web confessional

who really goes to hell? a review

2010-06-03T16:59:00.008-04:00

This is my review for Viral Blogger on the book, Who Really Goes to Hell? The Gospel You've Never Heard.

First I'll get the criticisms out of the way.

What Rudel is attempting to do is commendable. With his book and several websites, he seems to be trying to start a massive theological movement. I wouldn't even be surprised if deep down inside Mr. Rudel fancies himself to be modern day Martin Luther, and get the sense that the author believes he has stumbled upon a new reformation. Now I won't disagree that we certainly need a new sort of reformation, and indeed I believe we are in the midst of one currently. But Mr. Rudel's less than subtle attempts to spark a new one himself with his book and blog comes off as a little naive.

Secondly, if Mr. Rudel wants to be taken seriously he should nix the "biblical heresy press" thing. The logo is amateurish and cheesey. But more importantly, while I get what the author means by the name, many people won't. I have decided not to lend out my copy of Who Really Goes to Hell to some conservatives in my life because I think the phrase "Biblical heresy" will be too off-putting and color their view of the author's arguments from the get go.

Thirdly, as other reviewers have noted, there are typos and grammatical errors galore. I also could have done without all the font changes, bold type face and previews of what's to come in further chapters.

Now that those quibbles, most dealing with style and presentation, are out of the way I would like to say that I really enjoyed the substance of the author's arguments. I thoroughly resonate with the notion that the modern gospel has been piled upon by centuries of theological lenses that are far removed from the world view and cultural-historical context of the first century Palestinian Jew. Mr. Rudel's argument that one would come away with a thoroughly different gospel than today's evangelical one, if he or she were only given the synoptic gospels, is spot on. Furthermore, I found many of my own questions and arguments being brought up in the pages of Rudel's book.

Because I'm not a bible scholar and I cannot adequately critique all of Rudel's claims about ancient Jewish beliefs and culture, I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt that his interpretations of Hebrew and Greek words and his depictions of ancient Jewish thought are accurate. However I would have appreciated Rudel citing his scholarly sources. Here and there he mentions N.T. Wright and David Flusser, but a notes section would have been much appreciated.

Overall, I agreed with much of Rudel's criticisms of "the modern gospel." Like Rudel, I grew up in the world of conservative evangelicalism, and found him asking the same questions I have. His observation that the modern gospel comes by way of reading the Jewish gospels through a western protestant lens, and that we must revisit the writings of the apostles through a Jewish lens has been made before. Yet I think that Rudel's contribution to this view is very helpful and I found his differentiation of deliverance and regeneration intriguing. I'll definitely be re-reading this book.

And by the way, I agree with his answer to the title's question.

original sin: a both/and?

2010-03-09T11:28:00.002-05:00

in some follow-up thoughts to my last post, i've been thinking that maybe this extrinsic v.s. intrinsic debate on original sin is really a both/and.

if my premises are right that our ethics come from culture which comes from human relationship (with God, humans and creation), and our ethics are screwed up because our relationships are screwed up, then what happens when we consider that to be a human being-- ontologically-- is to be cultural and relational? in other words, human beings have a relational/cultural dimension, and when we are born into a relational/cultural tainted world, then the moment that dimension begins taking shape that part of us is tainted.

now i understand that this won't satisfy those who insist that a human being, in utero, is already depraved. but if we understand that being human is more than just biology, then i think my explanation that sin comes from the outside, but immediately affects our relational/cultural dimension from the very beginning of our life could be a satisfying explanation.

can't we all just get along? thoughts on original sin, culture and relationships

2010-02-21T22:17:00.008-05:00

i've been reading a new blog lately by a fellow grand rapidian named jeremy bouma. he has been blogging about many things emergent including doug pagitt's view of original sin. it has got me thinking about my own view, and while i would typically say that i do believe in it, something doug said in the comments really resonates with me. in fact it has caused me to do a lot of thinking today because doug's statement fits into my own worldview quite nicely.

here's a summation of my thoughts on this:

all of creation, or reality, is relational. everything that exists, including us, is made of things are that also parts of, and exist in relationship to, bigger things. humans (which are made of atoms, which form molecules, which form cells etc.) form social institutions, which make up society. the DNA or soul of society is culture.

culture is a manifestation of human relationship. human relationship engenders culture. it is the water in which we swim. culture affects us from the very beginning of our life. we are completely enveloped in it.

relationship and culture are part of who we are.

original sin then is the relational fracture between God and humans. this fracture spreads to human relationships and culture, which spreads to the human/creation relationship. this broken relationship with God affects our behavior and ethics since ethics are cultural and deal with relationship.

thus, because our fall comes by way of a relational fracture with God, our salvation comes by way of relational healing with God through Christ.

the statement i liked that doug posted was from his book, a christianity worth believing. here's the statement that resonated with me:

"Sin isn’t a legal problem with God; it’s a relationship problem with us. In the garden, Adam and Eve were perfectly integrated with God. But when they ate from the tree, they acted outside their partnership with God and began to experience the disintegration of their relationship with God. And that’s what sin is—disintegration. We were created for integration, partnering, connection with God. Sin irritates; it destabilizes. It causes us to come unraveled from the life we have with God."

i think doug is right. sin, from the beginning is a relationship problem, and not an imago dei problem. yet jeremy argues that ontologically we are still made in God's image, but ethically we are rebellious:
"We are not worms. We are the Image of God. That image is cracked and corrupted though, though, by sin which is why we act in ways that we were not intended to act, resulting in death that was never intended to be. Ethically we are morally rebellious. The ontological consequences of ethical autonomy that comes from that sin nature which Paul says we've inherited from Adam is Death (and I would also say Diseases, like cancer), but could also affect us at the DNA level."

jeremy really seems contradictory in this statement. we are the image of God, but not really...
why instead can't it be: we are the image of God, but our relationship with him is broken. that would make much more sense, and would explain why our ethics are so screwed up given that ethics are grounded in relationship and culture which affect who we are.

irrational grace

2009-12-15T13:54:00.007-05:00

i was reading the chart of a patient i was assigned to the other day and it read: "patient was found in a dumpster surrounded by trash, vomit and his own feces." this man was a homeless alcoholic, and i couldn't help but think of all the times i've seen people like him and thought, "what a piece of trash." and i also thought how, if i wasn't a social worker and supposed to be the epitome of compassion, i might have thought: "huh, well at least he knows where he belongs." i know that sounds incredibly harsh, but it is the truth. we do think like this. even social workers. furthermore, when i met this man and attempted to have some semblance of a conversation with him, he stated that when he left the hospital, he was going to go to a local party store and get some beer. he also could not understand, even after i described to him how he was found, why i didn't think he should go back to living where he was. once again, how many of us would think, "why waste the time and money on this guy!" yet, we do.

we do this despite the total irrationality of it. for the rational thing would be to just have let him die in the dumpster. after all, his worth to society is about the same worth as the trash he was lying in. if pure reason informed our decision making on such matters we wouldn't use the resources of our society at keeping people like this alive. why is it that we follow reason and rationalism to the tee in all of our academic disciplines yet, in circumstances like these compassion and grace trump reason? or put another way, in circumstances like these, we might say things like "i don't care what makes the most sense, or what is the most reasonable thing to do, i'm going to do what's right." the irrationality of grace turns reason on it's head because what is rational isn't always what is right.

recently, i was thinking about the question: how is one saved? often in discussions of this topic, arguments play out like this: the bible is the objective standard of truth about salvation. thus, one must extract a set of propositions from scripture from various proof texts that logically explain how one is saved. invariably, however, there are different verses that always seem to contradict other verses, and in the end, it is impossible to come up with a perfect unquestionable formula. in my own thoughts, i was considering the story of jesus and the rich young ruler. in the story, the rich man asks jesus how one can be saved-- or enter the kingdom of God. after the rich man says he has obeyed all the laws-- which implies he believes in YHWH and takes his beliefs seriously-- jesus tells him to sell his possessions and follow him. as i rolled this story around in my head for a while and pondered other salvation proof texts i just gave up. i was getting nowhere.

perhaps salvation remains mysterious to us for one, because God saves and not us; it's not our job. but perhaps another reason is because we are saved by grace, and grace is irrational. most people have a problem with the notion of turning the other cheek. "if someone hits you, then you ought to hit them back!" we say. grace just does not make sense. it doesn't make sense to fish someone from a dumpster and spend tens of thousands of dollars on him in hospital bills after he tells you that when he leaves the hospital he will go right back to living the same way. but we do. though we think angry thoughts when we encounter these people, our society creates policies that allow this. and most of us wouldn't have it any other way.

a day after my meeting with this individual, he coded and was transferred to the ICU where he subsequently died. thankfully some of his family showed up, so at least, he didn't die alone. but this person is in God's hands now. most people, and probably most christians, would agree that this man is in hell. i get why people come to that conclusion based on scripture, but the opposite can also be said-- based on scripture. and i also have to believe that if our society can conjure up enough grace to save people most of us despise, i have to hold out hope that the God, from where grace originates, might do the same.

on being a skeptical believer: chaos

2009-07-31T21:22:00.006-04:00

this past couple of weeks have been hectic partly because my sister and brother-in-law lost their baby and anne and i have been travelling across the state to see them and attend the funeral. i'm not complaining. i feel horrible for them, and strongly desired to be with them in the midst of this. and it was incredibly emotionally draining for my wife, so i also wanted to be there for her. their whole experience is tragic, and it eerily co relates with a lot of things that have been on my mind. throughout human history, people have struggled to live often losing child after child. it's been only recent that medical technology has lessened the infant mortality rate in our world. and as someone who loves history and realizes all of this, and in watching them suffer, i have been constantly aware of how chaotic our world really is. these thoughts constantly whipped through my mind as i sat through the funeral and listened to their pastor struggle to find meaning in this loss. not to be narcissistic, but in an odd way their whole experience embodied many of the questions i have been wrestling with lately.

in the past few weeks, i have been obsessed with watching debates online. and not just any debates, but ones featuring the journalist, literary and social critic, christopher hitchens. i admit, i have a bit of a man-crush on hitchens. not just because he's brilliant and amazingly well-read and articulate, but because he's hilarious as well and his presentations are as entertaining as they are informative. hitchens recently penned a book called God is not great: how religion poisons everything. after writing this book he has embarked across the country debating various theologians, apologists, scholars and rabbis. i first watched him debate the microbiologist and oxford professor of historical theology, alister mcgrath. knowing mcgrath's credentials and that he has written several books refuting atheism, i expected him to mop the floor with hitchens. much to my surprise the reverse was true, and i was shocked at how foolish mcgrath looked. other debates i watched were between rabbi shmuley boteach and dinesh d'souza. there are actually several with d'souza, and i think he's faired the best. but some of hitchens arguments really bother me, and i've been finding myself arguing with him in my head ever since i began to watch.

my foundational belief for why i believe in God is that there is something rather than nothing. there is order in the midst of chaos. our universe has laws that can be articulated in mathematical language, and our earth exists against tremendously unthinkable odds. now this doesn't necessarily mean that the God of the bible is the intelligence responsible for our universe. that belief i base on the story of the jewish people laid out in scripture, and how that story, once again, despite inconceivable odds, shouldn't have even existed, and yet has changed the world. furthermore, even though there were countless jewish messiahs who were crucified by rome, one of them created a movement that some how flourished even after he was crucified. to me, the story of our universe, human history, and jesus all seem to have the same force driving them.

hitchen's argument, however, is so what? our planet occupies a vast universe full of failed solar systems that didn't give such a result. in focusing on the order, we ignore all the immense chaos that exists. we ignore that fact that we've had meteors crash into our planet or whizz right by us. we ignore the fact that in a few billion years our sun will burn out or the andromeda galaxy will collide with ours rendering us a frozen scorched rock and nothingness and chaos will be our reality again, just like it was in the preceding billions of years before the big bang. we're just a tiny speck in an enormous, dangerous chaotic universe. our existence is a blip in the history of the universe. as hitchens puts it, "we exist on a knife's edge. some design..."

why did my brother and sister in law's baby die? so that God could glorify himself? really? babies have been dying for thousands of years. was God just glorifying himself then? as i sat in that funeral listening to their pastor plumb the depths for meaning in this all too common-- in fact way more common than not-- situation, i couldn't help but think, "are we just bullshitting ourselves?" chaos really seems to have the upper hand. order really seems to be unfathomably rare-- so rare that maybe it is all just a fluke.

so here i sit. i don't have a good answer for this. these are the hard questions, and i think back to my high school days pissed off at myself at how cocky and certain i was. and it frustrates me even more when i hear christians, just as cocky and ignorant as i once was, dismiss these arguments. because at the very least, in wrestling with them, i am ever more aware of just how good, exceptional and precious this life is. and just how much i truly have to rely on faith.

in the midst of mediocrity

2009-07-06T21:14:00.003-04:00

well the fourth of july has come and gone, and now we're smack dab in the middle of summer. in the past few years, as i have become increasingly geekier and boring, and as proof, the fourth of july brings up feelings of excitement in me about... not fireworks or boating or cookouts or other things people do on the fourth, but learning about american history. this all started a few years ago when i first subscribed to TIME and received my first annual "making of america" issue. that first issue was on my favorite president, teddy roosevelt, and ever since, the fourth of july has always gotten me interested in history. this year the issue was, fittingly, on FDR and had some great articles by FDR biographers and a critical article by amity shales who recently authored the book, the forgotten man. anne and i also spent the weekend at my parents where i got to spend a couple hours, on the morning of the fourth, watching american revolution documentaries on the history channel. i was in heaven.

we had a good and relaxing time, and we did other non-history related things. lately, i have just been feeling like life is pretty dull, good, but dull. i think about the things i like to do and they amount to reading, watching movies and trying new foods and drinks. anne and i have a good time together, but the exciting couple we are not. yet, in all this mediocrity, i can't help but wonder, if this is the calm before the storm. soon fall will be here and i will be starting my internship, we will be off to europe, the holidays will be upon us and we may even be pregnant. things could get crazy really fast.

overall, i feel as though we are in a transitional period. we have big goals and plans that are all set to begin in the fall. it reminds of me of when i first met anne. i had just finished my first degree, and gotten my first pharmacy tech job. i was in the midst of paying off my car and looking at finding a job in grand rapids and finally moving out of my parents house. things were exciting and new. fall is my favorite season, and it is always the season where big things happen for me. i am eager to see what this fall brings.

until then i'm just slogging through my last class and adding books to my reading list. currently i'm reading theodore rex, the wrecking crew, and two views of hell. the book, the fourth day by howard vantill is on the way in the mail. in the latter book, i have just really gotten into the section on the traditional view of hell. i admit that the author presents some convincing arguments, but i'm finding that it really does all come down to interpretation. do the dead bodies being burned and eaten by worms in isaiah chapter sixty-whatever symbolize people who have been destroyed, or do they symbolize people experiencing eternal conscious torment? you can really read it both ways.

such is also with summer. to some, summer means exciting vacations, camping, water-sports, and amusment parks. for me, summer is the last few months i have to get through before the best and most exciting time of the year.

is death really a bad thing?

2009-06-15T08:41:00.005-04:00

a couple years ago my wife and i were talking about creationism, and what people believe about a literal creation story. in our discussion i mentioned that people who hold to a literal, or at least somewhat literal interpretation, believe that people weren't meant to die. now, i'm not sure if anne knew that or not, or if she ever really thought about the implications of that, but she asked a question that, to this day, i have no good answer to. she asked, "but if no one died, then wouldn't the earth get overpopulated really quick?"

it's a fact that death is necessary for life. if there were no death, then much of the planet's inhabitants couldn't eat (which i guess they wouldn't need to?). and like my wife pointed out, if there were no death, not only would there be human overpopulation, but animal and plant overpopulation as well. there might not be any death, but life might be pretty miserable on such an overcrowded planet. death and life are totally interconnected. we even see this played out in the christian story-- to gain life, one must die to himself.

but wasn't death a result of the fall? some theologians would say spirtual death-- being separated from God-- was, but not physical death. i admit that this explanation, while it has some problems with the whole of scripture, seems, for me at least, to ring true. but at the same time i'm not so sure. what if we eliminated all physical death that is caused, directly and indirectly, by the activity of human beings? i wonder how much less death there would be. i wonder if people had stayed in that harmonious relationship with God, eachother and creation, if we would have continued toward a deathless-- at least for human beings-- existence. maybe we would have fulfilled our mandate to populate the planet and ceased having children.

another thought i have had is that everything seems to exist in a cycle e.g. seasons. the ancients understood this well. scripture speaks about the ages of the earth, and eternal life refers to life in the age that is to come. in other words, God made this creation, and later on there will be a new creation which inhabitants of this creation will populate. maybe this current creation is part of a cycle-- kind of like seasons-- of a whole continuous process of creations. and the first people who lived in that edenic state were aware that their life would continue on into the new creation after they died, and physical death was simply part of this creation (thus there was no fear of physical death and no need to care about an afterlife, which is what you see in the OT). maybe the death that resulted from the fall was a spirtual death that damaged the human-God relationship in such a way that humans couldn't be part of the new creation. thus salvation from death means a restoration of that relationship in order for humans to, once again, be part of that future new creation.

whether or not physical death was intended for humans, we'll probably never know. i find it incredibly problematic to imagine the current creation without any physical death. if there were no death there would be no need for A LOT of things that make this creation tick. the changes that resulted from the fall would need to be much more than labor pains, hard work, male dominancy, clothes, the end of talking animals, and snakes losing their legs.

and lastly, don't take this as a "this is what i believe" type of post. i'm just thinking out loud, throwing out ideas, and putting into print the crazy stuff that bounces around my neurons.

wrath, hell & judgement

2009-06-06T07:53:00.003-04:00

last night anne and i ventured downtown to the yearly festival of the arts to see one of anne's coworkers play her banjo in a dixieland band. it was a good night, but part of it was spoiled by having to endure the sight of a massive crowd surrounding a guy with a big sign and a bible. the sign condemned gays by saying AIDS is God's judgement on them and even condemned-- seriously-- rock n' rollers. at one point i witnessed a scraggly haired gentleman storm towards the man and begin yelling in his face. another time a teenage girl with an enormous mohawk did the same. it was basically a jerry springer episode right in the middle of Calder square.

i've been thinking a lot about hell and wrath lately. last weekend anne and i attended church with her sister and husband. we went to sunday school where we learned about jehovah's witnesses and then sat through a sermon on--you guessed it! -- God's wrath. in sunday school the pastor argued that JW's have such a huge following because they are annihilationists. he said people would rather be in a religion that believed people won't suffer for eternity than one where people do. i also recently borrowed a book from a friend that i have been wanting to read. the book is called don't stop believing: why living like jesus is not enough by mike wittmer. i am seriously thinking about reviewing this book because i think there is a lot of great discussion points, but one of my main criticisms is that wittmer, like the sunday school pastor and the annoying street preacher, boils salvation down to getting out of hell.

i just received a book in the mail this week called two views of hell which discusses the traditional view of hell and the annihilationist (conditionalism) position. i bought this book because i am 99.9% sure i am a conditionalist, but i wanted to read the best arguments for both to make sure. i hope this book provides that, but more on that in a moment. i believe the biggest problem conservative evangelicals have, theologically, is the idea that salvation is all about life after death, and here's why: what the pastor said about the high numbers of JW's is telling-- he believes people are less scared of the JW view of hell when it comes to their loved ones, so they believe the JW's. now, regardless if he's right or not, he's saying that fear plays an enormous role in salvation. or take this example. in the service that day a number of people prayed for their relatives salvation. why? because they don't want them to go to hell. or take annoying sign guy. if you asked him, what would he tell you he's trying to do? he would tell you he's trying to get people saved so that they don't go to hell. the argument often goes like this: life is short, so you need to worry about eternity. yet, because of this traditional view of hell and the belief that salvation is about avoiding that fate, many people become christians in this country out of fear, and they struggle to understand why living a christian life is important. and thus they believe that the christian life is evidence that they're saved, in other words, their get-out-of-hell free card is still effective. i think this way of thinking is completely wrong, and i think there is a role for conditionalism in fixing this.

