateful for the chance arrangement of matter and energy that is me, but in a way makes me aware of the lasting footprint I will have, of the ripples that I create in every moment by using a light bulb or saying a word to someone or hugging my cat or driving my car or eating zucchini. Holy Jesus, I am so meaningful!

So (gosh darn it), I’d better do something meaningful.

Book: Process Theology: A Basic Introduction by C. Robert Mesle

Meaninglessness of Faith

2011-08-09T10:59:00.000-07:00

As well as faith being able to inspire the will, having faith in God seems to necessitate free will in order to be meaningful. Since we have no proof for God, to believe in God is somewhat of an absurd conviction. Therefore, to have faith requires an act of willpower. "Faith, surely, implies an act of the will, and moreover not in the same sense as when I say, that all apprehension implies an act of the will; how can I otherwise explain the saying in the New Testament that whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (November 25th, 1834, Kierkegaard). Kierkegaard is perhaps one of the most famous champions of the idea of "taking a leap of faith". He certainly recognized the absurdity of God, as a philosopher, but was an extremely devout Christian nonetheless. Recognizing this absurdity made his faith, perhaps, much stronger. He was willing to accept this absurdity and embrace it.

Kierkegaard wrote beautifully on the absurd nature of faith and what willpower it often took to make a bound into it. "Therefore faith hopes also in this life, but… by virtue of the absurd, not by virtue of human understanding. The paradox in Christian truth is invariably due to the fact that it is truth as it exists for God. The standard of measure and the end is superhuman. And there is only one relationship possible: faith" (Kierkegaard, 116). Kierkegaard seemed to understand that if there is a God, perhaps we are never going to make any sense out of him/her/it and that we should simply make the leap into the arms of the absurdity.

The existence of free will allows for moral responsibility. Although this can sometimes make things more difficult, it also makes things more meaningful. Because we are the results of our actions, we have control over how people perceive us in this way. Free will is essential to our morality, regardless of religion. However, faith drives our will to make selfless life choices, as Luther outlines in Christian Liberty. In the reverse, Kierkegaard shows us how free will is necessary in order for us to have true faith.

More meaning, it seems, can be found when one is willing to see free will and faith as co-existing and to see them as used hand in hand. Luther makes the distinction that Christian salvation is through faith alone. If one does not make a conscious decision, accepting any consequences that may come of it otherwise, then the decision to be a part of that religion has no real meaning, just as surely as faith has no real meaning without the ability to live freely.

Works Consulted

Bowes, Pratima. Consciousness and Freedom: Three Views. London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1971.

Erasmus, Desiderius & Luther, Martin. Discourse on Free Will. Trans. & Ed. Ernst F. Winter. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., Inc., 1961

Kierkegaard, Soren. A Kierkegaard Anthology. Ed. Robert Bretall. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1946.

Kurtz, Paul. Decision and the Condition of Man. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1965.

McFee, Graham. Free Will. London: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000.

Lucas, J.R. The Freedom of the Will. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Luther, Martin. Christian Liberty. Trans. W. A. Lambert. Ed. Harold J. Grimm. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957.

Ofstad, Harald. An Inquiry into the Freedom of Decision. Norway: Norwegian Universities Press, 1961.

Mark

2011-08-08T13:00:00.000-07:00

Mark hasn't received enough credit. Mark is the earliest gospel and thus likely more accurate. Written in the 1st century by someone alive during Jesus' ministry, Mark's tale had less time to become embellished by history.

It's important to remember that Mark is not written by today's standards. Early historians were less concerned about relating detailed imagery and more concerned with conveying what they believed was the point of documenting it to begin with. This can explain some discrepancies between the synoptic gospels and should also help us to be mindful of the larger picture. Whether or not Jesus stood on a rock or a log would have been of little importance to our gospel authors, except in situations where they are meant to draw parallel with another Biblical character.

That said, this does not mean we cannot derive historical information from gospel texts. We need, simply, to be mindful of the differences between modern and 1st century scholarship, as well as the intentions and motives of the early writers. Whatever the early Jesus movement experienced with Jesus' ministry had lasting effects because of the devotion of his followers. What did these people see that made them give up their wealth, their lives? Early followers faced persecution and death. If they were willing to risk this, Jesus' ministry must have been profoundly affecting.

Left, Right, Center

2011-08-06T14:18:00.000-07:00

The problem Christianity faces today is ignorance. Secularists frown at the perceived ridiculousness of religious tradition and seek to remove its influence from public discourse. Religious adherents fear the loss of their tradition's voice in society. Neither party understands the other, nor does either party really understand themselves.

As a child handed an orange New Testament by an evangelist on my walk home from school, I lacked the background required to understand it. The sad truth is that most people lack that background, even in their adult lives. There is so much misinformation spouted from within religious bodies that most people who call themselves Christian have very little idea the contexts within which their scripture was written. As one of my professors would so often spout, "A text without a context is a pretext."

