Living Water

Sitting in church one day, listening to an explication of the 47th chapter of Ezekiel*, I had an epiphany. I wouldn't call it groundbreaking or revolutionary, but I do think it is a statement most people would deny and yet find a million different ways to say precisely the same thing. Our obsession with Greek metaphysics and centuries of cultural biases in language and ideology have made this simple assertion into something akin to a blasphemy. Our God is the God of chaos. First, I would point out that avoiding this conclusion requires some very careful theology as so long as we admit to the presence of Chaos in the Universe, and we accept God as Lord over all, then He must have a purpose for it.

In ancient cultures, especially those surrounding the Mediterranean Sea (ie Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Babylon, etc.), water was frequently used as a symbol for two things: purification and chaos. Ponder that one for a moment.

Water is always on the move. Rain forms ponds, ponds overflow into streams, streams form rivers, rivers run into seas or oceans, currents move that water around until it once again evaporates back into the sky. When water stops moving, it does one of two things: it either stagnates or it evaporates to start its journey all over again. Water is perhaps one of the most chaotic natural elements we experience. The expression "you can never step into the same river twice" is very true, because the river has no stable existence. It is not 'ordered' in any real sense of the word. Like water, our lives are chaotic, and necessarily so. No two days are exactly the same, no matter how hard we try to make them seem that way sometimes. When our lives become stagnant, they lose meaning. We need new experiences, new joys and even sorrows if they're meaningful. Newness is always chaotic, but newness of life is exactly what we are called to.

The entire notion of choice hinges on chaos. Choice implies there is no mechanical order to reality. On the larger scale, science seems to be backing up this very point. Quantum physics continues to side with the unpredictability of the universe. Decades ago, the Uncertainty Principle showed it impossible to ascertain both the location and the velocity of a subatomic particle. Recent discoveries seem to show every particle blinking in and out of existence, so not only can we not grasp components, but we can never be sure when they are even truly there. However, the grand scale at which we experience these infinite chaotic events appears to be relatively stable. Sufficient chaotic events, when viewed together, miraculously turn into miraculously stable patterns. It need not be this way, but so it is. Perhaps more interestingly, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (chaos for all intents and purposes) always increases. Today, there is more chaos in the universe than there was yesterday. Unless there is some major change, it seems that our entire cosmos is designed to slowly creep into greater and greater levels of chaos, until eventually it will need to be remade into a new heaven and a new earth. Conveniently, God told this to people centuries ago, and now we're realizing at a slightly different level what that means.

We have created elaborate theologies to evade the simple assertion that God is chaos as well as order. The critical feature is that God is living water, not stagnant pools. The majority of our frustration comes from our unwillingness to accept chaotic events in life, and through that frustration God calls us to to be washed over by chaos and come out clean, vibrant, and joyfully prepared to begin new work. Water breaks up dirt and grime, and our baptism in it is designed to break apart our preconceived notions of how the universe is supposed to work, our psychological walls which prevent us from loving one another, and our hardened sense of self so that we can enter into something greater. Chaos is central to our significance as beings, and is central to God's activity in our lives. In a universe of escalating chaos, the teachings of Christianity, and the acceptance therein of the chaos around us, becomes increasingly critical for our spiritual survival.


*Ezekiel 47:1-12

The man brought me back to the entrance of the temple, and I saw water coming out from under the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was coming down from under the south side of the temple, south of the altar. He then brought me out through the north gate and led me around the outside to the outer gate facing east, and the water was flowing from the south side. As the man went eastward with a measuring line in his hand, he measured off a thousand cubits and then led me through water that was ankle-deep. He measured off another thousand cubits and led me through water was knee deep. He measured off another thousand and led me through water that was up to the waist. He measured off another thousand, but now it was a river that I could not cross, because the water had risen and was deep enough to swim in -- a river that no one could cross. he asked me, "Son of man, do you see this?" Then he led me back to the bank of the river. When I arrived there, I saw a great number of trees on each side of the river. He said to me, "This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, where it enters the Sea. When it empties into the Sea, the water there becomes fresh. Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live. Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets. The fish will be of many kinds -- like the fish of the Great Sea. But the swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they will be left for salt. Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will bear, because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their fruit will serve for good and their leaves for healing."