first, i believe that salvation and eternal life start now, and that the christian life is salvation. in last weeks church service the pastor discussed people who don't want to be saved because it means they have to live a different way. what is he saying? he's saying that salvation is about getting out of going to hell, and for God letting you off the hook, you've gotta be good. but if salvation starts now, then that means not only is one forgiven, but that christ is now going to begin restoring that person, healing his or her relationships and addictions. being saved means beginning to live like you were intended to live, and that life, that sort of living, is eternal. and not only are you being restored, but you get to participate in the restoration of everything else. hell is the path said person was currently on leading towards destruction, and now he or she is on the path towards life.

secondly, it's true, the traditional view of eternal torment is scary. and it's so scary that it should scare people into being christians. but, i believe, that that is one of it's weaknesses. nobody should become a christian out of fear. people should become christians because God loves them and desires to have a relationship with them. people should become christians so that they get to live the christian life, because living that way is truly being human. and finally people should become christians because God will win and resistance is futile. conditionalism-- the belief that everyone whom isn't redeemed will be done away with-- is a better view, not only because the whole of scripture supports it, but because by removing the eternal element, and thereby some of the fear element, the proper emphasis can be placed on the renewed life. don't get me wrong, it would scare me to think of never seeing my wife again or to face divine punishment for the things i've done. but the traditional view of unjustly punishing finite deeds for eternity, i think, has the effect of turning christianity into a fire insurance policy no matter how much emphasis is placed on God's love for us or the importance of living a christian life. with the traditional view, salvation will always boils down to keeping out of eternal hell.

lastly, after seeing sign guy, i wondered what if? what if christians like me and my friends who cringe at sign guy got our own signs. what if our signs said, "repent!" and then listed: of hatred, violence, objectifying people, destroying creation, judging others, tearing others down, racism and all other sins that destroy you and others whom God self-sacrificially loves. and what if people carrying these signs talked to passersby about a God who wants to put them and this world back together. i wonder what the response would be. i wonder if it would be angry screaming kids with mohawks and homosexuals, or angry screaming fundies with signs filled with hatred and wrath. at any rate, i bet i can tell you which sign carriers would be more effective at spreading the gospel.

book review: spirituality by carl mccolman

2009-06-01T20:32:00.002-04:00

Spirituality, I admit like other reviewers, was my last choice from the books that were available. Yet despite wishing it would have been a tad shorter, I found this book to be worth reading.
McColman aimed to write a book on spirituality that would appeal to people of all religions or to those who lack any religion. I am not sure he accomplished this, as I found much of this book to be very much in accord with my own Christian spirituality. Thus, while I believe non-Christians would appreciate McColman's inclusive posture, I'm not sure if say Buddhists, Hindus or Wiccans would feel at home with the many aspects of spirituality or God that McColman describes. In fact, I would recommend this book to a completely secular person in hopes of opening her up to Christian spirituality.

My favorite part of Spirituality was McColman's explanation of the relationship between culture and spirituality. I found his analogy of culture as the body or lungs, and spirituality as the breath enlightening. I also enjoyed his explaination of how culture is imperative for spirituality.

All in all, I found this book useful for teasing out the differences between religion and spirituality. I also found it enlightening in the way McColman shows that spirituality is a human experience rather than a religious one. Like others who reviewed this book, I would say Spirituality is helpful as a crash course in deepening one's spiritual life.

knocking the supernatural, and some follow-up thoughts

2009-04-30T12:57:00.003-04:00

my closing paragraph in my last post wasn't intended to trash the supernatural or miracles. i acknowledge the role of "miracles" in scripture as signs pointing to the coming kingdom of God; and i actually think we need to re-understand what miracles are, but that's a different post. my point in de-emphasizing the supernatural is that i think that most people view miracles and the like as the point of religion or faith. and, in fact, many people are atheists or agnostics because they do not believe in miracles and therefore cannot believe in God. thus i think the high emphasis that christians have historically placed on miracles and supernatural happenings have been damaging to the ultimate mission of the church.

i say this also because the more i think about how all of reality fits together and what christianity teaches about the human story, the more i realize how miraculous everything really is. for we, just like everything else around us, make up something that transcends ourselves.

our purpose, our function, is to be God's representation on earth. our purpose is to rule in his place. yet, adam screwed that up. but christ is the second adam. christ modeled what we were made to do, and now we are now to communally and individually embody him. we make up christ's body. communally, joined in agape, we are the closest thing on earth to its creator.

chaos--> sub-atomic particles--> atoms--> molecules--> cells--> tissues--> organs--> organ systems--> human--> church--><-- God

yesterday, a cousin told my wife how disappointed she is in her father because he doesn't go to church every week. if i were there i would have asked, "why? what's the purpose of going to church? is there an attendance quota we need to meet?"

i wonder how different things would be if we stopped seperating the supernatural from the everyday. i think about how my cousin's warpped understanding of what the church is affects her father's understanding of it. then i think about how the warpped understanding the church has had about itself affects the world's understanding of it. just sayin.

finding jesus in ken wilber

2009-04-10T13:14:00.003-04:00

in velvet elvis, rob bell, recommends the book, a brief history of everything, by ken wilber. rob received a lot of flack recommending a book by a zen buddhist philosopher. but i was intrigued that rob found this book so worth reading, and since i believe all truth is God's truth, i thought i would pick it up. i'm about half way through, and though i reject wilber's pantheistic view of God, i am finding a lot of thought-provoking content.

wilber explains that all of reality is made up of "holons." holons are nothing more than anything that is a whole, yet is also a part. for example, an atom is its own entity, but it is also part of a molecule. and likewise, a molecule is something in and of itself, yet is also part of a cell. wilber then explains that as holons go into deeper levels of complexity (e.g. atoms to molecules) there become fewer of them. to put it another way-- there are more atoms than there are humans, which are made of atoms.

the implication that human beings are holons themselves is obvious. i spend a lot of time as a social work student learning about systems theory. put simply, systems theory theorizes that human being are and function in systems. our bodies are made up of organ systems, and we live and work in social systems e.g. families, neighborhoods, communities, governments etc. we are wholes and we are parts. the big question i have in all of this is that just like atoms work together to create molecules, which work together to create cells, is there something greater that we create when we work together? or, just like there are forces that hold atoms and molecules together to work in a functionally, orderly way, what forces hold people together?

what are the implications in all of this for christianity?

the bible is rife with commands to love others, your neighbor, your brother and to love God. in fact, there is a strong connection with loving God and loving people. the bible, in many regards, is a book about relationships-- what happens when they are good, and what happens when they go wrong. the apostle paul teaches that the church-- a group of people loving each other and loving God-- are to be christ's body. maybe paul was one of the first systems theorists. he seems to be saying that people are to be bonded together by the force of love, or agape, and live in this higher, functional way. which leads me to wonder that maybe there is something deeper going on when people start getting emotional and all touchy-feely in intense worship services, or listening to speakers that seem to tap into something or hit a nerve.

what if the bible is the story of people plugging into the force that binds humans together and takes them to higher levels of complexity? just like sub-atomic particles form atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form cells, cells form tissue, tissue form organs, organs form organ systems, and organ systems form us... what do we form? what are we meant to form?

i think spirituality is rooted in relationships and community; and i'm really not interested in God being proven by miracles or supernatural phenomenon, which i think is what many people think of as "spiritual." jesus had some strong words for people begging him for miracles. so needless to say, i'm finding a lot of stimulating ideas in ken wilber's writings, and in many regards because of some of the ideas in his book, God seems realer and closer than before.

my first book review

2009-04-02T11:42:00.004-04:00

i'm reviewing books for the ooze's viral blogger site. check it out.

Rebecca Price Janney's new book entitled, Who Goes There: A Cultural History of Heaven and Hell, sets out to trace the history of American beliefs concerning the afterlife. The problem I found with this book, however, is that I continually had to remind myself that this is what the author was supposed to be doing. Because while much of the book is a history lesson, the author is simultaneously arguing a theological position, which I think she does unsuccessfully.

In the first chapter, Janney argues that Americans have a wishy-washy view of the afterlife believing most people go to heaven, while only the most wicked go to hell. She then says that this is dangerous because only Jesus can provide assurance of heaven. From there, Janney goes on a whirlwind tour through American history chronicling various Christian movements. During this portion of the book-- which is pretty much all of it-- I sensed in Janney's tone the notion that America was once a godly, Christian nation, and it has slowly descended into liberal unorthodoxy (prior to the 1960's people didn't have sex outside of marriage?? p. 179). In the epilogue,Janney argues that in the good (bad?) old days when life expectancy was like 30, people took comfort in the thought of heaven and lived by biblical principles because they feared hell. But now with modern medicine, the media, and technology, Americans do what they please without the fear of death. She then says that this ground is sinking sand, because the Christian hope of heaven and horror of hell are real and appropriate (p. 211).

My question to her is why? How have you shown this? Because what I just read basically says that when life was short and fragile, and when people were considerably more ignorant then they are today, they found comfort in the belief that they were going to heaven. I think Janney unintentionally argues is that Christian beliefs in the afterlife function as a comforting mechanism to those facing death. It's comforting to believe your loved one is in heaven, or that murderers are being punished. That was a comforting thought then, and it is a comforting thought now. Yet, she never gives any compelling reason to believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven, which is what I believe her intention is.

But maybe this book was written only for believers, and the author assumes the reader already believes in Jesus. That's fine, but I still had other problems. In the epilogue, Janney says that Americans historically have believed and acted upon the literal belief of heaven and hell, and that this is what "tenacious" souls continue to accept as true (p.211). But right after she say this she quotes C.S. Lewis, who had beliefs concerning heaven and hell that would make literalists cringe. On page 214, she describes a 700 Club episode that featured a man who had a near death experience where he "went to hell." Not surprisingly, 1,200 (I'm assuming terrified) callers phoned in to get saved. I couldn't help but remember how Janney discusses NDE in a previous chapter. In this chapter, people who had NDE described a place of love and light where they were told sin wasn't a problem and that all religions lead to God. So the NDE guy on the 700 Club had a valid experience, but the NDE's from the previous chapter didn't? Concerning this, Janney says, "people will respond to God's truth when the Holy Spirit convicts them (p. 214)."

I really tried to keep an open mind when reading this. I have to disagree with the previous reviewer about Janney not being "preachy." I did find her preachy, and also confusing. But I will agree that she asks good questions, and I enjoyed the history lesson.

my first celebrity commenter

2009-03-31T23:27:00.002-04:00

today i was surprised to open my email and find a comment on an old post. the post was on a quiz that i found and posted that deals with annihilationism. the celebrity (at least to me and students of theology) who commented is the author of the quiz, biblical scholar edward fudge. apparently, even he enjoys arguing with heath.

what is the meaning of this?

2009-03-28T16:02:00.011-04:00

i had a good end to my work day yesterday. a co-worker, a couple months ago, had her kids taken away from her by her ex-husband. this guy, from everything i have seen from him and heard about him, is a douche, plain and simple; and he is out to make her life miserable regardless of how it hurts their kids. long story short, he won custody because certain papers weren't filed right, and the judge was sympathetic to him because he is in the military. anyways, this co-worker has been no angel herself and there are times, in the past, where i have questioned her fitness as a mother. however, last week she and i had little talk. it seems that this whole ordeal has caused her to come to some serious conclusions about her life, and she went on and on about how she quit drinking and going out and is seriously trying to get her life together. she told me how she cannot wait to get her kids back so she can be the mother they deserve. and she told me that God does everything for a reason.

last year anne and i were hanging out with some friends, and one of these friends brought his own friend a long. the tag a long friend is someone who drives anne and i nuts, and i'll give you an example why. he is a know-it-all, and not only is he a know-it-all but he's also an atheist. on top of that, he is just weird and says things that are totally inappropriate. so on this particular occasion, the topic of sex came up. and i cannot remember all the details of the conversation, but for some reason, weird, atheist, know-it-all, guy blurted out, "sex is meaningless. ALL sex is meaningless." now what bugs me about this is that i think he knows that anne and i are christians, and he said this simply to pick a fight. that didn't happen; we all just kind of awkwardly looked at him and changed the subject, but i have been thinking about night ever since. half of me wishes i would have asked him to explain. my guess is he would have said that sex is meaningless because ultimately everything is meaningless.

john ortberg tells the story of how the famous atheist, bertrand russell, would describe all reality as meaningless. ultimately, according to russell, we are all bits of carbon that exist for a short amount of time on this planet that will someday be consumed by fire and then frozen when the sun burns out. at that point the earth will be be a big floating rock and nothing that has ever happened on it will have mattered. thus, ultimately, there is no meaning. in the 15 billion or so years that earth will have existed, that will be nothing compared to the infinite amount of time that preceded its existence or the infinite amount that will follow. once again, i don't know for sure that weird, atheist, guy would have said that, but that would be my guess. how depressing...

now the thing is, is that sex does have meaning. biologically, sex has purpose-- procreation-- but in the context of human relationships sex can have a lot of meaning. for two humans who love one another, sex can be a way of communicating deep, passionate love. for two people who are just using each other for pleasure, sex can mean, "i don't really care about you as a person, but i'll use you to temporarily feel good." so just like words are sounds that mean something in a particular context, sex is an act which can also mean something in a particular context. but back to russell.

if all context is destroyed, then is all meaning destroyed? because, it seems, meaning must have context. perhaps, but in the end, believing that one day the sun will destroy everything rendering meaning meaningless is just that-- belief. it is based on faith. what if scientists are wrong? what if this reality isn't the only one there is? ortberg has a great comment concerning russell's thoughts. he says that russell's ideas just might be true, but even if they are, nobody lives that way.

yesterday my co-worker stood in the pharmacy smiling. i asked her if she got her kids back, and she told me she was going to pick them up tomorrow. she said God was in that court room. she said she prayed and prayed. she repeated her vow to change her life and clean up her act. she was full of joy. in the bible, God is often portrayed as a parent or a husband. the deepest human relationships are often pictures of who God is. so i couldn't help but think that while my co-worker was getting her kids back, maybe God was also getting back one of his.

belief in what?-- or-- random updates and thoughts on faith and belief

2009-03-23T17:55:00.004-04:00

things have been good as usual. i am finally finishing my upstairs with the help of my realtor. it's been fun so far, and i'm about to make another trip to home depot in a little bit. i've been a little obsessed actually and i'm probably starting to drive anne nuts with how much i talk about it.

i'm finally done with my biblical perspectives class. i sent in my final paper last week, which after reading it the day after, really kinda sucked. it just did not flow well, and the last page or so was just a lot of bullshit to fill up space. sad to say, but that class was such a disappointment, and i am pretty happy to be onto more social worky stuff again. i guess i'm most disappointed because, out of all the classes i am taking for this major, this was the class that dealt with the subject i ponder the most. and not only that, but as far as college-level bible classes go, this is probably it for me, unless i go back someday for a masters in theology. but the class wasn't a total loss. it got me thinking about something i probably wouldn't have if i didn't take it.

there's a prof at cornerstone who recently wrote a book entitled "don't stop believing: why living like jesus isn't enough." the idea is that the right theology is important, and it's not just enough to live like jesus-- you have to believe certain things about him too. this raises a whole lot of interesting questions. for one, if you're trying to live like someone doesn't that imply that you have pretty strong beliefs about that person? and for two, what if living like him is really what it's all about and the theology is really just intellectual window-dressing? or, what if the theology isn't really the point?

in my aforementioned class we were discussing the fact that the apostles presented the gospel to the jews quite a bit different than they did to gentiles. to the jews, they went deep into jewish history and the prophets. they tried to show that jesus was the jewish messiah. however, to the gentiles, who were more concerned with defeating evil spirits, they emphasized how jesus has defeated darkness. here's my point: the apostles didn't care about explaining to the gentiles that jesus was the jewish messiah. why? A, because they probably wouldn't have cared, and B, they probably wouldn't have believed it anyway. they cared about defeating evil and so that's what the apostles focused on.

in a world where most people are skeptical of the supernatural, but are incredibly open to the idea of unconditional love, selflessness, generosity, forgiveness etc., can't you argue that what those people are really searching for-- when they search for those things-- is jesus? i think most people are really searching for a way to live. i think the most compelling thing in our culture isn't rational proof for the supernatural, but the experience of somebody living a different way. if the apostles didn't bother to get into theological debates with gentiles about jesus being the jewish messiah, but focused on what they cared about, then what does it look like to present jesus to a culture who is skeptical about the supernatural? how much does intellectual ascent to certain theological positions-- or better yet (because you can believe in theological positions without necessarily believing in a supernatural versions of them) the supernatural interpretation of a theological position-- really matter?

a monstrous God of love?: my thoughts and feelings on the bible revisited

2009-03-12T14:34:00.002-04:00

today i have to turn in a paper for my final biblical perspectives class, once again, discussing my thoughts and feelings on the bible. my real final paper isn't due till next week. i may or may not post that one. the idea with this one though is to see if the class has changed my thoughts and feelings.... this class unfortunatley was kind of a disappointment. but anyways, here's my second paper, which really doesn't reflect much from my class experience, but is fine because the only requirement is that the paper begin with "the bible is..."

The Bible is ultimately God’s story. It tells how God created everything, and chose humans to be his partners, as his image bearers, in taking care of his creation. It describes how humans abandoned their dependency on God and the fallout from that decision. From there the Bible tells about how God chose a specific people to be his vehicle in restoring his creation; how he chose them to live in relationship with him; and how they continually betrayed that relationship. The story climaxes with Jesus and his role as Israel’s, and eventually, the world’s redeemer. It describes the life of the early communities of Jesus’ followers; and ends with an apocalyptic vision of a new creation where God and humans dwell together at last. But this narrative of creation, fall and redemption that ends in the marriage of God and humanity can be a hard and bitter pill to swallow.

The Bible is an incredibly messy, disheveled, yet beautiful story. In its description of human behavior, it is gut-wrenchingly real. The story of David’s affair with Bathsheba describes a man who is supposed to be of the highest moral caliber, yet sleeps with the wife of someone who was probably a close friend. After attempting to cover up the product of the affair, David sets the husband up to be killed in battle. Thus the Bible’s portrayal of humans is that they are creatures of contradiction, but sometimes the most seemingly conflicted person in the Bible is its central character-- God.

Its stories of mass human slaughter at the hands of God’s people are unbearably disturbing, and seem impossible to reconcile that they are orders from a God who is later revealed to be love itself. Yet in these stories, sometimes referred to as “texts of terror,” there are glimpses of God’s mercy such as when Rahab is spared in the battle of Jericho. It is this mixture of brutality, barbarism, love and compassion that can make the Bible difficult to be taken as “God’s word.” Indeed it seems ludicrous to believe that Jesus, when he teaches to love one’s enemies, is the incarnation of YHWH, warrior God of the Old Testament.