A Christianity that can give the Bible its context would lead to a more educated Christendom, a more compassionate Christianity, and a generation of Christians who know and love Christ more intimately than ever.

Homeschooling

2011-08-05T12:11:00.000-07:00

"A flood of educational texts with which to wash away the stains of secular history... are written primarily for the homeschoolers and the fundamentalist academies that together account for at least 2 million of the nation's children, an expanding population that buys more than half a billion dollars of educational materials annually."

More and more children are being homeschooled because of the "evils" of secular society. And these children will be voting, will be running for office, will be affecting this country in the future. What kind of standards are we setting? And shouldn't we be setting some higher ones?

Christian Liberty

2011-08-02T18:49:00.001-07:00

In Christian Liberty, Martin Luther outlines just how essential free will is to the Christian heart, with these two lines: "A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all" (Luther, 7). These lines are perfect contradictions, yet they make perfect sense. Although Luther emphasized that salvation was achieved through faith alone and that works would not earn one merit, here he acknowledges that one's faith inspires one to contribute to humanity and help mankind in any and every way that one finds the time and capacity to do. One's faith becomes the reason to give and contribute, and without free will, such selflessness is not an option. It takes an enormous amount of willpower to give things up in order to give to others, but people do it in the name of their faith. Orders of monks and nuns in religions around the world (with the exceptions of those who do this for honor or to escape poverty, etc.), demonstrate enormous willpower for the sake of faith. This type of strength of will can only be seen in relation to religion.

Luther's ideas about works and free will become a major emphasis in his teachings. The entirety of Christian Liberty explains that salvation is achieved through faith alone, but time and again shows that faith will drive the will to engage in selfless works. "Works, being inanimate things, cannot glorify God, although they can, if faith is present, be done to the glory of God" (Luther, 16). Faith inspires and guides the will, although Luther seems worried that his followers believe that works can attain their salvation (although, considering the context, that was probably true). We can take the example of Mother Teresa, who fed the hungry, regardless of their religion, race, sex, or any other affiliations. Her faith inspired her to do good works. These were enormous acts of the will. She asked for nothing in return. Her acts were, of course, things she didn't question doing, because of her faith.

Works Consulted

Bowes, Pratima. Consciousness and Freedom: Three Views. London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1971.

Erasmus, Desiderius & Luther, Martin. Discourse on Free Will. Trans. & Ed. Ernst F. Winter. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., Inc., 1961

Kierkegaard, Soren. A Kierkegaard Anthology. Ed. Robert Bretall. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1946.

Kurtz, Paul. Decision and the Condition of Man. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1965.

McFee, Graham. Free Will. London: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000.

Lucas, J.R. The Freedom of the Will. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Luther, Martin. Christian Liberty. Trans. W. A. Lambert. Ed. Harold J. Grimm. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957.

Ofstad, Harald. An Inquiry into the Freedom of Decision. Norway: Norwegian Universities Press, 1961.

Mysticism

2011-08-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

Although I am not Jewish (nor do I practice the Kabbalah without its Jewish roots, which some people do today), I do believe that each person has their own way of connecting to divinity and that there is more than one legitimate path to finding a practice that would please whatever deities there might be. In reading Night,I found Weisel’s metaphor about the garden and its many gates useful (in essence: there is more than one way into a garden). To extend it, perhaps each individual seeks the garden for a different fruit, but it would bring them into the garden nonetheless.

With fundamentalism rising inside of our country and outside as well, I find it offensive and archaic to impose one's own practices and beliefs on a people whose own interests and beliefs are different. There are many ideals that transcend religion and can be found in just about every tradition. This emphasizes the idea of one garden. However, it seems that these are not the ideals that those who claim to be most religious are focusing on. If the idea of one garden with many gates can be thought of in the way I describe it, the imposition of one's own beliefs and standards on a people that does not share them does not help them achieve salvation, but in fact hinders salvation for all involved (and even without the metaphor, especially in countries such as the US, we have no right to impose our religion on others).

I am probably extending the metaphor farther than it was intended to be understood, since it comes out of the mouth of a highly religious Jewish person, but I find it useful in explaining my own understanding of to what extent it is acceptable to claim absolutes within religion (or, at the very least, to enforce them).

The Outgrouped Samaritan

2011-07-30T10:46:00.000-07:00

How is "ingroup/outgroup" used in the story of the "Good Samaritan"?

The ideas of ingroups and outgroups existed in Jewish culture. The ingroup consisted of members of the group who were "pure" and upheld the rules provided by Judaism and the outgroup consisted of those who were impure. They had open sores, touched a dead person, were menstruating, or something of this nature. In the story of the good Samaritan, those of higher ranks did not touch the sick man because they were on their way home from being purified and stayed away from him so that they could remain pure and remain in the ingroup. The Samaritan, already a member of the outgroup and perhaps not Jewish, helped the man. Although this act is seen by Christians as compassionate, it can also be noted that the Samaritan didn't have as much to lose.