Farmageddon

I've always been fascinated by the notion of original sin. Augustine believed that original sin was derived from sex, as this was an inherently idolatrous act, and yet it is through this idolatry that all humans come into existence. While interesting, and to some degree perhaps intellecutally defensible, I have a hard time accepting this. The original sin was outright disobedience, which produced a social and intellectual change, perpetuated without intention or action. As such, humanity's sinful nature, like its Fall, must be something more earth-shattering and yet mundane. The toxic fruit taken from the tree of knowledge was not likely a metaphor for embracing our carnal nature. I would argue instead that it was an abandonment of that nature. "...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17) The emphasis is on the tree itself, and that which makes the tree unique. It is a tree of knowledge, and when eaten from, will cause death. My assertion is that humankind, not God, created that tree. The original sin was not consumption, but production. Farming.

The moment humanity was able to control food production, it began to provide for its own welfare rather than relying on Providence. It was the moment when humanity could pretend God was not the sole provider, but that it could truly be like God and bring forth life from the soil. It was arrogant, open defiance to the benevolent Creator. And most certainly, this was a knowledge that could not be undone. The moment it was known, it was unforgettable. More importantly, it was not forgotten. Life became about more than simple, fundamental survival. Agriculture fundamentally altered the human psyche, and eternally changed human society.

Agriculture was developed in a area known as the fertile crescent, which is the modern day region known as the Middle East. Somewhere around 9000 BCE, hunter-gatherer tribes began building permanent settlements and tending the earth. Populations rapidly grew too large to be supported by hunting and gathering, and thus humanity became totally dependent on tending the soil. In order to fashion farming implements and create adequate housing, forests were felled and minerals quarried. Eventually, groups came into contact and began competing for resources. Originally, a population could never grow enough to be a burden. In fact, having a large population helped gather effectively and hunt efficiently. Now, populations became necessary liabilities, and the best job for a necessary liability is a dangerous one. Able-bodied individuals could be conscripted to serve the tribe by attacking opposing groups who posed a threat, or controlled meaningful resources. Eventually, society became what we see today.

And what do we see today? Death would be a good description. Not necessarily in the individual, physical sense. Had we never tasted the fruit, individuals would still be born and eventually die. What we see today is a twofold type of death: the death of the planet, and the death of our souls. Civilization has rapidly consumed the world's resources, slowly destroying it through environmental degredation. More frighteningly, it is literally in our power to cause the death of everything on this planet. There are enough nuclear weapons in the world to completely obliterate it, and release enough radiation to finish off whatever may have somehow survived the explosions. Personally, I see this as the flashier but ultimately less important kind of death. Far worse is the spiritual death that is slowly taking over the developed world, that is, the world farthest from the earliest form of society. This goes far beyond the growth of atheism. In fact, the shallow spirituality of many who still identify with religious traditions is far more problematic. At any rate, this is the rational conclusion to "civilization." As God becomes less obvious and, in a pragmatic way, less necessary, our connection to the Divine becomes weaker. We are dying as a species, and dying as spiritual entities. Those deaths are far worse than the natural death of an individual, which is of little concern given the hereafter.

And so, I conclude. What has been credited as being humanity's second greatest discovery (I'll give making fire first) farming is in actuality humanities first great sin, and the beginning of our slow and agonizing death. This is not something that can be undone, nor should we consider trying. Instead, we must recognize the nature of our condition, and seek to live as simply and faithfully as possible. In the end, there will be a new creation. Let us make the best of this one until we get to the next.

Amateur Atheists

There are few things that annoy me more than atheists who seek to intellectually destroy any hope for faith and yet have never put much thought into their own assertions. As of late, the topic of concern has been social moral order. I will begin with the caveat that even under religious doctrines, the details of morality are less than ideally clear, and oftentimes the basic tenents of religion have been misused in such a fashion as to utterly obliterate basic principles. However, my intention is to show that there is at least a hope for some form of stable moral order under Christianity which is not feasible sans divinity.

Nietzsche understood the difficulty of eschewing God from the scope of human society. The terror of nihilism was a powerful force to overcome, and many simply do not have the mental fortitude necessary to do so. Modern atheists seem intent on saying that humanity could let go of the 'shackles' of religion and continue as normal. Unfortunately, this positions fails to consider two critical components of moral order: an ethical scale, and ramifications when ethical principles are violated.