And therein lays the mystery and paradox, which is often for me, more difficult to swallow than the resurrection or the crossing of the Red Sea: a monstrous God of love? So my thoughts and feelings concerning the Bible are in a constant state of flux and evolution. On one hand, its jarring portrayal of God smacks of mere human invention. Our intuition tells us that the one true God should be blatantly clear and unambiguous. On the other, its incongruent picture of God is consistent with the confusing nature of the rest of reality. I maintain that it is inspired by the God who is manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe its story of creation, fall and redemption is the true story underlying all of history, and at the center of all existence. But I don’t ignore that those propositions take an incredible amount of faith.

you'd think a class that discusses genocide and prostitution wouldn't be boring

2009-03-05T22:53:00.004-05:00

it's sad to say, but i'm so glad that i have one more week of biblical perspectives. i really was looking forward to that class, but sadly our instructor has been a composite of sunday school and high school bible teachers (excluding david rudd) of my past. last week she ended class by reading us a children's book... complete with showing us the pictures by spreading wide the pages, facing them towards us and twisting back and forth. i felt so bad for her, as we all sat slumped in our chairs waiting for it to be over.

tonight wasn't as bad. we talked about the resurrection, and jewish perspectives of isaiah's suffering servant. i find myself holding back comments, however, because a. i don't want to look like a know-it-all and b. i don't want really want people to think i'm enjoying class, because it is so incredibly boring. and that's pathetic. but most people think studying the bible is absurdly boring and i'm sure it is because they have had bible teachers like my instructor.

but the bible and theology shouldn't be boring. for starters, the bible is full of what entertains people today-- sex, violence, drama. but more importantly, if you believe it is true, then the bible and theology are about the very foundational truths of existence. so it shouldn't be very difficult for teachers to make class interesting. on top of that, most americans have very deeply held beliefs about God, the bible, the end times etc... so it's pretty easy to say something provocative that will get a discussion started. i think about joe and i. we try to get together on a regular basis, and besides talking about life issues and other normal stuff, every time we meet the discussion almost invariably turns to something theological and it's typically about hell. it happened today, actually. why? because if you believe in God and a life beyond this one, then all of life now-- everything truly meaningful-- is rooted in what and how you think about source of all existence.

so i'm thankful for friends that i can have those discussions with, and i'm thankful for a blog where i can dump my unfinished and unpolished theological and philosphical ramblings. maybe bible teachers subconsciously keep it boring because the bible is full of such jarring and confounding insights into reality. they keep it surfacy because when you dig deeper, things get murky and uncomfortable really quickly.

confrontation and adaptation

2009-02-27T09:47:00.003-05:00

i am a non-confrontational person. i will typically avoid confrontation at all costs. when i get into heated arguments with people i don't know too well my sympathetic nervous system kicks in full gear and i begin shaking and my voice trembles. basically, i look and sound like i'm going to cry, which sucks, because i'm actually pissed and crying is the furthest thing from my mind. i would bet that if i didn't behave this way in confrontational situations i wouldn't be as prone to avoiding them. but alas, i do and i only get into them when they come to me, and the other day, one did.

i won't get into specifics because that would take too long, but while i was doing a job a co-worker should have already had done, said co-worker walked up, got in my face, and told me she needed help with something else, and that i wasn't helping her. now this co-worker is already on the brink of being fired because she struggles to keep up with her work and others have to always come bail her out, and i already had a laundry list of things i wanted to say to her. so, needless to say, the opportunity presented itself and when my fight or flight response kicked in, i fought.

in the end, i think this was good for me. i need more experiences like that. that's not to say i need to start picking fights with random people to improve the way i handle myself in confrontations, but i need to learn to not fear them and to keep my self in control while firmly arguing my side. the rest of our day together went fine, and while we didn't talk about our blowout again, i think she understood that my frustration wasn't towards her personally, but her lack of certain skills.

when confrontation and conflict turn ugly, it often has to do with how the two parties are communicating, as well as, their history. i think that being honest and open with people is important, but it's also about how you're honest and open. i have a diverse group of friends. most of my friends are not friends with each other, and only know one another through me. i get nervous when some of my friends are around each other. during the week of my wedding two of them almost came to blows, and another set of them did. why do i get along with all of them, but some of them cannot get along at all? a lot of it has to do with communication. the way i communicate-- what i say and how i say it-- changes with each friend. most people communicate one way with everyone, and if they clash with some people, they respond with: "oh well, you can't get a long with everyone." and some people are so oblivious, they cannot even grasp basic communication etiquette like: don't talk religion and politics with new people. my dad is a good example of that.

i think my desire to avoid confrontation has a lot to do with why i can communicate and maintain friendships with people who are very different from one another. rather than getting into fights, i adapt to how others communicate. my big challenge on the conflict and confrontation front, like i said, is learning to not look like i'm about to cry. i think a good step towards that is learning to recognize when things are escalating, and then to take it down a notch. it's interesting to me how something that is usually problematic-- avoiding confrontation-- has been somewhat of an asset to me. now i just need to learn to adapt in times when it's unavoidable.

demythologizing good and evil- some observations

2009-02-18T23:33:00.015-05:00

note: i could not, for the life of me, figure out how to create columns on blogger, so this will have to do.

good~evil

light~darkness

order~chaos
creation~destruction
function~dysfunction
life~death
righteousness~sin
love~hate
peace~violence
truth~deceit
healing~suffering
healthy~decaying
joy~depression

i think it's fair to say that most people have an incorrect view of good and evil. most people believe in good and evil, but believe the two are in some sort of mythical opposition to one another. this view is, of course, played out in incredibly popular books-turned-movies like the lord of the rings, the chronicles of narnia, harry potter, and the twilight series. i think most people would also say that the bible is a story of the epic struggle of good and evil as well. i would disagree. i would not only disagree that the bible is a story of good versus evil, but i would disagree with the whole notion of the epic struggle of good versus evil. and i would also reject the incredibly mythical way that most people think about good and evil.

people who know me well, actually read this blog, or have a rudimentary knowledge of philosophy know why i would reject these ideas. the notion of good versus evil is dualism. it's really lame, but i first rejected dualism after reading a corny email forward about a bold christian taking on his philospohy professor. while the email was corny and probably not true, the arguments put forth in it completely changed how i view good and evil. and i'm sure they are age old arguments created by someone a long time ago, but up until that point, i had never heard them. the argument is that evil really isn't a thing, but a lack of a thing, namely, good, just as darkness and cold aren't things, but are a lack of things, namely light and heat. interestingly enough, a metaphore for good and evil used throughout the bible is light and darkness.

the above chart i made, i believe, represents several different ways people say "good" or "evil." death, suffering, violence etc. get lumped under the big mythical umbrella of "evil" and love, life, peace etc. get lumped under the mythical umbrella of "good." my first observation echos what i mentioned in the previous paragraph, in that many of the things on the right are nothing more than a lack of the things on the left. note that this observation concerns relationship. the relationship, for instance, between order and chaos isn't that they are opposing forces, but that one is a lack of the other.

my second observation is this: certain items on the two lists have a cause and effect relationship.
take life and death. a while back i was going to post a series called, "is death really a bad thing?" because for there to be life there has got to be death. we eat dead plants and animals. animal waste is used to fertilize soil which creates life. if there were no death there would be over-population which would make life miserable. death is necessary for life.

my next observation is that there cannot be life without order. i am composed of sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs and organ systems. and all of these particles working in an orderly way to allow me to live do so because of orderly physical laws. without order there can be no life, and this truth carries on into the worlds of living organisms-- people create families, which create societies, which create cities, and countries, and governments, and nations etc... in other words, we try to create order, and when we stray from order, we see destruction, lies, hate, violence, disease, suffering, depression, death-- chaos. so it can be said that everything in the good column is just another way of saying "order" and everything in the evil column is another way of saying "chaos."

so how does this square with the bible? as previously stated, the bible uses the metaphor of light and darkness to describe good and evil. i would also point out that there are "order from chaos" themes in scripture. these observations cause me to conclude that sin is any behavior which works against God's order-- which i believe is all "true order." i say "true order" because there can be order used for destructive purposes, but this order ultimately destroys itself. sin is also our straying from our role of being agents of order creating more true order. and sin, of course, leads to suffering, destruction and death.

i am still stuck with the life and death thing. life and death work together; i do sometimes question the evilness of physical death. and suffering, as well, brings similar issues, for suffering can lead to redemption. suffering can purge us of destructive behavior. suffering is often a bridge from the right column to the left. can chaos create order or does an outside agent have to intervene?

my last observation is that i believe order is a tangible way of seeing God. this isn't to say that order is God and God is order, but that if we want to see the living God all we have to do is ponder the fact that without order all would cease to exist. we don't have to search far to see God; we don't have to look for signs or miracles-- existence is a miracle.

success

2009-02-18T23:04:00.002-05:00

i found out yesterday that i, for sure, got the internship and was given a name and number of the person i am to be shadowing and reporting to. this was a huge load that has been lifted as i had not heard back from my contact in weeks after she told me she was pretty sure they would have a spot for me. a couple weeks ago i had paged her several times and emailed her never hearing back. so this was huge. i can't wait to go shopping for some professional looking attire, as well as, a sweet moleskine to take notes in.

yet, in the wake of this victory, this morning i began falling into a mire of regret. from time to time, i get caught up thinking about how we should have stayed in our apartment. when we moved into our house we were living dirt cheap in our nice little one bedroom. we were paying off debt like mad. my income paid all the bills so anne's income was just extra. i think about her income now and how much more she makes. i think about what our lives would be like if we had paid off all our debt and she would have gotten the job she has now and if we still lived in our apartment. i think about how we could have a new(er) car, or how cheaper houses are now, or how we could have gone to europe.

in the past, when i thought about this, i always thought about how we never would have bought niles. but seriously, would i trade niles for no debt, a car, a trip to europe, and a nicer house with a smaller mortgage? uh, yeah. i love the little shit almost like a child, but i would rather have stayed in our apartment. so the only think that gets me through this bout of regret is simply the fact that what is is what is, and there is nothing i can do to change the past. all i can do is live in the present. and in the present i am blessed. i have an internship. i have an internship at the biggest hospital in this half of the state, and it's also where i happen to work. all i gotta do is keep getting A's, and i'm set. and i have the day off tomorrow, with no real homework. that helps too.

on being a skeptical believer: evolution

2009-02-12T10:17:00.003-05:00

i've been thinking about evolution in relation to the idea of general revelation. general revelation, as i understand it, is God revealing himself in the created universe. "the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth is handiwork" and the part in acts where paul says that God has revealed himself in nature are two places in scripture that i know of that teach this idea.

creationists and intelligent design theorists point out that the design in creation reveals that the universe is the product of a designer. i've heard creationists talk at length about the eye, or bees, and how they demonstrate the extraordinary design found in creation. but what about evolution? even young earth creationists acknowledge the reality of some evolution, even if they refuse to acknowledge it from species to species. and everyone has to acknowledge evolution in general. everything evolves in some way. take the car for instance. the design of the car has evolved from what it was in the 1930's to what it is today. evolved? yes, evolved. developers and engineers, as time went by, were faced with different challenges and problems which caused them to create new technologies which caused the design of the car to evolve. most recently we've seen the hybrid and the plug in car designed in response to concerns about global warming and foreign oil. this is what evolution is: an organism, thing, design, whatever, is faced with an obstacle and it either dies or changes to continue on in its existence.

so what does this reality tell us about God? if all reality is created by God and said reality reveals who God is, then does the fact that matter tends to change, and when it changes transcends what it was before, tell us something about God? i think it does. this is how order comes from chaos, which is what the genesis creation story describes in its opening verses. or think about the hebrew people. God chose them, set them apart from the chaotic and destructive practices of their neighboring cultures and began forming them into his people. it didn't happen over night; it was a process. he took abram from the primordial, pagan, cultural soup he was in; and told him he would make him into a nation that would bless the nations.

i think the design and laws we see in the world around tell us something about God, but i also think that the way this design and these laws come about-- process and evolution-- also tell us about God. in my struggle with faith and doubt, evolution was something that shook me hard, and continues to shake young christians who grow up believing that evolution equals atheism. i disagree. evolution is everywhere and is something theists and christians should embrace.

my thoughts and feelings on the bible

2009-02-05T17:20:00.000-05:00

today i start my biblical perspectives class. for my first day i have to turn in a paper entitled "my thoughts and feelings on the bible." so here they are:

The Bible is a compilation of stories, histories, poems, letters and songs, inspired by God, creating an authoritative narrative. This narrative is God’s story, and answers the deepest metaphysical questions about God, humanity, creation and the future. It is a plan and a map guiding humans to the true way of being human, and to the place the human story will eventually arrive. Its narrative is God’s tool for empowering and directing his people to achieve his purposes of cosmic redemption. It describes what God has done, is doing and will ultimately do.

The Bible cannot simply be opened and read as if doing so will magically give the reader some sort of wisdom to benefit her life. Verses in the Bible, also, cannot simply be plucked out from their context, and be used to back up an argument. And while the Bible certainly can provide comfort and wisdom, it is not a book to enhance one’s lifestyle. The Bible is not our servant, and does not contain the secrets to health, wealth and success. It offers a glimpse at God’s intentions, but is not a crystal ball for which we can use to predict the future.

Saying that the Bible simply cannot be opened and read implies that the Bible must be interpreted. Many Christians assume that one can just crack open a Bible and extract the “plain meaning.” Those who make this claim fail to realize they are reading a Bible that has already been interpreted when it was translated into an English-language version; and that the “plain meaning” they extract is nothing more than their interpretation. And their interpretation is heavily influenced by their theology, upbringing, culture, and hundreds of years of church history. Furthermore, the fact that people have their own copy of the Bible, in their own language, is an idea unheard of when the Bible was written and for hundreds of years afterwards. Scripture was originally studied in communities, which were lead by trained teachers. This isn’t to say the modern reader is incapable of arriving at an accurate interpretation of scripture. But the reader must first be cognizant that he is making an interpretation, and his interpretation must employ good hermeneutics.

Good hermeneutics not only involves reading a verse in the context of its chapter, book and the rest of scripture itself; but also taking into account the historical and cultural contexts of the verse. A concordance should be used for interpreting difficult words. Understanding the literary genre a book is written in also enhances the interpretation, as apocalyptic or poetic styles of literature cannot be interpreted with rigid literalism. Lastly, it is always important to remain humble when interpreting scripture; biblical scholarship is always advancing and new scholarship can dramatically shed light onto previous interpretations.

The Bible is God’s word, but was recorded by human beings who were living in an ancient culture. These people lived in a real time and place, and had their own understanding of cosmology and the natural world. They also had their own agendas for writing down the words of scripture. The biblical authors did not live in a vacuum. Readers of the Bible, today, live in an era that is post-enlightenment. Many of us take our understanding of the universe, the planet and science for granted. Thus it is imperative for the modern reader to become familiar with the ancient world where the biblical authors lived. I think the importance of finding good pastors and Bible scholars to help one grasp the meaning of scripture is incredibly important. And lastly, while there is nothing wrong with doing personal devotions, it is important to remember that the Bible was originally studied in community, and I believe that setting remains the best environment for biblical study today.

memories of grcc

2009-02-04T23:50:00.003-05:00

after i finished my surgical tech degree i couldn't wait to go to school to learn about something i was genuinely interested in. i couldn't wait to take history or sociology or political science. now that i have been at spring arbor for almost a year it seems like forever ago when i first set foot into grand rapids community college and took western civilization and social problems. i really enjoyed my time there and learned so much. i had some great profs who really challenged me and filled my head with all sorts of crazy liberal ideas. recently i went onto ratemyprofessor.com and found some of my grcc profs. i thought all three of these guys were great, but it was interesting to read some of the negative comments from people who were rubbed completely the wrong way. here are some of my favorites.

these quotes are about my western civ prof, roger schlossor. i remember going into grcc's library with these huge reading lists-- thucydides, plutarc, aristotle, plato, herodotdus, tacitus, popes, milton, erasmus-- you name it. the person at the front would just say "you're taking schlossor, huh?" it was hilarious. he was this cranky, foul-mouthed vietnam vet who would go on these long tangential stories, and just when you think he had completely lost his mind, he would come back to his original point and tie the story into his lecture. insane. he took no shit either. if you were talking or had to leave to use the bathroom he would get right in your face and let you know how rude you were. anyways, here's what others thought of him-

"HIS LECTURES ARE VERY LONG. MAKE SURE YOU DRINK ALOT OF COFFEE BEFORE YOU GO B/C HIS LECTURE CAN BE BORING. HE DOES HAVE ALOT OF INTERESTING STORIES. IF YOU DONT LIKE SWEARING THEN DONT TAKE HIS CLASS"

"Hated him, always shoving his beliefs on the class, didn't care if history told another story only told what he wanted you to hear. If you asked a question he always made you look stupid and then the class laughed at you, swears alot"

"Clear, concise, funny, brilliant. He has his own opinions and he's not afraid to share them, but he will present ALL the sides of the issue and let you make up your own mind- someting most GRCC student are incapable of doing."

"Should have dropped when i had the chance. The tests did not correspond to lecture material or readings. Constantly was making negative comments on politics and america. Lots of swearing. To old to care if he is doing a good job. Very hard to get a good grade. 2hrs lecture with no break! Do not take"

"The best teacher I have ever had. No other teacher compares to Roger. He has a reaistic and cynical view of History. Yes, he does lecture for two hours straight, but with no notes. Really knows his stuff, every History Major should take his classes. HS 101, 102 and PS 101. Easy class if dedicated."

these are comments on my race and ethnic relations prof, geoffrey simmons. one of my classmate at spring arbor is actually taking him right now. i learned a ton in his class. he genuinely cares about people on the underside of society, and it was eye-opening to learn american history from the side of the oppressed. i also learned a lot about marxism as a historical lense which i found very helpful.

"changed the way i see the world-great teacher"

"Big time Pinko-Nazi! hes a supporter of marxism, but hes still cool. really interesting if you like to know more about hoe the goverment is screwing us. *MAKE SURE YOU READ THE BOOK TOO*"

"Mr. Simmon is definitely a liberal hippie type, but he's super cool and very smart. His class isn't that hard if you listen in class and read the book. Expect to hear lots of fun stories!!"

and last but not least, mr. clyde poag. it was after mr. poag's class one day where i met the woman who designed ferris state university's BSW program who told me about spring arbor. i remember being pretty intimidated by mr. poag because he was black and i was taking a class on social problems. it was a great experience, however, and i'll never forget when i finished my final presentation for that class when he looked at me and said "i am so proud." his class was the beginning of my social work career, and it's somewhat frustrating for me to read comments like the ones below because his class was such a meaningful experience.

"Absolutely the worst professor ever. He makes you feel like the worst person alive if you are not an African-American. I dreaded going to that class because he is right and you are wrong."