Predestination?

2011-07-28T11:28:00.000-07:00

Determinism would argue that because everything has a cause (which is the initial premise), there is no free will. Determinism argues that actions are a type of event, that each event has a cause, and that because there is a cause, there is a necessary effect-- there is nothing to 'choose' (McFee, 21). Of course, in order to accept this theory, you have to accept the initial premise (that everything has a cause). If we accept determinism, we have no moral responsibility for our actions, because our actions are predetermined by their cause. Calvinism operates on this type of system. Although at first it would seem as though there is little meaning offered in this system, if one is part of the group of 'saved' individuals, there is nothing to be worried about, because one's salvation is already set in stone. The problem with theories of determinism, of course, is determining how the cycle of causes somehow begins. If everything has a cause, then one would ask what the cause is of this initial cause. For the sake of our argument, we will leave the determinism argument aside and continue on with the line of reasoning for free will.

Each day we make decisions which may or may not have outcomes that affect us morally. We make evaluations that affect others and ourselves. These can be said to be moral decisions, because their outcomes have some kind of weight to them. We take action and we are responsible for these actions (McFee, 5). The results of these actions, whether good or bad, are our responsibility. Likewise, if there is no free will, it seems as though there is no moral relevance to our lives. The people we are good to, the people we are mean to, the people we completely ignored… it ultimately has no meaning if there is no free will, because without free will, there is no moral relevance to the way we treat others or any of the decisions that we make in our daily lives.

Works Consulted
Bowes, Pratima. Consciousness and Freedom: Three Views. London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1971.

McFee, Graham. Free Will. London: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000.

Lucas, J.R. The Freedom of the Will. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Luther, Martin. Christian Liberty. Trans. W. A. Lambert. Ed. Harold J. Grimm. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957.

Ofstad, Harald. An Inquiry into the Freedom of Decision. Norway: Norwegian Universities Press, 1961.

Female Ordination

2011-07-27T11:14:00.000-07:00

Reasons I Love Wayne Meeks

2011-07-25T10:40:00.000-07:00

My newest educational toy is my Bible edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Upon its arrival, I tore open its packaging and drooled over the amount of footnotes. I also think I need to purchase a couple other books to further boost my studies. I'll look into those soon.

In any case, as I caught myself up to my current chapter in Matthew in my new Bible, here are some notes I made, all courtesy of the lovely editor's notes in my new Bible.

Literally, "Messiah" or "Christ" is "The Anointed." Kings and priests were anointed with oils.

Matthew traces Jesus to Abraham, the father of the Chosen People, but also "ancestor of a multitude of nations," which can be taken to include the Gentiles.

The women included in Matthew's genealogy were Gentiles or Jewesses with irregular sexual unions considered important for God's plan (logos?), like Mary.

When Matthew concludes Jesus' genealogy, he divides the generations into groups of 14. Fourteen is the numerical value of David's name.

Oftentimes the word "virgin" is more accurately translated "young woman."

The light in your eye... the passage in Matthew (6.22-23) which speaks of light and darkness is better understood in the original language and context. It reads, "If your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness" (NRSV). The word translated here as "unhealthy" is literally "evil." The translator chose “unhealthy” because of the connotations of “evil” in the English language. However, if you understand the context, you understand the phrase is different than it looks at face value in English. An evil eye was a metaphor for jealousy. Recalling courses on both Religion and Anthropology and Jewish Mysticism, I can also submit that in some traditions, the evil eye can even do one harm. Some cultures will mark the faces of beautiful children to avoid the evil eye. Protective makeup and amulets are also often employed. In any case, this passage speaks truth-- jealousy is consuming. When one can be free of jealousy, one can be free to love more openly and embrace God's light. When seen through these lenses, the passage also makes more sense with the passage following, which talks about serving God vs. serving wealth.

Both Matthew and Paul indicate that Peter was married.

Naming is an act of power. When demons call Jesus "Son of God," they are attempting to gain power over the exorcist.

I knew a lot of this stuff, but was reminded of how interesting it was/how often people don’t know it upon reading it. So enjoy. Try not to let your brain dribble out your ear.

Clement

2011-07-21T12:51:00.000-07:00

From 2 Clement:

The Lord himself being asked by someone, when his kingdom would come? said, "When the two shall be one, and that which is without as that within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female." (12:2)

Here's the Deal

2011-07-20T10:38:00.000-07:00

I didn’t grow up eating vegan or vegetarian. In fact, I don’t even have any vegetarian friends. I have a cousin who is vegetarian (though she’s a bit flexible) and that’s all I can claim. My family is very much meat-and-potatoes and a lot of my friends and family poke fun at me for my eating habits.

I don’t want to be the person who goes off on rants about the food industry or gives people an earful every time they order a steak. I don’t like it when people push their viewpoints on others, but I have strong views about ethical behaviors.