First, we look at the ethical scale of good versus evil. At the moment, there seems to be some general agreement about basic ideas of what constitutes an appropriate activity and what does not. Killing someone who insults your mother is perhaps not the best course of action, and forcing a child to participate in sexual activity is typically frowned upon. On what basis, however, do we call these things 'bad' or 'wrong'? If the only thing determining this is our own instincts, our own drive for survival, there is nothing evil about it. Perhaps we could argue these things are inconvenient or inefficient, but this is hardly the same thing in my mind. Right and wrong beg for some kind of greater sense of appropriateness. To eschew the divine and make gods of ourselves, we now face the task of redefining all that is appropriate. The inertia of society has never been enough to deter opportunists, and further invalidating notions of right and wrong simply open the door for everyone to define these concepts on their own. With no reference point, my ideas of appropriate are equally as valid as anyone else's. Any attempt to create general principles around the furtherance of human society at large depends wholly upon one's concept of the goal of society at large, and thus is just as fluid. With God, we can at the least say there is a fairly concrete basis for morality, and simply continue to argue about the details rather than ask if the system can exist at all.

While religions tend to be murky about what precisely good and evil are, they are quite adept at saying what happens if you do evil. Heaven and Hell, in various forms, are present in virtually every system. This is primarily a question of incentive. If I do something wrong, what is the cosmic response? Without any form of divine response, there is no reason to do what is right. If we were able to peer into our genetic code and find inscripted therein the ten commandments of sociobiology, many would say we could function off of that. I contend that, without ultimate ramifications, there is no reason to do good. Survival is not enough of an incentive for some, and most of the time wrong seems to be rewarded anyways. Even if the activity is such that one does risk life and limb, a good chance of being able to avoid punishment may overcome that fear. Damnation has never been enough to hold back everyone, but at the very least there is some kind of knowledge that this is the possible result of their actions. Take away all punishment, and all the incentive to do good is gone. Whether or not I should do everything, I can do everything, and that 'freedom' is a dangerous thing for all of us.

Most counter arguments that I have heard stem from a single argument: humanity is better than that. I would love to agree, but I simply can't. Intellectuals like to assume that most people are as intelligent as them and compassionate people like to assume that most people are as generous as them. These assumptions are well-intentioned, but far too often outside of the scope of statistical reality. Overwhelmingly, humanity is ignorant and self-seeking when it has the opportunity to be so. I'm not saying we are by nature evil. I wholly believe that humanity is by nature neutral. Unfortunately, it is much easier to recognize the benefits of evil, and even harder to counter them.

Thus, I conclude. Moral order cannot be sustained without a greater reality as its source. If one wishes to argue it is possible, the entire notion of good and evil must be tossed out the window and reconstructed. Then, whatever results from that must be made so potently enforced in this world that no one dares transgress. Even this may not mitigate the purposelessness felt by most people who cannot construct for themselves a reality with sufficient meaning to live in. The fall of religion is, in my humble opinion, the fall of society as we know it.

Darwin Is Not the Antichrist

I recently read a book titled Living with Darwin by Philip Kitcher. I was pleasantly surprised to find that, while the book is written by a secular humanist with little interest in theistic religion, the author took the intelligent design arguments as science and countered them on their own grounds. While I do not necessarily agree with all of the assertions Kitcher provides, I appreciate legitimate, intellectual debate to the often overheated unreflective babbling that the topic typically elicits from both sides of the aisle. In response to this book, I feel it time for me to address the controversial but important topic of evolution with respect to Christianity. I openly admit to being less than orthodox on this subject, but all too often it seems that the visceral reactions elicited in both sides prevents either perspective from truly considering the other.

It seems that God enjoys communicating with us through stories. We are encouraged to spend time in scripture, which is at its core the story of God's interaction with humanity. Most of it is written in a narrative fashion reminiscent of Homeric epics or even modern literature, full of heroes, villains, battles and, when well written, difficult moral and existential dilemmas. Even Jesus seemed to prefer using parables to explain difficult ideas over any other instructional tool. When Jesus talks about the prodigal son, he's not talking about some guy he knew back in Nazareth. Is Jesus lying when he tells this story, or any of the other parables? I certainly don't think so. If our notion of truth is so shallow that only literal, a posteriori events can be utilized, eschewing all forms of metaphor and abstract reasoning, we need to back up and reconsider a whole mess of linguistic quandries.