"Not such a bad teacher...if you put in any effort whatsoever you'll get an A...he is very pro african american...seems to talk a lot of trash about white people...he is a good guy though, just do your work on time and you'll be fine"

anyways, i think it'd be fun to go back again someday after i get my masters. although i'm not sure how that works. i don't know if you can just go back to community college and take undergrad classes for fun once you've been to grad school. all these guys are way liberal, to say the least, but i loved that. after having conservative dogma pounded in my head for 25 years of my life, it was refreshing to get the other side of the story from some very seasoned intellectuals. i miss not knowing what's going to come next, as where spring arbor is very familiar to me. but anyways, i still have grad school at grand valley, and who knows what i'll be blogging about then.

thoughts on redemption

2009-01-28T08:57:00.003-05:00

i began ESL tutoring this past monday. i use the word "tutoring" loosely, as i am pretty much teaching the refugee i am working with english from scratch. as of now we are learning our ABC's. i am pretty much trying to recall how i learned to read and write and teach him the same way. i, however, had one advantage: i could understand what my teacher was telling me! the most frustrating part of the night came at the end when i wanted to leave, but i also wanted him to understand that i was assigning homework for next time. what was so frustrating wasn't so much that he couldn't understand me, but that the woman who was also there tutoring his wife, who actually somewhat understands english, kept blowing me off when i asked for their assistance in communicating with him. she and his wife finally helped me tell him his homework, and it was an overall good experience. i have some ideas for next time and i'm looking forward to trying them out.

last wednesday i got to go to A.A. i had to write a paper for class on a treatment group. i was told that an A.A. meeting is more going to church than going to church is. i found this to be true. i noticed that the 12 steps mirror a conversion experience. it is essentially a bunch of people admitting how screwed up they are, openly sharing their stories, and helping one another quit drinking. there was complete openness and absolutely no judging. i couldn't help but to think that this was an example of people living how they were intended to live. at the end of the meeting everyone stood, joined hands, and said the lord's prayer together.

these two experiences are examples of God's redemptive work in the world. when we hear phrases like "God's redemptive work" we often get these super-natural images in our heads. we think the reconciliation of all things will come from God's super powers, or him bursting forth out of the sky or something. but instead it comes when we do things like teach a refugee english, or when a bunch of screwed up people come together and openly talk about how screwed up they are. that's what it looks like when christ makes all things new. i think some christians would read that and be disappointed, "but what about streets of gold and all the cool miracles?" they might say. i would say that it's time to get a new jesus.

random updates

2009-01-24T10:47:00.002-05:00

things have been good and stressful. i hate when i get on these stretches where i don't blog, and in fact last weekend, anne and i, and some of our friends actually had a little discussion on why we blog. i blog because i want to be a better communicator and i believe blogging has contributed to be becoming one. and sometimes, like right now, i have to just force myself to write something because i know it will benefit me. and i also know that many times when i write a post, for whatever reason, it causes me to want to write more.

so life has been good lately. anne recently got a raise and, after she passes a test and receives some sort of insurance license, will get another one. at that point she'll become my sugar momma because she'll be officially making more than me. which i am fine with, because i know that someday, hopefully in the relatively near future, i'll be making more than her again :). which leads me to my next update which is i found out, yesterday, that i will probably be getting an internship at spectrum. interning there has been part of my plan all along because finding out about medical social work is what caused me to get into social work to begin with. this isn't to say that 20 years down the road i still want to be a medical social worker, but it's definatly a great place to begin a social work career, especially for a BSW. so finding that out made my day. it also gave me a boost of confidence.

my confidence in myself has been shaken ever since i decided not to pursue becoming a surgical technologist. for me, confidence is something that is very fragile. lately, i have been going through some serious doubting concerning my future because my interview with spectrum for my internship wasn't that great. i couldn't thoroughly answer some pretty easy questions. and spending all this time waiting to hear from them has made me doubt things even more. starting monday, i was about to embark on some serious internship hunting and take a spot where ever i could get one. thank God, that i won't have to, and hopefully things are all back on track.

so that's my life right now. i've been reading a lot. i knocked out the great gatsby right before christmas and i have been reading the jungle by upton sinclaire ever since. down the road, those two books are sure to give me a great post on capitalism. i've also been getting way into philosophy. hopefully i'll get some thoughts down in the near future. until then...

take the hell quiz

2009-01-14T10:48:00.005-05:00

i found this quiz on the website of bible scholar edward fudge. i thought it was informative. check it out. for the answers click here

1. According to the Bible, the human being is:

a. a mortal body housing an immortal soul;
b. a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury;
c. a perishable creature wholly dependent on God for existence.

2. Two historical events which biblical writers use most often to illustrate God's
final judgment against the wicked are:

a. expulsion from Eden and the collapse of the Tower of Babel;
b. the fall of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Spanish Armada;
c. the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

3. Based on an actual event, the Bible uses the expression "eternal fire" to signify:

a. fire that destroys forever (Sodom and Gomorrah);
b. fire that cannot destroy what is put in it (Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego);
c. fire that continues to burn indefinitely (the Burning Bush of Moses).

4. The "brimstone" in "fire and brimstone" is:

a. a symbol of terrible torture;
b. burning sulfur that suffocates and destroys;
c. a preserving agent that keeps someone alive forever.

5. Throughout the Bible, "gnashing of teeth" denotes:

a. excruciating pain and agony;
b. gingivitis;
c. extreme anger and hostility.

6. When the Bible portrays "smoke rising" to warn of judgment,
we should think of:

a. people suffering horrible pain;
b. a completed desolation or annihilation;
c. a closed arena when cigarettes were still allowed.

7. When Scripture speaks of smoke rising "forever," it signifies:

a. a destruction that will be irreversible;
b. conscious torment that never ends;
c. a battery-powered rabbit that short circuited.

8. The "worm" in the expression "worm that dies not" is:

a. a maggot that feeds on something dead;
b. a symbol for a pained conscience;
c. a figure of speech standing for everlasting agony in torment.
9. Throughout the Bible, the expression "unquenchable fire" always signifies:

a. fire which burns forever but never burns up what is put in it;
b. fire which comes from a volcano;
c. fire which is irresistible and therefore consumes entirely.

10. The Old Testament's final description of the end of sinners states that:

a. God will put fire and worms in their flesh and they will feel their pain forever;
b. they will be ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous;
c. neither of the above.

11. John the Baptist warned of "unquenchable fire," by which Jesus would:

a. burn up the "chaff";
b. torment the lost forever and never let them die;
c. purge sinners of all evil and then send them to heaven.

12. Jesus compared the end of the wicked to:

a. someone burning chaff, dead trees or weeds;
b. a house destroyed by a hurricane or someone crushed under a boulder;
c. all the above.

13. Jesus personally described Gehenna (hell) as a place where:

a. God is able to destroy both soul and body;
b. God will perpetuate the soul in everlasting agony;
c. Satan reigns over his evil subjects and tortures damned humans.

14. The phrase "eternal punishment" signifies:

a. punishment which occurs in the Age to Come rather than during this life;
b. eternal life in horrible agony and pain;
c. punishment which has everlasting results;
d. (a) and (c) but not (b).

15. The context and "punch line" of the story of the Rich Man and
Lazarus talk about:

a. what happens to the wicked after resurrection and judgment;
b. the urgency of responding to God while there is opportunity;
c. details about the "intermediate state" between death and resurrection.

16. Throughout his writings, Paul says that the lost will:

a. go to hell and burn alive forever;
b. die, perish, and be punished with eternal destruction;
c. go to heaven but hate every minute of it.

17. The New Testament uses the adjective "immortal" to describe:

a. the soul of every person, good or evil;
b. the resurrection bodies of the saved but not of the lost;
c. no human being now or hereafter.

18. The Jewish-Christian books of Hebrews and James contrast salvation with:

a. unending conscious pain;
b. inescapable destruction;
c. going "gently into that good night."

19. Peter's epistles say that the lost will:

a. be burned to ashes like Sodom and Gomorrah;
b. perish like brute beasts;
c. both the above.

20. John interprets his vision in Revelation of a "lake of fire" as:

a. a picture of indescribable, everlasting torture;
b. a place Eskimos might like to visit;
c. the second death.

on being a skeptical believer: beyond survival

2009-01-03T09:30:00.003-05:00

everyone agrees that people are selfish, and that our basic instinct is survival and self-preservation. much of the time, the decisions we make are made so that we benefit in some way. in fact, the main driver of evolution is survival-- species adapt to survive. so a question i constantly find myself asking is: what if this is all just a survival mechanism? "this" meaning belief in God, and, in my case, christianity.

i've heard it argued that if one takes away the belief in God and the consequence of going to hell, then it would render all of life meaningless, and such a person could do whatever he or she wants. but this just isn't true is it? there are many atheists in this world, and probably most of them are quite moral people. but the argument is silly for other reasons as well. i've read somewhere that if a chimpanzee living, in whatever a chimpanzee community is called, starts going crazy and hurting other chimps, that the entire community will attack and kill the offending chimp. so apparently even chimps have a moral code. this is because we need morals or laws for our survival. if i want to live, one of the ways i can go about doing that is to make a deal with my fellow humans that i won't kill them if they won't kill me. that's called a law. yet humans aren't just individuals, humans are families, cultures, societies, nations, races, and a species. and survival is also driving the existence of the groups people live in, and ultimately the human race. families maintain their line; cultures are passed down; nations conquer other nations. and if humans want to survive as a whole, then humans must become organized and unified. one mechanism that accomplishes this task is religion. religion not only unifies, but it enhances laws. it turns laws into morals and values. if a person violates a law, then that person not only violates a law, but sins against the god of his people.

but the gospel of christ is different, right? the gospel is grounded in love, and not just any love, but agape. and agape is a self-sacrificial love. in other words, agape says we should give up our own happiness, and even our own survival, for others. jesus says, "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." this would really seem to run counter to the idea that religion is just merely a survival mechanism. but in thinking about this, i wasn't so sure. what if this is really about the survival of the human species? that we all have to give up something, sometimes our own life, for the survival of the human race? i've read somewhere that some scientists theorize that love evolved in mammals from the instinct that a mother has to protect her young. and while this picture of a mother protecting her young is beautiful to us and seemingly selfless, it's really about the survival of that species. it's actually somewhat selfish. didn't somewhere jesus liken himself to a mother hen giving up her life to protect her chicks? it seemed that you could really make a strong case that christianity is just another religion, and like all religions, it is nothing more than a grand evolutionary survival mechanism. then yesterday, i started thinking about something.

in the adam and eve story, adam and eve already had survival; they had the opportunity to eat from a "tree of life." in the story, however, they choose to walk away from this life they had where they lived in shalom with God, one another and creation, and become autonomous. they choose this path where they stop depending upon God, and instead decide that they want to make the decision about what is good and what is evil. after they do this, God blocks them from eating of the tree of life. why? one theory is that if they continue to live forever, they will do so living in the destructive consequences of their sin. their life would extend infinitely into a perpetual death. thus, in allowing them to die, God is actually having mercy on them.

sometimes it's just better to die. sometimes survival just isn't worth it. that is why people fight for the right to die. what the gospel is about isn't survival; it's about eternal life. and eternal life isn't just about quantity-- living forever-- it's about quality. deep inside all of us, we have this remnant of eden. we have this notion that there is some sort of ultimate existence; this ultimate way to live. we are all striving not to just survive-- survival is just a layer; a first step-- we are striving to live a life we cannot even put into words. and the gospel, the kingdom of God, is a glimpse into that better way of living that extends infinitely into the presence of God, who is the ultimate source of life.

so that's where i am now in my journey of faith and doubt. i'll post more as i continue thinking.

a merry schismatic christmas (part 7)

2008-12-16T13:02:00.007-05:00

a lot has happened since i first started this little series. i began it to explore the tensions that often form between family and friends who have different religious and/or political views. i wanted to more deeply understand what perceptions about key philosophical and theological ideas under girded my view of God, humans, this world, jesus, heaven & hell, salvation, and the purpose of being a christian as opposed to those of family and friends. my hope was that i could pinpoint the differences in order to better and more simply explain my views and understanding.

the purpose of doing this is communication. the different perceptions at the root of these tensions do indeed incite the, sometimes ugly, squabbles families and friends may get into over the topics of religion and politics. but many times the real source of the most bitter arguments come from of a lack in effectively communicating ideas. in identifying key areas of disagreement i believe i can better communicate my views and create constructive dialogue rather than frustrating debates. thus, here is my list, a progression if you will, of the philosophical and theological differences that i believe fuel the tension between the christianity i practice and the christianity of my family and friends:

-a dualistic versus holistic understanding of the sacred and secular-->
-an intrinsically evil creation versus and intrinsically good creation-->
-a God who will ultimately scrap his creation for a new one versus a God who will ultimately restore and reconcile his creation he loves-->
-a future/post-mortem focus versus a here and now focus-->
-being a christian is primarily about escaping earth/going to heaven when one dies versus being a christian is about bringing the kingdom of God to earth through one's life (i.e. thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth...)

i understand that this is only part of the solution, and i would also point out that none of my above points violates any historic orthodox christian doctrines. so outside of these differing perspectives, there is much room for agreement. but the other part involves time.

when i first began spending time with my wife's family, i would have never made an attempt to discuss any of this with them, and not because i was afraid. one reason was because of what i outlined above. i didn't have a clear understanding of what we would be disagreeing over. however, the other is this: it is much easier to reject the ideas of someone you do not know, or barely know than someone you've come to know and love. i can reject all atheists as morons until i unknowingly befriend one who i find to be brilliant, loving, sincere and compassionate. once that bond is made it becomes more difficult to simply reject one's deeply held beliefs. you want to understand them. you don't want to simply toss that person aside. that atheist, conservative, democrat, buddhist, muslim or catholic becomes a person.

in the year since i started this series my wife has been lectured by a family member about our attending mars hill, and how we need to "be careful." the label of "emergent" finally came out when my wife was told by a different family member there are things she doesn't agree with us on because we're emergent. my high school best friend and i had a huge debate/discussion about the rapture and the end times. this political season brought about many awkward moments, most notably my aunt being heartbroken that i was voting for "that other guy." out of my wife's family though i have had the most fruitful conversations with her brother whom i find to be a kindred spirit. i have also had good casual discussions with my mom who reads this blog. she agrees that you just can't figure God out, and that you can't cram him into a box, which is the first step to all-out emergent heresy ;). we'll see what this christmas will bring. i'm most eager to see if people on my wife's side will finally just come out and confront me. we shall see. and i hope to continue to re-work and expand on some of my previous installments.

tongue-talking, charasmatic, universalists. oh, and don't forget the gays!

2008-12-07T16:18:00.003-05:00

i think this story is fascinating to say the least. i would love to hear thoughts.

love wins?

2008-11-28T21:51:00.002-05:00

i originally was going to post on how i recently struggled to define the simple yet complex phrase "love wins" to a friend after church one day. but instead i want to ask a question.

my wife got into a discussion with family about christians disagreeing on political issues and the love of God. during the discussion a family member said things that amounted to "God doesn't love everyone, because then who would go to hell?" and basically that love just doesn't win. these statements are just so mind-numbingly frustrating for me to the point where i just become angry. for God SO LOVED THE WORLD; God IS love, and i could go on and on and on, because the bible is filled with verses about God's infinite love. what this person is doing is painting God in his/her own image, which we all do to a certain extent, but here's my question: how much can we underestimate the love of God to the point where we're worshipping a false God? to the point of blaspheme? to the point of heresy? i'm serious. usually heresy is reserved for denying the virgin birth, or the trinity or some other theological factoid. we don't usually charge people with heresy who deny God's love despite the fact that love is the very core nature of God.

this is me

2008-11-08T21:01:00.003-05:00

the results from this test describe me with incredible accuracy to the point where it answers questions about my learning style that i've wondered about for some time now.

chris, you show a slight right-hemisphere dominance with a moderate preference for auditory processing, an unusual and somewhat paradoxical combination of characteristics.

You are drawn to a random and sometimes nonchalant synthesis of material. You learn as it seems important to a specific situation, and might even develop a resentment of others who attempt to direct your learning down a specific channel.

Your right-hemispheric dominance provides a structure that is only loosely organized and one which processes entire swatches of reality, overlooking details. You are emotional in your reactions and perceptual more than logical in your approach, although you can impose structure and a language base when necessary.

Your auditory preference, on the other hand, implies that you process information sequentially and unidimensionally. This combination of right-brain and auditory modes creates conflict, as you want to process data more rapidly than your natural processes allow.

Your tendency to be creative and free-flowing is accompanied by sufficient ability to organize and be logical, allowing you a reasonable degree of success in a number of different endeavors. You take in information methodically and systematically which can then be synthesized rapidly. In this manner, you manage to function consistently well, although certainly less efficiently than you desire.

You prefer the abstract and are a theoretician at heart while retaining the ability to be practical. You find the symbolism in a great deal of what you encounter and are something of a "mystic."

With regards to your lifestyle, you have the mentality which would be good as a philosopher, writer, journalist, or instructor, or possibly as a systems designer or social worker. Perhaps most important is your ability to "listen to your inner voice" as a mode of skipping over unnecessary steps to achieve your goals.

ht joe

a merry schismatic christmas (part 6)- slightly re-worked

2008-10-23T13:22:00.003-04:00

to anyone who may have read this earlier: i've tried to re-work some of this because i know i didn't communicate my thoughts very well. sometimes this stuff is hard to blog about without being lengthy, so i'm sorry if any of it is confusing.

this past new years, we hung out with some old friends. at one point i was talking to one of them about how i would be interested in adopting some day. he looked at me and told me flat out that i didn't want to do that. he said that he knew people who adopted, and that it was a big risk. i was kind of taken a back. he went on to say that when you adopt you bring all of that child's problems into your home, and that child can infect your family. now, to be fair, he has had experience knowing people who take in troubled children, and he didn't realize i was talking about adopting an infant, not an abused child. but this still struck me. "infect." as if a child is a virus or bacteria.

jesus came to call israel to repentance, and begin a community who is the true, renewed israel ushering in God's kingdom. jesus came to establish God's kingdom here and we are to continue his work. the christianity most american evangelicals follow doesn't teach this. as i've already pointed out in previous posts, it teaches that the church is about gathering people onto a big cosmic life raft before God destroys the ship (earth) or sends people to hell.

the idea of acquiring a get-out-of-hell free pass, and just living one's own life fit's american culture nicely. think about it, what does the stereotypical american evangelical family look like? usually they look just like a stereotypical american family, only they go to church, don't swear, shop at family christian stores and might be involved in a ministry. to many christians, after they've gotten their free pass, it becomes all about an image, and i would argue that it's more about caesar's image than Christ's. christianity and america have become emeshed. this emeshedness is obvious when we see images of the flag and the cross paired together, but christian theology has been influenced by america in profound ways as well. the focus is getting out of hell rather than ridding the world of hell. and this is why my friends, who are the poster family for american evangelical christianity, can compare the least of these to a bacteria or virus. because getting involved with the messy parts of the world, the parts jesus and the apostles got involved with, isn't part of living the nice, shiny, suburban life (christian) americans strive to live. it's just not part of the image.

what did i say to this friend, whom i love dearly, but who represents a completely different understanding of what it means to be a christian? well, there wasn't much i could say because what he thinks christ came to do is so radically different than from what i think, it's a herculean task to carry on that discussion. and this is what always happens: nothing; just a change in the subject. the theological differences have created walls that i'm still trying to learn how to tear down. there are enormous pre-suppositions that have to be tackled first, but i do think there's hope.

rethinking forgiveness and repentance

2008-10-23T11:36:00.003-04:00

not too long ago i wrote that i do not believe the bible teaches a transactional relationship between forgiveness and repentance. instead, the bible teaches that forgiveness should be freely given and repentance is an act of forsaking a previous way of living for a new one. they are two different issues. thus, God doesn't forgive only if one repents, as if we have to buy God's forgiveness with our repentance; God just forgives. i backed this up by referring to places where the bible teaches us to simply forgive, as well as, jesus' words on the cross, "father, forgive them for they know not what they do." after all, how can there be repentance if someone knows not what he or she does?

joe and i have- at a leisurely pace- been going through the book of acts together. weeks ago we went through chapter three. in verse 19 it says: repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out... "crap!" i thought. this seemed to throw a wrench in what i had been thinking. so i went on biblegateway did a search on "forgive." once again, i found a whole slew of verses that seemed to say there are conditions to forgiveness.

this is frustrating and confusing for me, because while i tell people the bible isn't so cut and dry, and black and white there are times where i fall into that same way of thinking. in the story of the prodigal son, for example, isn't the God character's ( the father) posture toward the prodigal son a posture of unconditional forgiveness? i know that the son represents israel in the story, but can't we also place ourselves in the story? and therefore, isn't God's forgiveness given with condition of repentance? maybe not. i don't know. maybe it's not an either/or issue of transaction versus no transaction, but something else. turning from sin means living in right relationship with God, others and creation. it means giving up our own and this world's agenda, and taking up God's. josephus tells the story of how he and some romans came upon some jewish revolutionaries. josephus, working for rome, tells the revolutionaries to "repent and believe." by repent and believe josephus didn't mean for the revolutionaries to drop to their knees and beg for forgiveness, but to give up their agenda of revolt and join rome. in doing so, rome would accept them, and let them live.

i believe that this story from josephus which i've read from n.t. wright is a much better picture of forgiveness and repentance than a transaction. the idea is that God is waiting for us to join his kingdom which is currently being established. all we have to do is give up our agenda. it's not so much of a transaction, but a change of allegiance from the losing side to the winning side. the two do have a relationship; they are not separate issues.

maybe i'm just getting all worked up over metaphors and semantics, but i thought i would just clear that up.

interpretting the creation story

2008-10-06T10:09:00.005-04:00

this is good, good, good, stuff. john ortberg spoke at our church this past sunday. if you're someone who has trouble understanding how one can believe in evolution and also believe the creation story is true, then you need to go here and watch.