I don’t think I know any “bad” people. I think most people are caring and compassionate, but I also think people are selfish. I think that a lot of people are happy saying, “I don’t want to know.” Or they’re happy thinking they do know when they really don’t. I mean, all of us know there are people starving all over the world; there are people dying of curable diseases; each time we get into our cars or eat meat we are contributing to global warming. We know these things, but we aren’t eating a cheeseburger across from a starving African child and we don’t see the sea level rise to our tires each time we turn the key in our engines. As long as we don’t look at it, we’re comfortable.

My grandmother, on a few occasions, has told me about a neighbor of hers who doesn’t watch the news because “it’s depressing.” Yes, it is. It’s depressing and aggravating. I’m one of those people who will yell at newscasts like they’re football games. Guess what? Remaining ignorant of things doesn’t make the world a better place.

Well of course not, you sentimentalist.

Am I?

I don’t want to be the person that makes stupid, harmful decisions because I don’t know any better. I am selfish, just like everyone else. I have a car and I use it when I don’t have to. Unfortunately, it’s cheaper for me to have a car. I work in a different city that uses a different transportation system than the one I live in. I also need to be “on location.” Excuses, excuses; I know. I leave my lights on sometimes; I watch tv; I still buy music on discs of plastic; I still read books printed on dead trees. I make harmful choices, but I like to think I make them intelligently.

I’m a vegetarian. I try not to ruin everyone else’s food plans with my dietary needs and often end up eating meals I’m not too excited about. Part of the joy of eating is the community experience that can accompany it. I enjoy family dinners on Sundays, brunch with friends on Saturdays, and a few dinners with friends and lunches with co-workers a week. I get made fun of and am sometimes thrown a sympathetic look. Poor girl. She can’t eat anything good.

I’m entirely happy eating veggie-based meals. My doctors don’t feel sorry for me. I’m healthy. Even when sometimes I sit around my friends eating something delicious or sit with my family when they’re eating a steak my daddy grilled, I don’t feel sorry for myself because I think I’m doing the right thing.

Book Recommendation

2011-07-16T11:10:00.000-07:00

Hallie, Philip. Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed: The Story of the Village of Le Chambon and How Goodness Happened There. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.

This book was referenced by Todd Perriera in RelS 99, Death, Dying, and Religion. It is the story of Andre Trocme, the pastor of a church in a small French village, and his efforts (along with those of his wife and community) to hide and care for Jews during the Holocaust. At several points, Trocme and his fellow villagers were endangered by their efforts; however, this village saw it as the work of God to help those in need, no matter what their need was or how it risked their own well-being. It is a beautiful story of true compassion and selflessness as it actually exists in humanity.

Wandering Thesis

2011-07-15T10:33:00.000-07:00

I like something that Professor Lindahl (one of my Humanities Honors professors) said once. The jist was: polytheistic peoples are pretty good about accepting the God of a monotheistic tradition because they have, like, 104 gods. "Cool, now we have 105," but the monotheists say, "Yeah but you have to give up your other gods." Then polytheists say, "Yeah, but then we'd only have 1."

"The more that we express, the farther it extends."--Guru Nanak, on attempts to describe God.

Mystic understandings of deities are similar, no matter from which tradition they come. This universality of separately growing, isolated traditions implies Truth to me. God would speak to all people, right? If God would be opening her/himself to all peoples, not just to those who have access to scripture or leaders, perhaps this is how God did it. The differences represent the mistranslation of man. The universal morals consistent in Humanity are a reflection of God's Will. No stealing, no hurting, compassion... (Remember the axial age? Check out the consistency, man).

This is also consistent with the idea that we are all created in God's image. If the Holy Spirit is in us, if God gives us the ability to understand right and wrong, shouldn't we trust this Truth more than any other and acknowledge it as God's Will?

"How then to be true?" Guru Nanak asked. "How do we break the wall of lies? By following the Will." The Will created, determines history. It is responsible for all things. We each sing praise in different ways. "Preaching and preaching leads nowhere."

I believe in God, but I think more important than my belief in God as a being is my belief in Jesus’ teachings and my understanding of God’s Will. I read the gospels and understand; I see that same Truth that's present in the waves of the ocean and in the silence of the forest. How can I be dogmatic about a text that is subject to human error, that is ambiguous, that spoke to a world that is entirely different from today but to a Humanity whose core is still essentially the same? Jesus was forgiving, Jesus was caring, Jesus rebelled against ritual-- senselessly abiding to tradition and rules when logic and the Humanity within us tell us to be compassionate. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. We cannot be defying God if we are acting out of compassion, love, and/or forgiveness.