Likewise, I see no reason not to call the book of Genesis, or at the very least the early part of Genesis, a parable. It explains in a reasonable way a great deal about humanity, though perhaps not in a way matching historical accuracy. This does not make it less true, though it makes it a different kind of true. Through my years as a Christian, I have realized that oftentimes my brothers and sisters become unreasonbly concerned with linguistic minutia when it comes to these type of arguments. I assert here that what is of the utmost importance is not history per se, but meaning. Genesis provides a meaningful if not historical notion of the creation of humans and our early development.

My own personal understanding of the Universe is as such: In the beginning was void, and God said "Let there be light," and all of the matter of the universe exploded forth from a tiny speck. The matter expanded and formed galaxies with uncounteed solar systems spread throughout. Eventually, our own system developed, with some gentle nudging of course. Just as life exists through the presence of God, the natural laws are likewise subject to divine influence though not typically to outright divine control. Eventually, the earth cooled sufficiently to allow for organic chemical arrangements, and with some divine inspiration, it was done. Over time, with some gentle nudging, these organic compounds formed cells, which multiplied and clumped together. Over time, these cells refined their operations, forming tissues and eventually outright organisms. Eventually, through millions of years, these organisms ended up as early humans, as God intended them to.

Throughout history, God has guided the natural processes He created to ensure the appropriate functioning of the world. How can we be so arrogant as to say that on the first day God had already decided what He wanted to do on the sixth? Perhaps humankind was not ordained from the very beginning of time, but seeing its development, God said "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness." Let us be careful not to assume too much about the intentions of God, save that they are for our best. I do wholly believe God was present throughout the history of the universe, gently guiding its development. I do not believe that evolution could have happened as it did without the constant influence of God, if only in the smallest ways. This, to me, is a much more impressive view of God than one who simply says "let there be" and there is. This is a God who desires His creation to understand itself, and who grants the freedom to be truly in His image - eternally creative.

Thought Wars

I was recently challenged to defend the legitimacy of Faith in light of the challenges of the modern science and the secular world. While making a series of arguments, a disconnect seemed to form. Those querying me began retorting using arguments which I thought I had just finished talking about, and I quickly realized I was obfuscating the matter more than illuminating it. As such, I felt the best course of action would be to attempt to put it down in writing. What follows may appear to be a jumbled conglomeration of thoughts, but I feel it may be of value to flatly state a number of my thoughts so that future (or past) posts may be clearer. I may choose to elaborate on each of these later, but for now, I will try to keep my comments concise.

I presuppose the existence of a reality outside of my own being. Many post-modern conceptions of epistemology (how we know what we know, what is knowledge) border on solipsism, which essentially means that since we can only view things from our own perspective, and can only truly prove our own personal existence, that only I am real. This is the most extreme expression of Protagoras' assertion that "man is the measure of all things." Not only is humanity the starting point, but I as an individual human am the central point of reality. In my view, any given person is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of existence: the universe existed before me, it will exist after me, and no part of it is dependent on me for existence.

Second, while imperfect, our senses are essentially accurate means by which we may learn about the universe we live in. Many would argue that even if there is a reality, our ability to comprehend it is so limited that any attempt to understand actual existence is futile. While I would be willing to concede that our understanding is somewhat limited, and we should be willing to admit that our knowledge is virtually never absolute, it seems to be senseless to abandon all hope of intelligent interaction with reality. A second corollary to this assertion is that our experiences may at times be as legitimate as the rules we assume to govern reality. The ancient Greeks generated general, consistent understandings of reality and then tried to fit all of their experience into that neat little pre-determined package. I would argue that experiences which do not fit within our understanding of reality should not be discarded as illusions, but instead used as potentially valuable information to re-evaluate our understanding of the world.

I acknowledge that faith and reason are different, though I do not believe they are incompatible or extensively contradictory. As reason is traditionally described, utilized and understood, I believe a fairly relevant graph of their implications would look something like this. Human reason can only run tangent to the leap of faith. Much of Greek philosophy gets to this point: acknowledging the existence of some ultimate concept which could be called god. However, the closest reason can come is the notion that there must be something greater than what we see around us. Only the Divine revealing the nature of the Divine to us allows us to pass into the realm of faith. I would like to note that this graph, and my explanation of it, is based on a common understanding of what constitutes reason that I do not necessarily consider entirely accurate. I consider the binary logic of the West, based on early Greek thought, painfully limiting. From my own personal experience, as someone who can claim a real conversion story, reason changes when synthesized with faith. Religious experiences, when millions of people around the world share them, are no less meaningful than experiences of what we consider traditional 'natural' phenomena.