my encounter with a professional critic

2008-08-14T16:11:00.007-04:00

this past friday i had the honor of being in my brother in law's wedding. he used to lived in california and wisconsin where he was part of a pretty militant group of pro-life demonstrators/street preachers. some of these guys were in his wedding. this made me a bit tense. i'm really not a big fan of getting into heated discussions about religion and politics with complete strangers, but i knew that if i even made small talk with any of them, that was bound to happen. i was right.

i was standing there when the person, who is pretty much their leader, approached me and started asking me basic getting-to-know-you questions. where ya from? watcha do? are you a christian? when did you become one? where ya go to church?.....
...
...
uh... mars hill....
oh...... rob bell huh?......
yup...

so that was how it started. then he told me he saw a video with rob called bullhorn. for those who don't know, bullhorn is a video where rob kind of portrays ultra-extreme street preachers in a less than positive way. this conversation ended up getting into the value of street preaching and how rob is wrong in saying that God love's and accepts everyone. well, his problem wasn't so much with the love part as the accept part. to him, saying God accepts everyone just as they are mean's they will not face God's wrath and judgment, which basically means hell.

we went in circles for a while, and i actually agreed with almost everything he said. it just came down to our understanding of acceptance and the nature of forgiveness and repentance.

to him, God's forgiveness is available to everyone IF they repent (which basically means apologize). so when someone repents then they are accepted. but this just isn't biblical. jesus forgives the people who put him on the cross even though they know not what they do. God tells us that we must forgive everyone. he doesn't say they need to apologize first.

so to him, forgiveness and repentance is a transaction, while i see them as two separate things. repentance means to turn. it means to start living a new life. it means to be reborn. sure there is lamenting the things you have done in the past. birth is painful, and so is rebirth. but the idea isn't to attain God's forgiveness, but realize that one is already forgiven, and he or she can live a new life in a restored relationship with God, and begin having restored relationships with others. it's realizing that you are already accepted.

we discussed other related topics as well. for instance, the gospel is offensive, so that means we have to confront people with their sin so they'll repent of it. i mentioned that most people probably know they're pretty screwed up, and someone telling another how bad one is, isn't offensive because one thinks it's not true. it's offensive because a perfect stranger judging you is...well... offensive.

and really that is what bullhorn is all about. most people know their F'ed up, and someone shouting at them about it just isn't good news. but hearing how much their loved in spite of their faults and imperfections is.

on being a skeptical believer : complexity

2008-08-03T22:04:00.011-04:00

reality is complex. there are different levels, and layers to everything. for example, there is the layer of reality that i can experience with my five senses, and there are multiple other layers that i can't e.g. the micro level. right now, there are sounds all around me from all over the world being carried by radio waves, that i can only experience with a radio. and like the fact that there is only so much i can experience, measure and test with my five senses, science is, ultimately, limited. so there are levels of reality that science is not ever able to test.

thinking about this has brought me to conclude that maybe the guy in the legion story was schizophrenic, and being controlled by a demon. recently, a guest teacher at my church mentioned that research has been done in the psycho-social field concerning the psychological damage caused by oppressive regimes. this adds another layer to this example. a person could be affected psychologically by sociological factors. all this to say that i think beings who operate on scientifically unmeasurable levels use natural phenomena to interact with this level of reality.

the ancients, with their apocalyptic worldview, simply cut to the chase.

wotm? wtf??

2008-07-11T10:14:00.007-04:00

i'm not a fan, by any means, of way of the master. for the uninitiated, wotm is a "ministry" that kirk cameron is a part of that takes to the street trying to convince people to become christians. not too long ago, they made asses of themselves debating an atheist group, who also made asses of themselves, on network television. i first heard of them through anne, because her brother used to be into them. recently, i was thinking about their methods.

they start by asking random people on the street, "do you think you're a good person"? most people say, "yes" so they then ask if the person has ever broken one of the ten commandments. of course, everyone says, "yes" so the follow-up question is, "then are you really a good person"? i'm probably leaving something out, but that's the gist of it. the idea is to convict the person, and make their conscience get to them. now, this can work all well and good if, in fact, the person believes in the bible. but if he or she doesn't, then it's pretty much an exercise in futility. i have enormous problems with their method, and them as a ministry, for a plethora of reasons which is a whole other series in and of itself. but, at the same time, i think they could have something with this. the problem, however, is with the ten commandments. my question is: if jesus is the fulfillment of the law, then wouldn't living like him be a much more powerful tool of conviction? after all, the entire law is summed up in just two commands, and the sermon on the mount is maybe the most radical way to live ever. so why try and bring conviction with the ten commandments?

now, i'm not about to say that i'm this person who acts like jesus all the time, convicting others, and causing them to want to follow jesus with me. i'm not. recently i got a low score for professionalism at work because this past year there has sucked, and sometimes i have a hard time keeping my cool. but not too long ago i was talking with a coworker. all this guy ever does is complain and run others down. so he was doing this, as we were talking, and i was acting as visibly disinterested as i possibly could. after he got done with his shpeel, he could tell i didn't want to hear it, and said, "i'm sorry but this place just needs to change... well... or maybe i'm the one who needs to change."

of course, he didn't drop to he knees and start confessing his sins or anything like that, but i like to hope that, in that moment, my actions brought some conviction and in my own way, i got to be jesus. and all without asking him if he's a good person.

alone?

2008-07-03T16:26:00.003-04:00

jumping off my last post about having an ever-present awareness of the divine, i just got done watching the movie into the wild.

quick movie review:
go watch it. it's amazing.
review over.

so i'm watching the beginning, and there's this scene where the lead character is out in the middle of the alaskan wilderness and he shouts at the top of his lungs, "is there anybody there?" he then answers himself, "guess not!" this got me thinking: but we really aren't alone, right? there is always someone there. that's what it's all about. what does a spirituality look like where we never feel alone?

then something occured to me: the Lord God said, "it is not good for the man to be alone. i will make a helper suitable for him."

random thoughts & updates

2008-06-24T14:29:00.005-04:00

lately, i've been struggling not to hate my job. i don't really want to be doing what i do, and doing something you're not really into for 3 years starts to take a toll. days like this, when i can think of a huge amount of things i'd like to do or be doing, make going into work that much harder. i really like what i'm studying at school. for fun, i have been reading my western civ. text book to brush up on my knowledge of WWI and WWII and i love it. the chapters are pretty big, but i just fly right through them. i've been doing some serious yard work lately. i think i'm being bitten by the home improvement bug, as i've dropped almost 100 dollars at home depot in the past couple days. i'm exited about finishing our upstairs so we can finally have our huge master suite, and more room.

this past weekend i got to catch up with some old friends. we went to a food festival in skee town, and then hit up this nice little bar. i don't get to go out like that often anymore, or with those people, so it was even more of a good time. house church was also a good time, we actually had a discussion where everyone chimed in. we talked about prayer. my after-thoughts on it are this: i said that my ideal "prayer life" is that i would have an ever-present awareness that God is at work, and be in constant communication with Him. Meaning that since we believe God is always present and is our friend and father, that we should always be listening and looking for Him, and always in a state of constant communication. going further, ancient people looked at the gods as over them, always ready to strike if they weren't happy, and people were to always be in a posture where they were trying to please the gods. christianity, however, raises the person up to God's eye-level, so to speak, into a relationship posture. it's interesting then, that our prayer is often much more ritualized, and formal looking -- more like the ancient understanding of god than the biblical one. lately, i've been noticing that how i talk to God-- the way i speak-- is so much different than how i talk to friends and family.

anyways, i'm just trying to be thankful that i have a job, since so many in our economy don't. i'm also exited about the number of opportunities we are getting with our business, and all the days off i have coming up in the near future.

on being a skeptical believer : doubts

2008-06-02T12:18:00.018-04:00

last year, i wrote a post called "on being a skeptical believer." in it, i talked about my struggle with believing some of the more supernatural and mythical stuff in the bible. i also talked about my evolving faith. i think it's time for an update. i was going to post this all in one entry, but there is just too much to say, so i'm going to start by laying out reasons i struggle with doubt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in the year 2000 i had my first really big faith crisis. i started going online and reading all sorts of atheist websites, and was faced with arguments and ideas that i had never heard before. it was the beginning of a journey that led me away from the pre-packaged christianity i had been handed as a child and toward developing my own personal faith. according to fowler's stages of faith, i had entered stage four. this first faith crisis scared me and made me wonder how long i would remain a christian. however, since the beginning of this journey, i have learned that faith crises are part of it, and i now have them quite regularly.

my recent faith crisis was sparked by a comment that joe left on my other blog, asking me about my take on satan and demons. he asked me this because i mentioned that, while i struggle with my understanding of satan and demons, greg boyd is encouraging to me because he is an ivy league trained theologian and scholar who views them as literal beings. as i thought about how or if i would respond to joe, i decided to pick up greg boyd's book, letters from a skeptic which is, basically, a series of letters between him and his agnostic father. there's a part in the book where boyd discusses his view that there are evil cosmic forces at work in the world and points out that most of reality is made up of things we can't see. he also says that the world is, essentially, a cosmic battlefield. also, boyd points out that we-- modern people-- are the weird ones, because everyone else throughout the ages have believed in gods and evil spirits.

i agree, that it is entirely possible that there are evil spirits, and i also agree that the naturalist/materialist worldview that westerners hold is just that, another worldview, and we make the assumption that there isn't other forces or beings that exist. but isn't that the point? ancient people, and people ignorant of science, explain things they don't understand with supernatural explanations. for example, blessing someone after she sneezes comes from the belief that the act of sneezing was the release of an evil spirit. the belief in micro-organisms was once controversial because it contradicted the belief that sickness was caused by spiritual forces. so imagine a schizophrenic person living in, say, 50 B.C. how would schizophrenia be understood? as a mental illness? of course not. if you lived back then and you heard voices, people wouldn't believe there was something wrong with your brain, there would be a supernatural explanation. the universe is an incredibly amazing place, and the brain is arguably the most complex structure in it. is the reason everyone has believed in the supernatural up until the age of science because there was no other explanation?

another argument boyd puts forth is the argument for the existence of God from morality. this is also how c.s. lewis begins mere christianity. the gist of the argument is that because we intuitively know that murder or stealing is wrong, then there must be an ultimate source for that morality, namely God. but here's my problem. isn't much of our basic moral ideals rooted in self-preservation and our own happiness? we all agree not to murder because we, ourselves, don't want to be murdered. we essentially say, "ok, i'll allow you to live, if you allow me to live." the same goes for stealing. we make an agreement to allow each other to keep our own stuff. if someone breaks that agreement, then we get pissed. we then assign religious meaning to these rules and agreements to reinforce them

to close, i'll go back to the original topic of demons, which sparked all of this. i'm not sure that scripture itself views demons as literal beings. my prime example is the story of jesus casting out the demons collectively named "legion." this story is loaded with symbolism. first, the name legion is what an army of roman soldiers were called. second, jesus casts "legion" into a herd of pigs which were considered unclean according to jews. third, the pigs then drown in the sea, which immediately would conjure up images of the egyptian soldiers drowning in the red sea. so, is this a literal, just-telling-the-facts, recounting of actual events; or is the story saying that jesus is the messiah who will ultimately do away with the roman empire? or, was there really an exorcism, but the author took artistic liberty and added the symbolism?

crazy...

2008-05-30T10:01:00.000-04:00

glad yesterday was my day off...

ignorance

2008-05-23T09:49:00.006-04:00

there are some days when i feel like i don't know shit. yesterday was one of those days. i went over to my friend paul's house to hang out. we ended up talking about politics, like always, and had a great discussion about unions. he is a history and english double major, and is like two classes away from graduating. one of the reasons why he still hasn't graduated is because he's also a staff sergent in the army and got deployed to iraq a couple years ago. he's an incredibly intelligent person and can give you a lecture on the entire history of the world at the drop of a hat. at one point, he had a girlfriend, who was thai, so he studied thai history so he could better relate to her. so having a friend like this, there are many times where i just sit and pick his brain. i love getting his take on the war, since he was in it and was his unit's historian. currently, he's employed at UPS and will be a driver within three years. working there, he is part of the teamster's union, so yesterday i just played devil's advocate and grilled him on all the anti-union arguments i hear.

after i left paul's, i went to barnes and noble. i started wandering through the social science, current affairs and history sections. i couldn't find anything to read; i was just so overwhelmed. i picked up one book called conservative comebacks to liberal lies. i started thumbing through it. it's pretty much an encyclopedia of conservative arguments against common liberal claims. it just amazed me, because it made claims that were completely contradictory to things i learned in school. i do plan on buying this book, at some point, because i really want to listen to the arguments and research them.

i just wish i could stop time, and spend two years in barnes and noble. there is just so much information. i cannot wait till i'm done with my BSW, so i can take a couple years off and just read. i sometimes wonder if phd's feel this way. i wonder if there are points where they say, "i might have a phd, but i really feel like i don't know anything." in the end, however, i suppose feeling this way is good, as the most ignorant people out there tend to think they know it all.

a merry schismatic... uh, where was i? oh, yeah (part 5)

2008-05-20T10:54:00.007-04:00

so, since i discussed my views concerning the idea of "going to heaven" and the ultimate point of christianity (i.e. God's kingdom invading earth), i guess it's fitting to discuss the other side of the coin. i've already discussed my issues with what the bible says concerning hell here, and, honestly, i would be all for striking the word "hell" from the christian lexicon. hell, as most christians think of it, borrows heavily from dante and mythology. nowhere, in the scriptures, does the idea of hell, as we commonly think of it, appear. and the word "hell" actually comes from the norse goddess of the underworld (ht clothman).

so, what is hell? i've been pondering this question for years now, and i can't say that i have a solid answer, nor do i think i need one. instead, i look at it from a few different perspectives and conclude that it's probably a sum of all of them. a perspective that's been very helpful comes from my pastor rob bell. in his book sex god, he opens the first chapter with his understanding of hell. basically, he believes, like i do, that heaven is invading earth and that heaven is anywhere where God's rule is lived out, which is why we're taught to pray "on earth as it is in heaven." rob says: "when we say something was a "living hell," we mean that it was void of any love or peace or beauty or meaning. it was absent of the will and desire of God." so when things are going as God intends, heaven is being lived at the moment, and hell is the opposite of that. i watch the show intervention. it's a documentary portraying addicts facing interventions. i just watched one about a lesbian meth addict from a conservative christian family. at one point, her sister says something like "i'm not concerned about what happens to her here, i'm concerned about her going to hell." my immediate reaction was, "going? she's already there."

in his book speaking my mind, tony campolo goes over several different perspectives on hell. he alludes that he believes hell is separation from God, but that people can still turn to christ even after death. he also makes note that the one time where jesus clearly tells a story about people being judged, that they aren't judged by whether or not they had a conversion experience; they are judged by how they treated the least of those among them. of course, one could argue that how one treats the least of these is the fruit of said conversion experience. but then the obvious question is: what about those who aren't christians who live like christians, better than most christains? this has always been an interesting question for me.

the other day, i attended a lecture at work about the increasing resistance to anti-microbial drugs of certain stds. after the lecture, i was talking with the pharmD who spoke, about the vaccine gardasil. we discussed how those in the bible-belt were opposing its use because it might encourage girls to have sex. my thought was that fear should not be the driving force behind celibacy. growing up, i was terrified of going to hell. for most of my childhood and early teens i believed that, in spite of the salvation prayers i prayed, i wasn't good enough to actually be a real christian. hell was and is a very powerful tool to win converts. my old church actually put on plays portraying people being thrown into hell in order to scare people into becoming christians. a common line of thinking in the church is that if there is no hell, then we can just live the way we want. so my question to those that espouse that idea is: so do you live the way you do, and believe what you believe, simply out of fear? is the avoidance of hell what american christianity boils down to?

to tie this in with christmas, i'll offer a final perspective. one of the gifts i received this past year was a cd by a band i love called thrice, and on this cd is a song called the arsonist. the song describes a city that has become corrupted by all sorts of evil, and an arsonist who plans on burning it down to rebuild it. in other words, he plans on cleansing it by fire and his motive for doing so isn't anger, but love. here are some of the lyrics:

There are still good shepherds scattered, but they're far between and few.
And the sheep's skin that the wolves all wear is so thin I see right through.
And I think maybe all that's needed is some gas and open flame,
because I don't think that any one of them believes that fire can erase their names.
But I will see this city burn.
I said I will see this city burn.
We will burn it down and build it again,what was buried in flame.
Burn it down and build it again from the bricks that remain.
I love this city, but I've set and numbered its days.
I love this city, enough that I'll set it ABLAZE.

(cyn)icism

2008-05-10T14:00:00.006-04:00

you know you're getting old when you don't do anything on your saturday off but watch movies, and you feel guilty because you didn't get anything accomplished. that's what i did today. i knocked out casino royal and children of men. both movies were great and intense, and both were so different that there's no way i could say i liked one better than the other. among their differences, i noticed that casino royal was, overall, pretty cynical in its message, while children of men had a message of hope. in casino royal, the new bond film, james bond learns the hard way that you can trust no one. children of men was about a child born into a world plagued by 18 years of infertility and war.

the other day, anne and i were riding behind a car that was plastered with bumper stickers. they were on the bumper, the trunk and the back window. anne spotted one bumper sticker that said "ca(sin)o." now, i don't agree that all gambling is wrong, but, whatever, everyone has a right to their opinion and to put corny bumper stickers on their car; so i didn't think much of it. later on, however, something occurred to me.

other stickers on this car had, not surprisingly, religious messages. what occurred to me is that many of the christians i know are incredibly cynical people. recently, my cousin erica made a comment that "there just aren't very many honest people anymore these days." in class, not too long ago, we were discussing whether things had gotten better in our country concerning racism. i argued that it has, but another classmate commented, "i just don't think things are going to get better." now, i know what these two people think concerning the fate of the world, so these remarks don't surprise me. but it's still bothersome to me that the only hope these people have for the future is that a sliver of humanity will be spared before locusts the size of ponies swoop down and devour some 1/3 of the planet. they would actually believe that the world was a better place a long time ago, when all it takes is a quick glimpse at history for one to discover that things have gotten better and not worse.

here's my point in all this. i think maybe the greatest, most ground-breaking, turn-all-of-reality-on-its-head, thing the bible has to say is that God is love. that in some unexplainable way, the very core of reality is love. now, there are many things to be cynical about: pop music, buffets and right-wing politics :) just to name a few. but for me, i have hope that all of this isn't just waiting for a cosmic wrecking ball to tear it down. and if God is indeed love, maybe cynicism is one of the greatest heresies of all.

on my neglected series and my lack of blogging

2008-05-03T09:22:00.008-04:00

as of late, i have been taking a writing class. due to the nature of this class, i am constantly working on a paper, which, for some reason, makes me not want to blog. i've been debating on how to continue my series. i originally was writing it as an examination of how i interact with people in my life of the more conservative evangelical persuation. however, i've quickly realized that i don't have much to say on that because my interaction typically constitutes no interaction, because there are just too many obsticals created by differing perceptions on different theological concepts. so, instead, i thought it would be good to work through those differing perceptions. my intent isn't to create a theological treatise, but to examine the disconnect between christians like myself of the emergent persuation and christians like my family and anne's who typify mainstream conservative evangelicals.

so that's where i'm going with all this. meanwhile, i'll also continue to write insightful observations about my life and shortcomings :).