Mahayana Buddhism argues that the Buddha gave each person what they needed to reach enlightenment, regardless of an empirical truth to his teachings. He was not concerned with truth or reality, he was concerned with helping people find enlightenment. Doctrines are the boats we use to cross the river, but carrying the boat around on shore once you have crossed over is stupidity. We should never be attached to the doctrines, to the rituals, to the rules. These are means that can help us achieve the goals set before us. Doctrines and rituals are absurd if there is no meaning behind them. They are expressions of meaning, but can become the meaning and distort the original intent. Saying the Lord's Prayer is only useful if you understand and feel why Jesus wanted us to pray this way. Once we forget the morals behind the teachings, behind the tradition and doctrines, they become secular.

Fundamentalists are secular. Their spirituality is a perversion of Truth. It is founded in the rules and literal meaning of translations. This is wrong.

"I get out. I get out of all your boxes, I get out." --Lauryn Hill

How can we claim dogmatic knowledge about that which transcends the human mind? If God is beyond, pervasive, and eternal, how can we contain God in the boxes of doctrine? If God is in everything, God is in the sinner, God is in the rapist, God is in the dirt, God is in the water, and God is in the air. Who are we to destroy what is created in God’s image? Meh.

I don't know if this makes sense to anyone but me, but yeah. I love the world, I love people, and I see God in everything. So if you're reading this, I love you even if you don't understand why or what the heck I'm talking about. You're beautiful.

Free Will and Faith

2011-07-14T10:28:00.000-07:00

Faith and free will seem to make more sense when seen together than apart. Although theological systems like Calvinism show that it is very possible for some people to have faith without believing in free will, I think that the idea of free will strengthens the concept of faith. Philosophers such as Kierkegaard, who have proposed that faith requires free will, give faith more meaning through free will. Also, in order for a moral system to truly be moral, it has more meaning if free will exists and individuals are responsible for the morality of the choices that they make, rather than simply imposing judgments. Ultimately free will should be considered morally paramount, because by making a conscious choice to make the decision most pleasing to one's God, often in the face of doubt, is perhaps the most admirable decision one can make.

Free will can easily be misunderstood as an ability to make whatever choice one sets one's mind to. However, if I choose to fly tomorrow, of course that doesn't mean I will be able to, because I simply cannot fly. Free will and "our concern with freedom is connected with our concept of responsibility" (Lucas, 4). Having free will is having the ability to take action in a number of different ways and having a responsibility connected with the outcome of those actions. For instance, I could plagiarize these words, but I would be responsible for taking that action. I would consider plagiarism an immoral action and feel dishonest about stealing the thoughts of someone else and claiming them as my own. "We set great store by our actions, and by being able to explain and justify them. It is only through our actions that we can achieve anything in the public external world. We, therefore, normally, want to be responsible for them" (Lucas, 4). Our actions and our freedom to take them (or not take them) and our reasoning behind our taking our actions gives us our self-worth. It becomes our moral measure. It is for this reason that free will is so important to the issue of faith. If one is seen as the moral product of one's actions, and one's actions are the product of one's free will, then one's free will becomes tied to one's faith (if one is a person of faith).

I’m reading:
Kierkegaard, Soren. A Kierkegaard Anthology. Ed. Robert Bretall. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1946.

Lucas, J.R. The Freedom of the Will. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Why I Hate Popular Christianity

2011-07-13T12:11:00.000-07:00

Many of (certain/most) Christians' claims are largely dependent on a naive trust in authority.

This is where Christian education is important (of course, within the tradition). Once pre-critical naivety subsides, Jesus absent of context, history, and contemporary parallel seems completely irrelevant and disintegrates into blind, pointless faith.

This doesn't mean that Jesus should be seen only as a teacher. The image of Jesus as a teacher lacks a religious or spiritual dimension and seems more acceptable as a philosophy than a religion. It, to me, looks like a weak and rather pathetic inability to leave a tradition which apparently offers no unique value. It's also a rather shallow interpretation if one is claiming Jesus as an identifying part of who they are.

But Jesus as he is popularly presented...

I have some problems with the popular version of Jesus, not only because his presentation is(/can be) psychologically damaging, but because he is culturally irrelevant when he is removed from his historical context (and thus, largely interpreted through an ignorant framework).

Doctrine is given to most Christians before they see the gospels. Given this framework within which to interpret, Christians are denied the opportunity to learn the "gospel" in a more logical way. Doctrine dominates/molds the Christian mentality by denying the Christian body the right to critical analysis of their scripture.

This not only perpetuates an ignorant Christianity, but leads to many people falling away from the Christian tradition. Jesus without his context is, I think, insignificant. If our only knowledge of religious claims is simply because someone in authority told us, these claims immediately lose their relevance once our childish trust in authority is gone. If one does continue to believe in these things past the development of critical thinking, I would seriously doubt that person's ability to make reasonable, responsible decisions. *cough* Christian right *cough*

Biblical literacy should not simply mean that the Bible has been read and that passages have been memorized. It should mean that available resources have been used to supplement the material, so that it could be understood to the deepest extent possible. History, archaeology, biology, literature... all frameworks should be applied to best understand its themes, context, and relevance. An interdisciplinary approach should be taken when studying the Bible, instead of simply taking it at face value (Let’s note the stupidity of doing so, since the Bible is in fact, a translation that cannot fully translate over both language and history). Human advancement is in vain if we cannot use the brilliance of our species to understand that which we like to say has the most meaning.

