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.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
alone?
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."
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."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
random thoughts & updates
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.
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.
Monday, June 2, 2008
on being a skeptical believer : doubts
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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
ignorance
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
a merry schismatic... uh, where was i? oh, yeah (part 5)
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