judging the judgers: lessons i learned studying fundies and rednecks

2008-03-30T21:44:00.009-04:00

lately, there's been controversy surrounding a wedding anne is supposed to be in. the controversy revolves around the attire that the bridal party are must wear. due to the flavor of christianity the officiating pastor subscribes to, the bridal party must wear dresses that go to the floor, are long sleeved, and cover the collar bones. there must be no dancing. and all the music must be pre-approved by said pastor. as expected, many of the people involved in this wedding are pissed. honestly, i think it's kind of funny. do i think this pastor is a legalistic, judgmental, ignorant person? yes. do i think that the flavor of christianity that he and his church follows has anything to do with jesus or anything jesus came to do? probably very little at best. does it drive me crazy that people buy into this stuff? yes. the charge i keep hearing thrown around is that they (the pastor's church) are just so concerned with appearance. they just care about what's on the surface. but in the midst of the idiocy, hilarity, the anger and mind-numbing frustration i have to ask: am i guilty of the same thing?

we went bowling yesterday. the bowling alley is an interesting place to do some people watching. well, it is but it isn't. at first it's fun gawking at the uber-mullets, nascar jackets, and bud light t-shirts, but after a while you get used to it because everyone just looks the same. as i'm there i almost start feeling bad for these people. there's more to life than deer-hunting, nascar, camouflage, country music and bowling. at the same time i start getting frustrated because i'm judging and stereotyping. i know it's wrong to assume everyone at this bowling alley lives this stereotypical redneck, white trash life; that they're all that shallow; and for that matter, that my way of life is superior to theirs. but isn't it though? i mean for gosh sakes, try some other kind of beer!!! you don't know what you're missing!! expand your horizons! the very fact that you think budweiser is a good beer shows that i'm superior! these are the thoughts that go through my mind. there must be some sort of objective way to judge cultural superiority. trying new foods, trying new wines, listening to new music, watching documentaries, reading books, watching cable news other than fox-- these things must show that i'm superior.

i really didn't know how to process all this. i kept thinking, "what am i missing?" Then these two guys came over to bowl in the lane beside ours. one had an incredible mullet; just stunning. it looked like the mullets professional wrestlers wore in the 80's. the other just had short hair with a baseball cap. they both had beer guts and t-shirts with sports teams on them. they were like all the others; just an average pair of working-class guys. but there was something about them, however, that was far superior to myself. they were kick-ass bowlers. in fact almost everyone there was. they had the perfect form and the wicked curves. they had their own balls, shoes and towels. and when they started bowling i started feeling pretty inferior. the guy with the short hair would line his toes up on the dots, run up, bring his arm back and around over his head, back down and release. the ball would start going straight for the gutter, but then, just as it was about to go in, make this dramatic curve and crash right into the strike pocket.

my theory for bowling is much simpler. i don't give a damn about form. i come at the alley from the right with my arm in line with the gutter throwing the ball on an angle toward the center. the only thing i care about is hitting the strike pocket. if i can throw the ball and get a strike then i don't care what it looks like. if it works, then that's what i'm doing. form is completely irrelevant.

anytime i go out to eat with my friend joe, he always asks our server, "in x amount of years you're 100, how do you know that you won in life?" last week in church a woman shared her story about how she came out of a life of drugs, alcoholism, stripping and total hopelessness and met christ in such a way it permanently changed her. today our pastor said that after one of the services where she shared her story a woman came forward to say that she had been contemplating suicide and that she was dealing with those same demons. whenever i hear something like this emotion swells up inside my chest because somehow, mysteriously, the God who is love and who from all things exist became incarnate. and in the midst of the most tragic circumstances and hopeless existences, this incarnation continues. in the end, culture is nothing more than a mask and behind that mask the fundies, the rednecks and myself are all just human beings that need love, grace, peace and hope. and i'm sure that that has much more to do with winning at life, because, after all, form is meaningless.

one helluva post (UPDATED)

2008-03-18T01:35:00.007-04:00

***after reading an article on hell, i learned i was incorrect in saying gehenna is thrown into the lake of fire in revelation 20.***

my prolific blogger homey joe wrote a post that inspired me to post this. it's a post that has been sitting in my drafts bin for a while. enjoy!

my theological beliefs about heaven, hell, creation and salvation are in a constant state of evolution. i don't claim to have all the answers on these issues. yes the bible talks about all of these, but i'm still learning what the bible means, how to interpret it, and what other scholars who know way more than me about the bible, history, the culture of the people who wrote the bible etc. have to say. i think it's dangerous and ignorant to come to a point where you say, "ah, i'm all done learning and seeking. i have all the answers now, and now i can go convince others. and if they don't agree with me, then that means they're rejecting the truth and going to hell." i know i'm painting a caricature and i don't mean to put words in other people's mouths, but this is the overall message i get. it seems that every time i think i have it figured out i learn something new that changes everything.

i love it when people say, "well, the bible clearly teaches..." or, "the bible plainly says..." i want to say, "plainly to you!?" for instance, the topic of hell. some christians will say that the bible plainly teaches that hell is a place of fire and brimstone. it's a place of eternal torment for those who don't believe in jesus. here's the problem with this. the two words that mean, "hell" in the NT are, "gehenna" and "hades." gehenna was and is a real place. in jesus' day it was the town dump. they put their garbage and their dead there, and to get rid of the trash they lit it on fire. it was called a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, the place where the worm never dies etc... so when jesus talks about being thrown into gehenna, he's referring to a real live place. it would then be fair to say he's using this term metaphorically unless one believes the unsaved currently reside in the ancient jewish town dump.

the other word, "hades" translates to the hebrew, "sheol." sheol was simply the grave, or death, or being put into the ground. when you get into the book of revelation, you find death and hell (sheol/hades) being thrown into a lake of fire. it then says the lake of fire is the second death. if you're reading this with no presuppositions it looks as if the lake of fire is symbolic and it symbolizes the end of death and hell-- the annihilation of those things and not a literal lake of fire. after all, the book of revelation is a hugely symbolic book, and death and hell are not people. saying they're, "thrown into the lake of fire" as if they're actual beings is a picture of a greater truth. it's not literal. it then says that those whose names aren't written in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire.

so here's a recap: the book of revelation is highly symbolic. death is not a literal person. hell, in this verse, is hades-- a greek translation of the word sheol. these two things, for lack of a better term, are thrown into a lake of fire. then people whose names aren't written in a book of life are thrown in too. here's a question: if death and sheol aren't literal beings that can be thrown into something and revelation is a highly symbolic book to begin with, then why is the lake of fire and book of life treated as actual literal objects?? as if God really needs a book to remember who goes to heaven! and this doesn't even get into the symbolism relevant to the ancient world of fire and sulfur (brimstone). can you see why i don't know if i, "literally" believe people who don't believe in jesus are thrown into a lake of fire and brimstone for eternity? i say all this not to argue for a specific understanding of hell, but to point out that the bible-- once you seriously begin studying it-- isn't as, "plain and clear" as many christians believe.

a merry schismatic christmas (part 4)

2008-02-29T10:15:00.015-05:00

for much of my life i thought it was sinful to enjoy living on earth and to desire that life here wouldn't end. there were times in life where the idea of heaven just wasn't appealing compared to life here. there was always this dichotomy between the "spiritual" and the "worldly" or "fleshly." the goal of the christian was to become more spiritual and less worldly, and to long for the day when we could leave this place. this jumps right into where i left off, because to me, the gospel and salvation was always about getting to a place. we were saved so that we could go to heaven some day. everything was about going to place A or place B. and our ultimate mission was to get as many people possible to go to place A. the ideas of getting to a place and the emphasis on the spiritual versus the worldly are some of the perceptions i've been referring to.

the christmas before last-- the one where i said i was a little nervous because we bought our mom's mars hill's worship cd-- i went anne's family's prepared. at the time, i was reading a book by grand rapids theological seminary professor michael wittmer called heaven is a place on earth: why everything you do matters to God. i brought this book because it corrects many of the misperceptions i mentioned above, and wittmer, being a professor of systematic theology at a highly respected christian university, wouldn't be viewed as some off-the-wall heretic spouting off "questionable" teachings. i never needed to break it out, but part of me kind of wishes i had. in it, wittmer describes how creation, under the weight and damage of sin is, at it's core, still good; and that God hasn't given up, but is restoring it:

"like a stone tossed into a pond, the corrosive curse of sin rippled out to destroy the entire world: human society, the animal kingdom, and even the ground itself began groaning beneath the weight of sin. life on earth degenerated to quickly that within a few generations God ordered a great flood to wipe out everything, save only pairs of every animal and handful of people.
now place yourself in God's shoes. what is your next move? I doubt you would scrap the world, admitting that it is broken beyond repair. if you did, wouldn't you be conceding victory to satan? you would be admitting that satan had won, for the sin he introduced has overpower your good creation, making it irretrievably evil. no, if you are God, you will never concede that. instead, you will forcefully strike back at Satan with you plan of redemption (Genesis 12-Revelation 22). not content to merely snatch a few souls from this mess and leave everything else to the devil, you will not rest until you have redeemed every last corner of your good creation from evil's grasp. (heaven is a place on earth pg. 187-188)"

wittmer goes on to cite acts 3:21 where peter say christ must remain in heaven until the time has come for God to restore everything, or when paul says christ is reconciling all things whether on earth or in heaven to himself. what i really brought the book for, however, was for the part where wittmer explains 2 peter 3:10-13 which says:

"10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid
bare. 11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness."

wittmer explains that in the 16th and 17th centuries: "the best available greek manuscripts of 2 peter 3:10 read that "the earth and all of its works will be burned up." this is how every translation of that period, including the KJV rendered this verse. it is easy to see how whole generations of christians learned from their bibles to expect a future fire that would annihilate the entire world." (heaven is a place on earth pg. 202)

once again, the issue of perception springs up, in that, centuries of misinterpretation have lead to a misperception concerning the fate of earth. wittmer goes on, "however, scholars have since discovered older, more reliable greek manuscripts, and these texts say that rather than burning up, "the earth and all of its works will be found." instead of being destroyed, this term "found" implies that the quality of our works will be "laid bare," discovered for all to see. Much like gold passing through a smelting furnace, the good that we do will be purified while our less noble efforts will slough off. read this way, peter's vision of a coming conflagration seems to be a purging rather than annihilating fire. (heaven is a place on earth pg. 202)" wittmer then discusses the comparison of this judgement by fire to the noahic judgement by water which is mentioned in 2 peter 3:6-7. this comparison is important because the flood did not destroy the entire earth, but instead, destroyed the evil that had upon it accumulated.

so creation remains good, but evil is real and has disfigured it. that, i believe, is the biblical view and is one key misunderstanding of many american evangelicals. the second misperception i want to hit is the emphasis on "the spiritual" versus "the physical." whenever i go to anne's parent's house i always notice, "sky angel." sky angel is kind of like christian cable tv only it's a dish. like, "christian music" and "christian movies" and "christian dietary supplements" sky angel is part of the vast christian subculture market. this split of secular and christian, or even the idea of one's "spiritual life" is a further misperception that obstructs conversation. and like the misperception that creation is evil and is waiting for coming destruction, this too is unbiblical...

but why and how did this split occur? recently, the eminent scholar n.t. wright was interviewed by TIME concerning his new book surprised by hope. the interview is on the unbiblical idea that the goal of the christian life is to die and go to heaven. wright corrects that by explaining that heaven is an intermediary state and that the ultimate goal is the resurrection of the dead for life on the restored earth. in this interview wright also explains how the influence of platonic thought has created the dualistic way american christians view reality. this is a great interview which i'm thankful that wright did so that i don't have to attempt to explain these ideas myself. here's a few quotes:

Wright: "There are several important respects in which it's (going to heaven when you die) unsupported by the New Testament. First, the timing. In the Bible we are told that you die, and enter an intermediate state. St. Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet. Secondly, our physical state. The New Testament says that when Christ does return, the dead will experience a whole new life: not just our soul, but our bodies. And finally, the location. At no point do the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels say, "Jesus has been raised, therefore we are all going to heaven." It says that Christ is coming here, to join together the heavens and the Earth in an act of new creation. "

"Our culture is very interested in life after death, but the New Testament is much more interested in what I've called the life after life after death — in the ultimate resurrection into the new heavens and the new Earth. Jesus' resurrection marks the beginning of a restoration that he will complete upon his return. Part of this will be the resurrection of all the dead, who will "awake," be embodied and participate in the renewal. John Polkinghorne, a physicist and a priest, has put it this way: "God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves." That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom."

"The New Testament is deeply, deeply Jewish, and the Jews had for some time been intuiting a final, physical resurrection. They believed that the world of space and time and matter is messed up, but remains basically good, and God will eventually sort it out and put it right again. Belief in that goodness is absolutely essential to Christianity, both theologically and morally. But Greek-speaking Christians influenced by Plato saw our cosmos as shabby and misshapen and full of lies, and the idea was not to make it right, but to escape it and leave behind our material bodies. The church at its best has always come back toward the Hebrew view, but there have been times when the Greek view was very influential."

the whole interview is great, not that long and explains a lot. for so many years i struggled to make sense of the point in taking care of the earth and desiring for things to change in spite of the belief that everything was going south anyways and God was just going to destroy it all. i struggled with the separation of the sacred and the secular. much of it seemed so arbitrary and didn't make a lot of sense. i wondered if there was this big piece i was missing and, in fact, there was; and now that i've found it things have never been more clearer. but, unfortunately, i'm learning that what's clear for me isn't clear for others.

jesus in the ER

2008-02-24T16:13:00.009-05:00

this morning i read romans chapter 3. i admit that there are verses that i just don't like. romans 3:10 particularly stands out: "there is no one righteous, not even one." what a downer. humanity sucks. and because we suck so much and we can never achieve God's righteousness we're condemned to hell. another thing that i must admit is that i'm not particularly a fan of the word, "righteousness." when i hear that word all i can think of are people like john macarthur or charles spurgeon or john calvin. in fact, isn't that central to calvinism, that humanity sucks? not only do the associations i make with that word make me want to cringe, but what the hell does, "righteousness" even mean? i hear it get thrown around a lot but, honestly, i wonder if the people who love to use that word so much could really unpack it. and i'm not just talking about giving the textbook definition.

last night i had to make a trip to the ER for something that turned out to be nothing. the ER on a late saturday night is an interesting place indeed. it's kind of a cross between a half-way house and a prison. when we got there i overheard a nurse mention that there was a trauma, and that somebody had been shot. i wondered if it was a robbery or just some macho idiots acting like morons at a dance club. we (anne and i) were there for four hours. while we were there, there was a drunk guy laying on a gurney in the hallway about 15 feet from our door. the entire time, he kept yelling, swearing and complaining, and at one point he called his nurse a, "fat fucking slut" and told her to, "suck his cock." during one of his tirades he started complaining that he had to pee. i just looked at anne and said, "if i were his nurse i think i would be like, ok, sure, pull down your pants so i can cath you." at another point he started calling out asking for some water, which, why, after what he called his nurse, does he think she'd give him some water? he was also spitting on people; he was just a mess.

at 4 am when we finally left we were heading for the door when we got stuck behind a large group of loud, cocky, kids who were probably in their late teens and early twenties. one of them was the patient and he had his arm in a sling. his friends were laughing and joking about his injury and one of them said something to the effect of, "it's no big deal, you're a soldier (as in a gangsta/thug. not a literal military soldier)." i started wondering if he was the trauma.

the entire time i was there i had this brewing hatred for that drunk and then those kids as we were leaving. i would have loved to get in that drunk's face and tell him what a miserable, piece of shit that he is, as evidenced by him being there in the first place; and that he deserves to go thirsty and he should just piss on himself. i wanted to walk up to those kids and tell them that, in spite of their arrogance, they are worthless pieces of shit, who are a stain and burden on our city, and that it would take all my strength to conjure up any sense of tragedy if they were all gunned down that night. what's more, i think it would be a safe bet that if i did that and people were around they would applaud me, or at least, secretly be cheering me on. by societies standards i am a good person. i am hard-working, faithfully married, law-abiding, church-going and if i said those things it would be true in the minds of people who share those same characteristics. but there is no one righteous, not even one.

i wonder what jesus would have done in that ER. would he have gotten the drunk some water? what would he say, or how would he interact with those kids? jesus forgave the very people who put him to death. he washed the feet of the person who betrayed him. i wonder if, when he said "when i was thirsty you gave me something to drink," there were any stipulations about whether the thirsty person was nice or drunk and angry? i tend to think of righteousness as following all the right rules. to me, it's always been a very legalistic term. but if by looking at jesus we see the righteousness of God on display, then righteousness means being gracious, sacrificial, serving, patient, slow to anger, full of hope and joy, humble and giving. and, yes, i have to concede that compared to those standards, humanity does kind of suck and God's righteousness is, indeed, beautiful.

i confess...

2008-02-21T14:03:00.003-05:00

when i'm at work and it's really busy, i get mad at the patients. sometimes i get mad when they're demanding morphine thinking to myself: in the civil war days all people had was a shot of whiskey and a stick to bite down on as the doctor was sawing their limbs off. other times i'm mad at a patient for being alergic to a popular drug, making me have to go out of my way to get a drug that we barely ever use and, therefore, is in some random god-forsaken place, or worse, we have to get it from another hospital. but most of all i get mad when i have to fill a patient's order for an insane amount of drugs that no human being should be allowed to consume in one day only to have to credit all those drugs back to that patient's account the next day because, well, as it turns out no one can consume that amount of drugs in one day. i know it's wrong on a number levels that i actually get mad at people for being sick or injured. i know it isn't their fault, but i need to project my frusteration onto something and they're just such easy targets. weak and injured people usually are.

i just got done reading the book of acts and i'm on to romans. i admit that when i read paul i hear him speaking with charleton heston's voice in the ten commandments. i try my best to picture him as a short dark-skinned jewish man speaking in greek, but it just doesn't work.

i'm really into the band vampire weekend. and i discovered them from watching MTV, which i find incredibly disturbing.

i start spring arbor tonight. i secretly hope i'm going to find it to be very easy. i also hope it doesn't cut into my blogging like it did last semester. we'll see.

happy valentine's day anne

2008-02-14T17:26:00.003-05:00

last night anne got home and placed a valentine's day gift on the coffee table. it sat there for god knows how long and i never saw it. i sat on the couch with it sitting right in front of me. anne just kept laughing and i couldn't understand why. i started getting frusterated, and she finally had to inform me that there was something in the room i wasn't seeing. she bought me a new bag of starbucks and two cd's. it was extremely thoughtful, and i felt horrible because i didn't get her anything because i thought our coming weekend in chicago was how we were celebrating v-day. so i just wanted to post a quick message expressing how thankful i am for her and how much i love her.

a merry schismatic christmas (part 3)

2008-02-13T17:28:00.003-05:00

to talk about what the gospel is is tricky, because one's understanding of the gospel is directly linked to their eschatology. so to argue about what the gospel and salvation are one has to get into what they think "the end" will look like. the gospel that focuses on a get-out-of-hell-free ticket is often dubbed the "fire insurance" gospel. it is a gospel that pictures the world as a sinking ship and the job of the church to get people onto lifeboats before the ship goes down. this view of salvation and the gospel tends to be pre-occupied with death and the future. it tends to have a negative view of creation and is generally resistant to a gospel that focuses on, "changing the world." this is the dominant view of the gospel/salvation/eschatology among conservative american evangelicals, and is the view of the our (anne and i) families.

last year for christmas we bought our mom's mars hill's (our church) worship cd. this made me a little nervous. our church takes a very different view of the gospel/salvation/eschatology than the view of our families, and many of the songs and readings on this worship cd express this view. our church believes in "holistic" salvation, and the term "holistic" tends to creep most american christians out, conjuring up new age images. we put emphasis on changing the world, and therefore, our church also takes a here and now perspective to salvation and the gospel rather than being focused on the future or post-mortem existence.

we also take a different view of the ship. rather than the ship going down, we believe that God is invading and redeeming the ship, and that some day God will completely restore the ship and take command. we believe that when God created the ship he said that is was good, and good it remains even though it is distorted by evil, chaos, destruction and injustice. so rather than having a doomsday focus on the world and current events, we see God's kingdom expanding and invading this reality. God's intentions aren't to destroy his creation, but destroy the evil, chaos and injustice that it is mired in. God is restoring and renewing, culminating in a merging of Gods kingdom and earth (rev. 21:2-4). for most of my life i didn't perceive the gospel this way. i shared the same perceptions as my family, and sometimes it's difficult for me to remember what that was like.

these two perspectives-- the ship going down versus the ship being restored-- not only color how we read certain passages of scripture, but influence how we see the world and live our lives. for instance, one has a much easier time bypassing the recycle bin if they believe that this place is destined to go up in flames. if one is fixed on escaping this world via death or rapture, then it's easy to slip into a mentality that believes it's ok to just enjoy one's suburban lifestyle whilst others strive to make ends meat or starve, because, in the end, the only things that matter are "spiritual things." outside of creating an opportunity for a miniscule number of people to pray the sinner's prayer this world and life aren't worth much. in fact you'd think the sooner it's destroyed the better, because as of right now billions of people are being churned out whose destiny is kindling for the flames of hell.

a merry schismatic christmas (part 2.5) -more thoughts on perceptions

2008-02-06T10:35:00.002-05:00

these perceptions create huge roadblocks to conversation. because they're so complex and people are often so entrenched in them, it's exhausting to even begin to peel back the layers. we were out to eat one time and my dad flat out asked me why i don't think the end times are near. how do you even begin to answer a question like that? it's a question that gets not only into eschatology, but what the kingdom of God is, historical context, hermeneutics, and the essence of God's relationship with humanity and his creation. it's quite an intense conversation to have over an hour or so dinner. likewise, these perceptions about who jesus is, what a christian is, and a christian's role in the world are covered in cultural, historical, political and sociological layers. compound that with the fact that these beliefs, opinions, values and sentiments are embedded into our being, and if anyone dares question them they are not just questioning an idea or belief they are questioning us. for all of us, our beliefs are connected to who we are. some of us are better at separating ourselves from them than others, but at some level all of us will abandon defending the veracity of our beliefs and begin defending ourselves.