Dogmatic theology and defensive responses to the enlightenment are what currently categorize Christian beliefs. This strikes me as tragic. If we love the Bible, we should seek to understand it as thoroughly as we can, which means delving into it from every angle, to understand it as it best makes sense, to use the best intelligence of Humanity to understand that which Humanity has been trying to understand since its birth.

The problem is: scholarly approach to scripture is absent from mainstream Christianity. The lay community is given no plausible alternative to the popular image of Jesus. This unfortunate truth is, as I see it, the core of the problem. If scholarly research could make it into Sunday school, perhaps Creationism wouldn't be seeping into public schools.

::::::::::::::::::::

The Value of Genesis

2011-07-12T11:07:00.000-07:00

What happened thousands of years ago in a garden doesn't matter in my life today. The Eden story has morals and millions of interpretations. It is fascinating to go through the takes of Genesis; it is inspiring to hear the morals; it is a beautiful story. However, it's a beautiful story whose historical value is nothing compared to its metaphorical value. The message of the Genesis story is not that God did create life or the specifics of how God did so. The messages worth drawing from the text are never that shallow. "Why?" is the question we should be continually asking. Why would God create Adam and Eve, knowing that they would fall? Why go through the trouble? I believe it was to give them choice. Humans are created not for the sake of God, but for the sake of humans... so that we will have the knowledge beyond fact and instinct: knowledge of conscious decision-making skills and a moral compass. So that humanity will have the ability to choose. God did it so we could have the choice to choose a way of living life and understand that choice.

I don't think God created us for God or out of some kind of need. I don't think that God needs anything... because God is God. What could God possibly need from us? I think humanity exists for humanity's sake: so that we can live and feel and love. Whatever pain or joy there may be in that, I find the most perfect beauty not based on how happy each of us are or the greater utility of the world, but because it is real... because everything has meaning to us and because that meaning is real. Without this world, there would be no love. God created love and we are a necessary part of that. God created meaning and we are a necessary part of that. For me, there is no more profound truth than the reality of meaning. That said, what the heck do I know, eh?

In any case, it is abundantly clear to me that the point of the creation story is not the specifics of how and when God created the world... that there were two people living someplace called "Eden" means squat. If the meaning you find in the creation story is that God is all-powerful and created the world out of nothing, you’re not reading Genesis with your “thinking cap” on.

Biblical literacy should not simply mean that the Bible has been read and that passages have been memorized; it should mean that available resources have been used to supplement the material so that it could be understood to the deepest extent possible. History, archaeology, biology, philosophy, sociology, linguistics, psychology, literature... all frameworks should be applied to best understand the Bible’s themes, context, and relevance. An interdisciplinary approach should be taken when studying the Bible instead of simply taking it at face value. It is stupidity to read the Bible at a solely literalist level since the Bible is, in fact, a translation that cannot fully translate over both language and history. Human advancement is in vain if we cannot use the brilliance of our species to understand that which we like to say has the most meaning.

If there is nothing anyone can take on faith, the most "sure" claim is that this world exists. If there is a God and if God did create it, create us, or create anything, then this is it. I think I can know that much. If there is anything I should be working for, it should be this world, because I know it's here and that if God created it, God must have liked the idea of it being around. If no one created it? Then everything I do matters because it is all that matters. I think I should be working for humanity and the betterment of it. I think I should be helping people where I can, whether that means being there for others when they are hurting or whether it means giving money to women trying to make lives for themselves in Africa. I believe that that means trying to respect this earth, to enjoy nature... whether that means not littering, driving a more gas-efficient car, or giving money to causes which try to save nature.

The most profound truth is the reality of meaning. If this creation/world/bang means anything, maybe we should act like it.

Book Recommendation

2011-07-11T10:49:00.000-07:00

Taliaferro, Charles and Griffiths, Paul J., ed. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

This was the textbook used for Philosophy of Religion, which I took from Janet Giddings. I found the text to provide a range of views on different topics, such as evil, religious values, theistic arguments, personal identity, and others. The textbook also tended to place two opposing views next to each other which I appreciated, not only because it provoked thought, but because it provided a good ground for class discussion. The text also introduced me to Mary Midgley, whose writing I enjoy and hope to read more of.

Speaking in Tongues

2011-07-10T11:09:00.000-07:00

Does this make me think these people are drunk? No, It makes me think they're crazy.

This is what we call mass hysteria. It's what we call mob mentality. Does anyone deny that what happened during he Holocaust was wrong? Well, yes, but most of us are sane enough to realize how horrible and crazy it was. So yes, I'm sure all of the people in that crowd were able to convince themselves that what they were doing was genuine... and so in that sense it was. Just like I convinced myself I had a stomach ache when I wanted to stay home from school.