7 random facts

2008-02-01T02:08:00.000-05:00

1. i am a pharmacy technician.
2. i will begin attending spring arbor university.
3. i wish i had more time to blog.
4. i have an amazing wife who i love dearly.
5. i wish i kept in better touch with some of my friends.
6. i am exited about starting a new business with my wife.
7. one of my dreams is to see the world.

i am tagging no one because all the people i know in the blogosphere have already been tagged. i am finally getting somewhere with the next installment in my series, so that will be up soon. i also have another series i'm working on, but i plan on finishing it before i begin posting, so stay tuned!

a merry schismatic christmas (part 2)

2008-01-18T00:40:00.001-05:00

of course, when i say that i feel like i'm following a different jesus than the one anne's and my family follows i don't literally mean there is more than one jesus. instead, i mean that we are following a different perception of who we think jesus is. our perceptions come from all different sources: sunday school flannel graph stories, our pastor(s), christian authors, evangelists, medieval and contemporary art, our family, our friends and the gospels themselves. i would argue, however, that what we read in the gospels is largely colored by the other influences i listed. that's kind of a scary thought for most christians because most christians would believe the jesus they are following is the authentic jesus of the bible, and not a composite of the many perceptions of others that they have encountered. many christians would be downright offended if one pointed out that they might be subconsciously assigning definitions to certain terms jesus uses and certain attributes jesus has that was not intended by the authors, but is the result of a compilation of misinterpretations over the centuries. for example, when people hear the terms, "gospel," "repent," "salvation," "hell," and, "kingdom of God," they think of very specific definitions. many christians become extremely defensive if anyone dares challenge those assumptions.

this christmas morning we opened presents with anne's family and somebody got a dvd that i thought was interesting. the dvd was called more than dreams. this film is about a phenomena that has allegedly been happening in the muslim world for some time now. muslims, sometimes radical extremists, claim they have been visited in dreams by jesus. these muslims have been so convinced that their dreams were authentic visions of christ, that they left islam and converted to christianity. the giver of this dvd wondrously exclaimed, "this is how jesus is getting the gospel to the muslim world right now." now, i know nothing about this dvd so i'm not going to speculate as to whether or not these visions are authentic. what i am interested in is what the giver of this dvd meant when that person said, "the gospel." the gospel this person was referring to was creating converts, and that, apparently, jesus is now bypassing the church and going straight to muslims and personally witnessing to them.

i really don't mean to sound harsh, and the person who said this is a wonderful person who i would never want to hurt in any way, but with many christians this is what the gospel boils down to. salvation boils down to saying a prayer and being saved from an eternity in hell or being raptured before God destroys the earth. repenting essentially means apologizing to God so he'll forgive you. and tragically of all, the kingdom of God equates to heaven. this is THE purpose and message of jesus: to die and resurrect so that all we have to do is say a prayer to get out of hell or be raptured. following jesus means getting others to believe these theological beliefs so that they too can get out of hell. everything else is just window dressing.

a merry schismatic christmas (part 1)

2008-01-05T18:33:00.001-05:00

**if you're reading this and you feel i'm writing about you, please don't take any offense. this isn't a rant. this is me attempting to analyze how relationships are affected by intense disagreement, and how i deal with it. if you have something to say, please feel free to comment or ask questions.**

christmas is the time for family and to celebrate jesus' birth. it's a time where, as christians, jesus should bring us together. well, jesus should always bring us together, but many times he doesn't. i suppose you could argue that he never claimed he would. in one passage he says something to the effect that he will divide families. but i have a feeling there are issues pertinent to that specific time and circumstance as to why jesus said that, because the overall idea of the church is people united in christ bringing about the kingdom of God. some act as the feet, some the hands but all are part of the body. division and schism doesn't seem to be the goal.

of course, among many christians, it isn't like this. recently, the pastor of my parent's church has come down on the pastor of my church and others who are associated with him. in fact, this isn't anything new, as my pastor has been attracting criticism for some time. recently, he went on a speaking tour called the gods aren't angry. when my wife mentioned this tour to my cousin, whose church also isn't a fan, my cousin said something to the effect of, "the gods? there's only one God." the criticism has indeed gotten out of control. in fact it's devolved into gossip, and libel.

i get quite nervous about bringing people together whom i know have very divergent political or religious views. at times, i dreaded bringing my liberal ex-girlfriend out to eat with my parents because of the fear my father would spout off an opinion about his politics. one time we were waiting for a seat at a restaurant and my dad started a conversation with some random person standing near us, which is completely normal for him. some how he started talking about the war and how we need to just go bomb the entire region and get it over with. i literally almost ran outside to leave, but remembered i had ridden with my mom.

the reason i feel this way isn't because i don't like discussing politics or religion, but because i feel as though there needs to be-- among most people at least-- some sort of bond that is formed first. a bond where both parties like one another enough to where they can disagree about big issues without it affecting the way they view one another as people. i think that i've reached this point with my wife's family, but i'm still not so sure i want to act on it. i still have this fear that if i come out and say, "i believe in evolution," or "i can't stand george bush," or, "i don't care if a presidential candidate is pro-life," or, "i don't really care if gay people get married" they might think less of me, or think they need to start praying for me to see the light.

i know, i know, who cares if they think less of you; that's their problem. so what? the problem is, is that i do care, and this creates tension when i am with these people because i know that they probably know i don't agree with all of their conservative republican christian views. it creates tension with the cousin i spoke about above. i've even sensed tension with my high school best friend, though not to the same effect as the others. the truth is there are times when i think we are following a completely different jesus.

oh, all right...

2008-01-03T22:22:00.000-05:00

01. One book that changed your life
i haven't been a serious reader for that long so this is hard. i don't know if i can say that a book, except the bible has, changed my life. but, off the top of my head i would say the book, the problem of pain by c.s. lewis was the first book to really get me to think about God and theology in a new way.
02. One book that you’ve read more than once
mere christianity by c.s. lewis
03. One book you’d want on a desert island
i'll have to steal from joe's idea a bit and say a book on surviving on a desert island.
04. Two books that made you laugh
the complete collection of the far side
05. One book that made you cry
can't think of any
06. One book that you wish had been written
i'd be willing to bet that any book i can think of has probably been written.
07. One book that you wish had never been written
any book that has inspired someone to do violence to others.
08. Two books you're currently reading
searching for god knows what by donald miller
democracy matters by cornel west
09. One book you’ve been meaning to read
the great gatsby and a million others

i tag angela rudd

some thoughts on competition

2008-01-03T10:19:00.000-05:00

i'm reading searching for god knows what by donald miller, and i'm on a chapter titled,"how the fall makes you feel." in it miller is working through the premise that the fall of man created a world where people are always comparing themselves to one another. he gives the examples of sports: why do thousands of people gather to see who's team is better. he gives the example of reality television: the bachelor, fear factor, survivor. he says that our obsession with comparing ourselves to one another drives all plots and story lines. it got me thinking about how, in one of my classes, we learned how competition drives prejudice concluding that capitalism-- because it's based on competition-- is a major source of prejudice. i think there is a lot of truth to this. my brain was racing as i was reading this chapter and then miller, talking about the popularity contest of middle school, writes this: "And here is what is terrible: There will be a sort of punishment being dealt to those at the end of the line, each person dealing out castigation as a way of dissociation from the geeks, driven by the fear associating with somebody at the end of the line might cost them position, as if the two might be averaged, landing each of them in the space between. And so, in this way, students are constantly looking to associate themselves with those higher in line, and dissociate from those of low position. Great lengths will be taken to associate with those at the front of the line. Students will kiss up, drop names, lie about friendships, and so on. Many will hate the most popular, and yet subject themselves to their approval as though they were small gods. But the great crime, the great tragedy, is not in the attempts to associate but rather the efforts to dissociate. If a person feels his space in the hierarchy is threatened, that he might lose position, the vehemence he feels toward the lesser person is nearly malevolent."- searching for god knows what pg.97

Immediately after reading this is had this thought: Prejudice is rooted in competition. Maybe the ultimate source of competition is the competition to gain approval/love. We gravitate towards products/images/lifestyles to gain the acceptance and praise from society. This is ultimately what drives the market: the space in our hearts reserved for the unconditional acceptance and love of God.

i have been posting

2007-12-29T00:20:00.000-05:00

here.

so i came home from class today and...

2007-12-11T00:00:00.000-05:00

what's my deal?

2007-12-07T21:33:00.000-05:00

i have a co-worker who i've known the entire time i've been at spectrum. i have an interesting at work friendship with him. he's someone that, if i went to high school with him, we would probably be good friends. once, me, him and another co-worker went out to a bar after work for some beers. virtually the entire time, he and i talked about the bajillion different things we have in common. the third co-worker probably felt like he was with two people on a date who had just met on e-harmony. everything from beer, wine, cigars, music, opinions etc... we just have very similar interests, likes and dislikes.

this was over a year ago, and we haven't hung out on that level outside of work since. most of the time when i see him at work, i just say hi. yesterday, however, was one of the rare times i talked to him for an extended period of time. and that's how it will be. most of the time it's just a, "what's up?" or "have you seen this movie?" or "have you heard this band?" but sometime we have actual conversations.

it's just a weird relationship, and it's a good example of my social awkwardness. lately, i've been really frustrated with this aspect of myself. i hate it. i don't know if it's my lack of confidence, my inability to make interesting conversation outside of theology or politics, my inability to think on my feet, or just not being comfortable in my own skin. i suspect it's all of these.

most people consider me introverted. i guess i am, but it's not always by choice. many times i want to talk to people, but i'm afraid people might not want to talk to me. the same goes for asking people to hang out. most of the time, when people ask me to hang out i'm all for it, but i'm typically reluctant to ask people i don't know well to hang out. it's not that i'm scared they'll say no. it's that i'm scared the said person and i will have a boring or crappy time or that it will be awkward, and they won't want to hang out again. i know this is retarded. i know it intellectually, but i don't believe it.

not liking sports really screws me over when it comes to hanging out with, or making small talk with other guys. i see this all the time whenever someone new starts at work. if it's a guy and he meets another guy and they're both into sports- which most guys are- they usually strike up a conversation within minutes. the whole time i think, "i wish i knew what the hell they were talking about so i could join in." but i don't so i just go about my business. yesterday, i heard some co-workers, across the room, discussing politics. i left my work and went over there so i could join in on the conversation. i catch people talking about politics at my work about every two years, so i'll do anything to get in on the discussion.

things i can comfortably talk about with people are theology, politics, movies, music, history, relationships, being married, home ownership, and dog ownership. the problem is that most people don't want to open up about their relationships when you first meet, i don't typically like the movies and music that others like, and religion and politics are not kosher to bring up in polite conversation. so i usually just stay quiet unless i have something to say.

it's true that i'm not comfortable in my own skin, and i think i make people feel awkward. i always hear that bill clinton is amazing with people. even people who hate him say they become like jello when they're around him. that he makes you feel like you're they only person in the room. i wish i were like that. i don't trust people. maybe that's my problem. i don't trust people to like me. i assume they want to have nothing to do with me, and that i have to impress them for them to want to be my friend. maybe i don't like me, and i think other people will feel the same way.

this is funny, i don't care who you vote for

2007-12-05T12:09:00.000-05:00

the ending is a little random, but this is still my favorite bush video

pretty funny

2007-12-05T01:18:00.000-05:00

he he he...

for the sake of posting something

2007-10-15T00:25:00.000-04:00

i have had absolutely no desire to blog lately. this past week, i have been so lazy and unproductive. i don't know what my deal is. when we closed on our house, the inspector said we needed a new furnace. the seller agreed to give us a check made out to a furnace company for $1,500. this past week we decided that we needed to get going on this furnace thing, since it was freezing in our house. when we looked at the check closely we discovered that it was void as of september 21st. at first, i paniced. i thought we were screwed for sure. but when we talked to the furnace people they said that all we needed was to have the title people, who cut the check, cut us another one. so thursday i was going to call the title people, but after some thought, i decided to wait till friday when i could just go down there.

the real reason i waited, besides the fact that i'm a procrastinator, is because i hate calling people. i don't know what my deal is, but i have this phobia about calling strangers. i don't even like to order pizza. i usually ask whoever i'm with to do it. so friday, before anne left for work, she mentioned that she wasn't even worried about the check, since we couldn't even do anything about the furnace that day anyways. this was music to my ears, as i didn't want to go out anyways.

and so, this has been my life. totally unmotivated. lazy. just wanting to sleep and watch t.v.

i have two papers due for the classes i'm taking. one is on the immigration of my family from the old country, and the other one compares max weber and karl marx's theories. this past weekend anne and i went to my parent's house. saturday, while anne was cutting my dad's hair, i went to my aunts to ask her about my great grandparents immigration here. she's kind of become the family historian, since she's really close with all of the really old relatives, like my 90 year old uncle. she has been emailing him about this topic for me and finding lots of good information. i've never cared about this topic before, but now, for some reason it interests me. maybe it's because i'm becoming more and more interested in history, but i found myself asking my aunt all sorts of questions about our family that had nothing to do with my paper.

i went to the grand rapids public library to research my other paper. if i was independently wealthy i think i would spend a lot of time there. besides having a lot of books, they have a huge cd and video collection to rent from. they have documentaries on any possible subject you can think of. i really need to get a library card there. i love school, but i cannot wait to be done with it someday, so i can read and study about anything i want.

i've been thinking about dependency. about how we're dependent on one another, the planet we live on, and how our country lies to us and convinces us we need to be independent, idividualistic and self-reliant. i wonder how our dependence on one another and the planet relates to dependence on God. honestly, i have a hard time feeling dependent on God. i know that all existence is somehow sustained by Gods existence, and that- like it or not- i am dependent on God, but it's hard to wrap my mind around that. what does someone putting that knowledge into practice look like? is it just praying for guidance? is it constantly being aware of signs from God? is it simply having an unexplainable peace, that, no matter what, things will work out for good? i suppose the easy answer is to look at jesus.

i suppose i should go to bed. maybe i'll write more tomorrow. maybe i'll want to write tomorrow.

my daily thrice

2007-10-11T10:14:00.000-04:00

"the earth will shake"

we dream of ways to break these iron bars
we dream of black nights without moon or stars
we dream of tunnels and of sleeping guards
we dream of blackouts in the prison yard

heartbroken, we found
(a gleam of hope)
harken to the sound,
(a whistle blows)
heaven sent reply,
(however small)
evidence of life
(beyond these walls)
born and bred
(in this machine)
wardens dread
(to see us dream)
we hold tight
(to legends of)
real life,
(the way it was before)

we dream of jailers throwing down their arms
we dream of open gates and no alarms

we dream of ways to break these iron bars
we dream of black nights without moon or stars
[x3]

heartbroken, we found
(a gleam of hope)
harken to the sound,
(a whistle blows)
heaven sent reply,
(however small)
evidence of life
(beyond these walls)
born and bred
(in this machine)
wardens dread
(to see us dream)
we hold tight
(to legends of)
real life,
(the way it was before)

look to the day the earth will shake
these weathered walls will fall away

there's always something good you can find if you look hard enough...

2007-10-10T14:37:00.000-04:00

ok, 95% of the time whatever todd friel is saying enrages me, so this clip falls in that 5% category. of course, the guy he's arguing with is a complete idiot so maybe that's why todd shines so much. but, nevertheless, this was handled well.

my daily thrice

2007-10-09T23:31:00.000-04:00

"cold cash and colder hearts"

they are sick, they are poor
and they die by the thousands and we look away
they are wolves at the door
and they're not gonna move us or get in our way

'cause we don't have the time
here at the top of the world
feeling alright
here at the top of the world

we hold our own by keeping our hearts cold

different god, darker skin
they are just not a burden that we'd like to bear
they are living in "sin"
there are so many reasons for us not to care

but I'm feeling alright
here at the top of the world
doing just fine
here at the top of the world

we've learned money matters most
so we keep our cards held close
here at the top of the world

we hold our own by keeping our hearts cold
and we've learned what matters most
so we keep our hearts cold

they are no one
they are nowhere
they are not our problem
not worth saving
nonexistent if we keep our hearts cold

they are no one
they are nowhere

up to 211

2007-10-01T22:24:00.000-04:00

I’m really getting into politics again
When I’m stressed or angry I could care less what I say
I am a bad liar
I hate it when people lie to me
I would rather be bored than really busy
I am a social smoker
I have a half sister
I have three nephews
I never see them because they live in Arizona
I never talk to them
My sister is mad at me about this
I am really bad at keeping in touch with people
I have two close friends that live in Muskegon
I rarely speak with them
I love to cook
I’m decent at it
I like creating my own dishes
MSNBC, food tv, and discovery are my three favorite channels
I hate Fox news
I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh ever day
I get on kicks
My last one was that I’m going to read more fiction
I’m trying to read the classics
I’m not doing so hot at the moment
I am a horrible public speaker
I want to be a better one
I think I have a lot to say
I spend most of my money on food
I went to Christian school K-12
I liked it, for the most part
When I was 14 and 15 I listened hard-core gangsta rap
I used to wear my pants sagging
I had my head shaved
I used to ride my bike everywhere
I was depressed for 2 years
My first job was at a water park
I picked up trash and cleaned the bathrooms
My first real kiss was when I was 19
My favorite movies are As Good as it Gets and Goodwill Hunting
A close second are any movies by Wes Anderson
I think David Bazan is one of the greatest songwriters
Thrice is one of my favorite bands
I need to listen to more music
I have been to the Grand Canyon
I have been to Mt. Rushmore
I liked Mt. Rushmore better
I am extremely loyal
But if I think you’re wrong I won’t defend you
I am not handy
I did not have any one to teach me to be handy
Christmas is not my favorite holiday
The Christmas season is my favorite holiday
I have a cold
It has lasted for over a month
I can play the piano
I started lessons when I was nine and took them for five years
It bothers me that I did not become a surgical technologist
It makes me wonder if I’ll become a social worker
I know that, that is silly because the two are such different professions
I enjoyed being in the O.R.
Most of the time I did a good job
All of the time I felt like I was walking on egg shells
I don’t like working in sterile environments
I have no sense of direction
When someone says, “over there to the left” I have to think about which side is my left
Sometimes I think I have a learning disability
A lot of days I feel way more intelligent than most people
Today I don’t
Today is one of those days where I feel like I have so much more to learn and experience
I do
Joe told me he likes the kava house. I used to love the kava house, so I’m looking forward to going there again sometime
One of my favorite beers is Sam Adams
My favorite beer is Edmond fitzgerald porter
I used to buy all name brand stuff
Now, when we go grocery shopping I buy mostly Meijer stuff
I bought new clothes on Saturday
I feel more confident when I wear new clothes
I want contacts so badly
I have been wearing only my glasses for almost a year
I used to never wear glasses
I love my new blog
I am about to eat spaghetti
I eat a lot of spaghetti because it’s cheap
I am looking forward to going to the haunt
We go every year
I’m also looking forward to going to food, wine and all that jazz

aids walk, religion, chaos and order

2007-09-29T14:30:00.001-04:00

anne and i did the aids walk today. it was a beautiful morning and afternoon. when we got there we saw people with their dogs. after much deliberation i went home and got niles. when i got back the walk had started, so i had to find a parking spot quickly. even though he's sick, niles behaved well. we walked through part of the heritage hills historic district. the houses there are amazing, and i got to see some i hadn't seen before. we also passed the meyer may house, which was designed by frank lloyd wright. the house is stunning; a true work of art. when we got back they had a raffle drawing, and anne won a gift basket, hair cut and style from a local salon. she was very excited, although we were hoping to win the grand prize, which was a night at the amway grand.