However, this is dangerous. These people are convinced of crazy things. When you're convinced to see reality in a way that is completely unlike reality, you will approach it in absurd and wrong ways.

This is where hatred begins.

Destruction

2011-07-09T11:06:00.000-07:00

“God must share responsibility with the world for our existence, for our ability to be kind and cruel. But now that we are here, we must accept responsibility for what we do. God cannot save us from ourselves or from the rest of the world upon which we depend.” –C. Robert Mesle

At this point in the history of the earth, we need to cooperate with the environment in a level of consciousness that we have yet to approach. The state of the planet is approaching a point of no return; if humanity, the previously and currently most destructive force in the web of the earth, does not begin to relate to the earth and truly understand and experience our interconnectedness to all things, we risk complete and irreversible destruction of the planet which we have called home for centuries.

Go-Go Gadget Soul

2011-07-08T10:56:00.000-07:00

When I broke up with one of my boyfriends, my mother, in her attempt to wrest information from me, reminded me that everyone has their baggage. Much of life is "too good to be true." Most of us hide our baggage and it only seeps out in our moments of vulnerability or in those moments which we use to open ourselves.

Not everyone reading this knows my baggage, but everyone has their broken moments in life and periods of life which have brought us great pain. My baggage is there; your baggage is there; our baggage is there, building and gathering dust and waiting to start over-flowing over the lid of the metaphorical trashcan that is our facade.

So the baggage that I'll use to talk about is the baggage that at this point, many people know I have—the eating disorder. There was a point in my life that I could no longer hide this baggage—people were tripping over the trash littered on the floor outside of my trashcan (way to beat a metaphor to death). This was a point where I lost 15 pounds in 2 weeks, when no one had seen me eat anything more than a bowl of lettuce for some period of time, when I weighed less than I had since I entered puberty. The eating disorder is like an addiction that I kept relapsing back into. Every time, it's less severe than the last. I am confident that I am making progress, though I honestly don't always want to be.

The point of this honesty is to note that when I reach a low, I rebound into a high. It was this lowest point in my eating disorder that headed me into a "Life change" moment. During this low, I was in an abusive relationship and stuck in a cycle of self-hatred that I have not since paralleled. My boss confronted me. My mother confronted me. My parents stuck me in therapy. I dropped a class. I talked to my professors. And I started telling people.

What I found in telling people about this problem was that I had friends. There were people that cared about me. Stuck in a mindset of self-hatred produced by a painful relationship, it simply never occurred to me that I had friends that cared about me. Mike took me to lunch, sat in the counseling office and waited for me, and wrote me a little poem to open when I felt sad. Chris sat in a coffee shop and talked to me for hours one day after studying for a final. As I came out about my disorder, I realized just how many people cared for me and it started to occur to me that I didn't need to be treated the way my boyfriend was treating me. I started to realize that I had worth, that people saw good things in me, and that I didn't need to be constantly hearing someone tear me down.

Cutting the bindings of that relationship allowed me to grow in ways I had prevented myself from growing. I started learning to socialize more. I started learning to be open to people. I am such a different person now.

When we hit lows, we realize things about our selves. When relationships hit rocky bits, when death cuts into our lives and our hearts, the feelings that surface are often profound. We re-evaluate our situations and our priorities. Sometimes we lived in our lows. I know I have. Sometimes when life hits us hard, we lay on the ground for a while, afraid that if we get up, it'll only knock us back down. We fall into self-destructive tendencies and feel lost in chaos and self-hatred.

I'm feeling a bit like a supernova. Part of the explosion process is to cave in on myself into a dense mass of chaos (sorry, my ability to acutely describe scientific processes metaphorically is a bit lacking), but I am rebounding into an explosion of brilliance.

Some time ago I read a book called The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era: A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos by Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry. I dunno about everyone else, but science kind of makes me want to cry. I mean, I like Genesis and all, but the big bang? Effing wow. Who needs a creation story when we have science? See my previous blogs to be assured that I appreciate creation myths, especially Genesis. The explosive deaths of celestial bodies lead to opportunities for Life. Our Earth exists because of a series of deaths and explosions. Often times, we need to die to ourselves in order to be born again (pretend that combination of words doesn't connote fundamentalism).

One of my minister’s sermons really hit on this subject. When she gave it, I cried in the pews. I needed that sermon... it felt like it was for me. She talked about how each of us lives in our own story. We often live within imaginary boundaries of our stories. For instance, if we think "I cannot do x because y," perhaps we are in our story. Perhaps those limits don't exist; perhaps we only perceive those limits because we always have. We have become accustomed to how our story plays out and limit our minds.

Sometimes when we are tired of explaining something over and over, it's because we are stuck in our storyline.

I became stuck in a story of habit. I became stuck in a cycle of routine. Then something broke me out of this cycle. While that cycle temporarily put me into a rather unpleasant new cycle of shame and imposed new boundaries, Penny's sermon broke me out of that. Perhaps if I were a braver person than I am, I would have given her a hug on the way out of church. I certainly thought about it and dared myself to, but I didn't. In any case, Penny's sermon moved me to tears and broke me out of the cycle I was in. Let me reproduce a portion of it:

"What is your story? Sometimes when we retell a story again and again we relive the wound, or sometimes we can tell it and we move onto other things. A couple of weeks ago, Steve told a story—a very difficult story—but then he spent the rest of the time telling how he had been transformed. He didn't stay in that story. How do stories change or die? They get replaced with new ones… So my friends, if today, there is something that you want to have change in your Life, it's possible. When we want to change spiritually, it doesn't make room for transformation when we say, 'That's just how I am' or 'that's just how it's been for me.' If there's anything that I know to be true about our great faith, it's this: transformation happens again and again. There is always room for change. There is always room for renewal. So today, whoever you are, what is your story and how is it serving you or not? Because if you hear nothing else today, hear this: you are not your illness; you are not your pain; you are not your childhood; you are not your age; you are not your job; you are not your mistakes and you are not your successes. You are a child of a God who is love itself, with a phenomenal capacity to change. Do you want it?"

I am climbing out of my low. I am more inspired than I've been in a long time. I'm thinking about my priorities, where I want to go in Life and the kind of person I want to be. Sometimes it takes a new low to be able to look up.

For a long time, I've been confused about a lot of what I wanted and where I wanted to be going. A number of years ago, when I broke off that relationship, it meant a huge shift in my future. I'd been working toward something for so long that I felt I no longer wanted. I wasn't going to move to southern California and become a teacher. I wasn't going to marry that man. I wasn't going to be that person. I wasn't living to impress him and I wasn't living to impress certain other people whose expectations I felt bounded me… and while I was able to escape his boundaries, I still lived within other boundaries of my story.

So here I am. I'm not that person anymore. I have a new story. I am entering into the change I want to see in the world. I will not inhibit my own progress because I am afraid of progress' consequences. I will not continue to live in a dead story. Change requires sacrifice and strength. Progress requires us to resist the story lines that flow downhill while we march up it.

Do you ever get goose bumps during a key change? Maybe in a rock song or a symphony? There is something about certain chordal progressions that can just touch something in my spine and get me excited about that change. Sometimes that tingle comes when someone says something powerful. Maybe I just don't know enough about the human body to know why that tingle happens, but it does in little moments like that. One day, I was sitting in a class, listening to my professor lecture. Sitting there, I realized in one of those tingle moments that I was going to be something good, that my work was going to matter, if only on a small scale.

It was just a little tingle moment, but it mattered. Maybe I will only be a little tingle moment in the grand scheme of the universe, but I'll matter.

I'll make sure to matter.

seeking uncertainty

Another Tidbit

Your Church Probably Has a Website

More on Female Ordination

Uniting and Dividing: The development of Christianity online

Evil Eye

Another Tidbit

Popular Christianity

Female Ordination: A continuing struggle with patriarchy

Another Tidbit

Religion Dork

tidbit

Factory Farms

tidbit

I Am Religious

A Tidbit

Matthew 15 v Mark 7

Environmentalism as Spirituality

Do We Need An Afterlife?

Western God

Metanoia

Book Recommendation

Understanding the Bible

More Translation Problems

Should we redevelop the idea of God within the Western philosophical tradition?

The Look in Your Eyes

The Didache and Eucharist

The Didache and Baptism

The Didache and Sin

The Didache and Tithing

More Didache Love

Female Ordination

Border Immersion Video

Border Immersion Day 5

Border Immersion Day 4

Border Immersion Day 3

Gendered Language

Book Recommendation

Border Immersion Day 2

Border Immersion Day 1

Tomorrow

The Power of Names

Ecotheology

My Plan for Being Cooler Than the Pope

Notes on Prophecy

Why Should We Philosophize About Religion?

Arrogance of Absolute Truth Claims

The Time

Transiently Useful

Animal Agriculture

Found at an Orthodox Monastery

God Thought

Right Christians, Wrong Christians

Journal from Annual Conference 2008 (?)

Early Christian Practice

Why Isn't the Didache In Our Churches?

Heaven

Where Are My Mother and Brothers?

More of This

Why I Go To Church

Why I Hate Popular Christianity

Crap, I Like Yoga

Short Notes

William James

Possession

Gospel

Book Recommendation

Transiently Useful

Temptation

Bright Eyes

I'm King of Selling This

The Feminist Movement

Coming Soon

A Letter to the Christian Marketing Department

Meek and Gentle

If I Were to Translate the First Line of Genesis

My Intolerance

Commentary: Possession and Temptation

Successful Social Actions

I Am Temporal