when we left we were stopped by a homeless guy. we were forced to talk to him because we were waiting for the light to change so we could cross the street. anne and i don't carry cash on us, so we couldn't give him the two dollars he asked for. it was obvious, however, that he was high or intoxicated. he was trying to feed niles his half-eaten apple. the whole situation was frustrating. i don't mind helping people, who i know really are just hungry, but i can't stand being harassed. i swear the homeless people in the mid west are much more aggressive than those in new york or boston. we weren't stopped or pestered once in those cities. on top of that he tried to guilt trip me by asking if i had ever been homeless, and telling me i might be someday.

this is where the conservative in me comes out. i don't believe in just giving money to people. i don't believe in welfare. even if i had two dollars i would not have given it to him. for one, because he was already high, and two i'm not really helping him. he told me he lives under the bridge. i wanted to ask him why he doesn't go to guiding light or mel trotter. grand rapids has the most resources for the homeless in the u.s. homeless people actually come to grand rapids for their homelessness programs. it just made me so mad because i want to help him. i want to plop him down and say tell me about your life. how did you get here? what happened? what do you want with the rest of your life? how can you change? what needs to happen? here's some resources; talk to these people; ask for this person. and some day when i'm a social worker i'll be able to do that. but don't fricken harass me! i want to have compassion for you, but pestering me isn't helping!!

my race and ethnic relations prof explained something to us that i have been thinking about ever since. someone in class asked him what the function of religion is in societies. he told us about some sociologists who observed a society that lived on an island. around the island there was a lagoon where the people fished. beyond the lagoon there was the ocean, where they also fished. the ocean was obviously much more dangerous, many people died fishing there and it was very mysterious to the primitive island people. in studying the peoples religious customs, the researchers found that much of their religion focused on the ocean, not the island or the lagoon. the point my instructor made was that the people attached the most religious beliefs to the ocean because it was the one thing that was big, mysterious and beyond their control. iow, people use religion to cope with the unknown. religious people are typically healthier than non-religious. people who pray do recover faster than people who don't. the theory is that religion gives a sense of control over the unknown, which relieves stress. this got me thinking about what we attach religious belief to. is it typically the big, mysterious, and unknown? are christians any different than the islanders? what is the biggest thing that christians debate and argue about? what is christianity supposed to have all the answers about? what is the thing which continues to be a great mystery?

if we look at the ancients we see they did the same thing. they looked at the sky and saw gods. they looked at volcanoes and saw gods. they looked at the ocean and saw chaos, monsters, and gods. as we grew in scientific knowledge we found that there were natural explanations for these mysteries. the big mystery we have yet to solve is what happens after death. a person can go through their entire life without thinking of God, but put them on their deathbed and they have a come-to-jesus moment. if we follow the logic that people attach religious beliefs to things beyond their control, and those things tend to end up having natural explanations then why not death? is that all God is? something we use to cope with life's stresses and mysteries? is that why we feel comfort and peace? isn't that what a lot of christains say? just give it to jesus. lay it at the foot of the cross. you're not in control, God is. is our religion just an elaborate, sophisticated version of the one the islanders have?

some christians would immediately argue that we have objective proof. hundreds of eyewitnesses saw jesus alive. the apostles died for their faith, so it must have been authentic. read josephus. read tacitus. jesus existed and he rose from the dead, and that's how christianity is different from other religions. now, i agree with this to a point. my theology is pretty much a blend of boyd and wright. but the problem is, is there are a host of scholars-- good scholars, not shitty, pseudo- ones like baigent-- who would say otherwise. for the lay person, in the end, you're taking the word of an authority. my question is do we buy what wright, boyd, witherington and others say because we want them to be right? because we need them to be right? i admit that when i read or listen to interviews with liberal scholars, they can be pretty convincing.

what i know is this: love is powerful. love causes people to insane, incredible things. love, at times, trumps survival. forgiving people is physically healthier than remaining bitter. things are better when people love one another. grace changes people. i love being alive and i never want it to end. most of us regret slavery. most of us regret what happened to native americans. most of us would never want that to happen again. we long for justice. people change when you forgive them. telling the truth is liberating. truth, love and justice are connected. the earth is beautiful, and no one has to tell me. life would be more abundant if people would love, forgive, seek justice, strive for peace, be patient, compassionate, tell the truth, and be empathetic.

there is a level of orderliness to revenge. there is a level of orderliness to returning evil with evil. it's primal, but it works. there is a higher level of orderliness in returning evil with good. the ancients-- including the hebrews-- believe god brought order from chaos. i believe love is the highest level of order. it leads to reconciliation, builds relationships, and creates life. good for good and evil for evil-- the way of the world-- maintains the status quo. it's static. and sin leads to death and destruction.

today we did something to help complete strangers with a terminal illness. even though he pissed me off, i still wish i could have helped that homeless guy. love has to be the foundation of my faith; that things are better and there is a higher level of order when people love. the bible is a story of a God of love intimately connected with his creation; who says that his people love him when they love each other. a God who says he gives abundant life and then tells people to love no matter what. my faith cannot be built on a fear of death, if it is then it is no more authentic than any other primitive religion.

ok erica. here's 125. i'll do the rest later

2007-09-28T10:38:00.000-04:00

I am a husband
I am a son
I am a pharmacy technician
I use to smoke a lot of pot
If it were legal I would probably still do it now and then
I love to eat
I love all cuisines
My favorite food is sushi
I’m going to eat some on Sunday
I was born in Muskegon
I was born at hackley hospital
Frasier is my favorite show
I own every season out on dvd
I have a boxer
He is named after a character on Frasier
I love beer
I love wine
I prefer micro-brews over imported beer
My favorite breweries are New Holland and Great Lakes Brewery
I love white and red wines
Pinot Gris is my favorite white
Chianti is my favorite red
I think that people go to see movies like Saw for the extreme gore
That really, really bothers me
I think these people have an extraordinary inability to empathize
Serial killers are unable to empathize
I am fascinated by dead celebrities
When I was little and I learned about an old celebrity the first question I would ask is if they were dead
Last night I read an article about the guy who played coach on cheers
I’m sure these means I am psychologically messed up in some way
I love my race and ethnic relations class
I don’t like my sociology class
The reason is because of my instructors
Right now is my favorite time of year
Because of the weather
Even though I don’t watch hardly any sports I get exited when football season starts
I also love it when holiday stuff starts showing up in stores
I miss my childhood
I would give anything to go back and live a day in 1985
I love history
I love historical artifacts
I voted for GW Bush in 2000
I followed that election obsessively
I felt a sense of dread when I thought Gore was going to win
I wish Al Gore won
Well, he sort of did
I didn’t vote for president in 2004
But I wish Kerry would have won
I hate the War in Iraq
Every Sunday on George Stephanopolis’ program they list all the new dead soldiers that the Pentagon released info about
I get pissed off every time I see those names
I think their lives were wasted
I think people that say they weren’t are delusional
I think Saddam and his sons were evil sadists and I’m glad they are dead
There are a lot of evil sadists who are running countries right now
We aren’t going there and “liberating” those people
I argued with a lot of people about how we should go to war in Iraq
I was a lemming
If we didn’t go there we might have actually got the people who did cause 911
I don’t really think Bush gave a shit about that though
I think his administration had plans to invade Iraq before 911
If we didn’t go there we would probably have better relationships with other countries
Bush squandered a ton of political capital on Iraq
O.k. I’m done talking about this
I am against abortion
I don’t think abortion should be made illegal
This confuses people
I believe God created the world
I believe what mainstream science says about evolution
I enjoy discussing this topic
I don’t know why
I don’t tell people this who I know will judge me
I don’t like people misjudging me
This is why I am selective about who I talk to about my faith
I don’t want to be lumped in with 90 percent of the Christians people know
My dog has something up his nose
He’s producing a lot of mucus
It’s gross
I have a surgical technologist degree
I probably will never use it
I didn’t’ like working with most of the doctors as a Surg Tech
Most were not very friendly towards me
This made me very nervous
I have been married for over a year
We went to New York and Boston on our honeymoon
Our honeymoon was the best time I’ve had in my life
I love New York
I love Boston
I would go to back to either of those places in an instant
I want to travel
I want to travel all over Europe
When I do, and if I go to Amsterdam, I will probably smoke pot in a hash bar
I live the life I dreamed of when I was 21
It’s a pretty simple life
At that time it seemed unachievable
I am going to school to be a social worker
I am extremely exited about that
I love that I can study things I am interested in and it relates to my degree
I am exited about the 2008 election
I don’t care who wins as long as they don’t have a big R in front of their name
I am bitter at the republican party
I want Biden to win the primaries
I know he won’t
The only democratic candidate I wasn’t going to vote for was hillary
I’ve changed my mind
I still don’t like too much about her, but I think she’s far better than anyone on the republican side
I like her healthcare plan
I get pissed when people dismiss it as “hillary care”
If she gets the nomination I hope Biden is her running mate
I am glad his plan for Iraq passed in the Senate
I think it’s our best option
I really like John Edwards
I don’t think he can win
I really like Barak Obama
I get really pissed when people call him Barak Hussein Obama
I think he could win if he gets tougher
I don’t like rednecks
I think they’re ignorant
Backwards
Obnoxious
I lump a big group of people in the redneck category
I know I shouldn’t do this
I know it’s prejudice
Anne and I need more discipline
I need to read more

safe and sound

2007-09-26T22:03:00.000-04:00

like most people, i have a lot of issues. i am hyper-judgemental, selfish, self-absorbed, a procrastinator. but out of all my issues there are two that bother me the most: i don't trust people and i have an intense fear of dying.

when i say i don't trust people, i don't mean to say that i have trust issues e.g. i have a hard time trusting my wife, or lending money to friends. i don't have a problem with trusting my wife, friends or even acquaintances at all. i don't trust strangers. i was at riverside park the other day with my dog. it was around 3 o'clock and there weren't many people around. as we started walking i saw this guy walking in our direction. he was about my height with a medium build. it was almost 90 degrees and he had a hoody on with work boots. he looked like he was in his thirties, olive complection, and bald. immediately my mind started racing with all sorts of sinister thoughts. "what if he pulls out a gun and trys to rob me?" "screw robbing me, what if he's just nuts and trys to kill me?"
i couldn't get past the fact that he was just this random guy walking thru the park a lone in extremely inappropriate aparel considering the weather. and i was all alone; there were no witnesses. but, of course, he just walked right by without saying a word.

this fear is part of the reason i go to the park in the first place. while it is gorgeous there and i'd much rather walk niles there than anywhere else, i also go there because i get paranoid walking him in my neighborhood. every time i walk him down engle street, there is nobody around. it's completely dead. anyone who wanted to rob me or take niles could walk up and do it, and there'd be no witnesses. last time i walked niles a kid, in the distance on a bike, yelled to me asking what kind of dog i had. why the hell does this kid give a shit about my dog?? i wanted to yell back, "no, he's not a pitbull, he doesn't fight, and he's not an attack dog!!" furthermore, i've heard that people who do fight dogs steal boxers for sparring purposes.

so basically, anyone who isn't over the age of seventy, and doesn't look like a pastor or doctor i view as threatening. i know this isn't healthy and i know that most people aren't going to attack, kill or rob me. i blame it on the media...

maybe this is unique to me, but in the mornings when i've just awaken but i'm not yet fully awake i think in the most extreme, intense ways. it's like, in those moments i am the rawest version of myself. i sometimes wonder if these are my TRUE thoughts, or my i-haven't-been-awake-long-enough-or-had-my-coffee thoughts. in fact, i'll tell myself, "you won't think this is true in a half an hour. you'll think you're over-reacting." this morning, moments after i had woken up i had a deep, visceral realization that i am going to die. this is what scares me most about death. not so much how it will happen, but that it will happen. there is no way out. it is inevitable. the only thing that gives me some solace is that i'm not alone in this. it was really bad this time, almost as if it was alluding to something; that i might not make it thru the day.

at work, i started thinking about this again. i was up on the floors when this kind of hard-ass nurse walked past me and patted me on the back. i turned around and said, "what's up?" and she didn't say anything. she just walked out the room, so i yelled, "you didn't put something on me did you?" and she said, "just sayin hi." it was weird. a little later, i was on the cancer floor when this patient with downs came up behind me- that's right, downs and cancer, talk about drawing a bad hand- and said, "how are you today?" he was wearing glasses with lenses so thick they could concentrate enough sunlight to vaporize a stag beetle, so i didn't know whether he was trying to make me laugh or whether they were his real glasses. i replied back, "i'm good, how are you?" he just kind of stared off for a second with this silly look on his face and then walked off. it was just random. i had seen this guy before. he's been there a while, but he's never said anything to me.

i started to get a little nervous. "i better drive home really carefully tonight" , i thought. then something occurred to me. last night i prayed. and when i prayed i asked for peace and for faith, to believe that God was in control and that i won't die if God isn't ready for me to. i also prayed for faith and trust in people. not a naive, gullible trust, but one that doesn't assume everyone has it out for me. when i remembered this a warm calm came over me.

when the nurse patted me on the back i actually took my hoody off to see if she had stuck something on me. she hadn't. she was just being nice.

done with my paper!! and random thoughts about morality and theology

2007-09-24T19:13:00.000-04:00

i'm finally done with my spring arbor writing sample. i've been working on it for months on and off. it's on the challenges of attending spring arbor's degree completion program. basically, i'm going there because i'll only have one class one day a week. i'm going there to avoid the challenges of attending grand valley, which would force me to take a crap load of classes i don't need. so writing a paper on how challenging spring arbor is going to be was a bit difficult. but it's done, and i can finally turn it in and get the admitting guy off my back.

today was another day off that included taking niles to the park and coming to beaners (which is where i am now). class today was boring as ever. before i started this semester, i was thinking to myself if there existed, outside of christian colleges, a conservative sociology instructor/prof. and low and behold i found one, and he teaches the class i had today. well, i shouldn't say conservative as if he's pushing neo-conservative political views in class, but he's dutch reformed, graduated from hope, and was going on about morals and values today. compared to my other sociology instructors, he's pretty conservative.

lately, i've been more aware of my tendency to look for the theological underpinnings of everything. we were discussing kohlberg's stages of moral development today, and i started thinking of them in terms of human morality/laws and the kingdom of God. they're broken up into pre-conventional morality, conventional and post-conventional.

the pre-conventional stage is a child learning that some behavior is rewarded and some is punished (e.g. if you murder you go to jail). the conventional stage takes place in teen and adult years, and is where people learn how to conform to rules and begin to care what other people think of them (e.g. dealing with other people civilly, and being aware that murderers are looked down upon (usually, kind of...)). the post-conventional stage is where people realize morality doesn't come from government or laws, but that people have certain rights that transcend those institutions (e.g. despite what any government says, murder is wrong because people have a right to live.).

from a theological perspective we could say that there is a divinely intended way to live (Kingdom Of God) and there is how society says we should live. the various moral codes that societies create are an attempt to achieve an ideal/post-conventional way of living for it's people. some come closer than others to the way God intended, but all fall short in some way. religions and churches do this also. they create rules and moral codes for their followers that they feel match the way their god wants people to behave. ultimately they fall short also. most people try to achieve/defend the conventional, failing to see that it falls short of the ideal/post-conventional. in fact, the ideal usually is dismissed as utopian, unrealistic and impractical. the christian belief is that it (the ideal) is slowly unfolding and gaining ground and will one day be reality when jesus returns... well, some christians believe that anyway. others defend the conventional because they feel it's the best they have until God destroys this world entirely and creates a brand, spankin new one. which begs the question, why the hell didn't God just create the new/ideal/eternal one to begin with??

o.k. so my thoughts on this aren't entirely (or nearly) polished. i just think it's interesting that we recognize a morality that transcends society's convention. of course, this isn't anything new, it's the first chapter of mere christianity, but as where lewis is saying morality points to a source, i'm saying morality points to an intended way of living.

i don't know why i view everything thru a theological lens. my other blog is supposed to be about culture and politics as well as religion, but i usually end up writing about something theological. and, honestly, i really don't want to. i don't think of myself as a theologian. oh well, maybe this blog will get me writing about other topics.

a much better day

2007-09-23T22:57:00.000-04:00

today was better. although work still sucked because i kept getting paged every 5 minutes so i couldn't get everything i wanted to get done, done. things are a little better on the home front though. anne and i had a long, emotional talk, and then went and got mc donalds at like 3 in the morning. i'm still really tired.
i've learned a lot about myself since i've gotten married. some of that has to do with why things are the way the are between us. i've learned how much my only-child habits have infiltrated my adult life. in many ways, i'm still an only child. i'm extremely selfish. i live in my own little world, and this greatly harms my relationship with anne.

i have no problem being a lone. growing up the way i did, i was by myself ninety percent of the time. i mostly watched t.v., read encyclopedias (no, i'm not trying to make myself sound smart), and made super hero costumes from my pajamas and ran around the trailer (yes, i lived in a trailer park). this was my life as a child. we moved into a house when i was a teenager and since i didn't go to public school and there were very few people my age that lived in my neighborhood, i didn't have many friends. i watched a lot of t.v., played basketball in my driveway and bided my time until i got my drivers license.

my best friend in high school and post high school was very out-going and attracted girls like moths to a flame. in other words, it was very socially adventageous to be his friend. not that, that was my reason for being his friend. My primary drive, however, in my social life was to find a wife.

now a days, at work, i usually eat lunch alone and read. i have very little involvement in the social goings on and the reason is because i'm married. i know that if i were single i would be much better friends with people i work with. i would eat in the break room with everyone else. i would be socially motivated. but i'm not. i'm married. i'm content. i can retreat back to my own little world.
which is what i do, at work, and at home. now that i've check spouse off from my, "things to acquire before i die" list, i can go back to my only-child life.
and i have. i know this isn't healthy. yes, solitude is something one should appreciate, but humans are meant to be socially integrated beings. i need my wife. she needs me. i need, "my little world" to become, "our little world." and when children come they need to be included. i and my wife are one. i'm not by myself anymore.

shitty day

2007-09-22T22:52:00.000-04:00

i had an awful day. not just cause work sucked, and i worked with someone that works slower than the grass grows, and it was busy, but also because my wife is upset with me. i hate it, it's all i think about all day. it eats at my brain. for the first time ever i bought flowers and a card to show how sorry i am.
she gets home soon and i'm a little nervous. every sound i here, i'm wondering if it's her, home early. i hope this night ends well.