On this topic of synthesis, I wholly embrace the dialectical synthesis of understanding. By this, I mean that most of the binary conflicts we encounter (i.e. reason versus faith, creativity versus law, etc.) can be melded together into a cogent concept which includes the essential components of both. This is not a mechanical process which simply takes half an half, resulting in a completely erratic and self-contradictory concept, but a wholly reconstructive event, fundamentally altering the entire argument. Kierkegaard discusses this in terms of human development, splitting our mentality into three stages, representing the dominant ideologies of the time. The first stage, the aesthetic, was the mid 19th century European romantic mentality, wherein life was a sensate activity. The Aesthetic stage focuses on individualism, creativity, autonomy and intense emotionalism. Stage two, called the Ethical, was applied to the more conservative legalism of the bourgeoisie. This stage emphasizes community, order, law and rationalism. Synthesizing these very distinct ideologies produces what Kierkegaard labeled the Religious. The icon of the Religious stage is Abraham, the accepted pinnacle of faith of all three major monotheistic religions of the world. When ordered to sacrifice his son Isaac, he brings his son to the appointed locations and prepares to kill the heir to his legacy. At the last moment, when he is about to strike the killing blow, God stops him, commands him to release his son and in place sacrifice a nearby ram. The question at hand: Did Abraham sin in his willingness to sacrifice his son? According to the aesthetic, there really is no such thing as sin, and while it may have been a painful experience which should not have been done, ultimate judgment would amount entirely to the suffering incurred on himself. The ethical would claim that the call to sacrifice the son was entirely sin, and at no point could be justified. Neither seems to describe the situation. Instead, the result seems to be much more complex than either. Murder is wrong, as is child sacrifice, but what is wrong is wrong at God's behest, and following God comes first. What is wrong is therefore a much more fluid concept, not fitting into either earlier scope. The fundamental problem with this type of synthesis is that the final product cannot be understood by anyone who does not hold the synthesis as their own outlook. Because the synthesis produces something that is fundamentally different than either original doctrine, it is generally incomprehensible to those who are trapped in the preceding dichotomy. Kierkegaard himself admitted that he did not feel he had made it to the Religious stage, instead remaining trapped in the Ethical. While the idea of dialectical synthesis is inherently elitist, this is not the intention of the system, but rather an unfortunate side effect.

I'll hopefully post a few more of these disjointed components shortly. Until then, God bless.

The Theory of Relativity

In an age of social deconstruction, religions are increasingly being lumped together into a single category and considered expressions of some primal human urge rather than a feasible assessment of ultimate reality. As such, religions become equally invalid, interchangeable, and typically reduced to little more than a code of ethics. For those of us who have escaped the seductive call of the post-modern world, I feel it important to bring back to the table some depth to the argument. In an age of religious relativism, where ought Christians stand?

First and foremost, adherents to any religious system should argue that all religions are far more than a guide to ethics. Yes, there is a component to virtually every religion which describes right-vs-wrong. However, there is so much more. Metaphysics, politics, economics, aesthetics, epistemology, psychology, and every other facet of human society is described. While the conflict between religious groups should be more in line with what each of them proclaim to be their appropriate modes of action (ie not by killing each other), to reduce religions to their ethics is precisely what makes them so easy to think of as interchangeable. Religions do not exist to serve a function, but to describe the organization of ultimate reality.

Second, similarities between religions should not be de-facto evidence for religion to stem from some common human need for something to instill social order. The fact that virtually all religions share certain stories, utilize similar ethics, and devise similar doctrines may just as easily be taken as evidence that there is such a thing as a single true religion. Some then try to argue that all religions are grasping at something true, but none have reached it, which is also a wholly unnecessary argument. While possible, it is no more likely to be logically true than to say one particular religion has it right and all others are approximating what it is trying to relay.

Third, very few religions consider themselves to be interchangeable. Buddhism and Islam make some references to other religions which put them in a fairly positive light, but even they are inclusivist at the absolute best (If a person considers himself/herself a Christian, but acts as a good Buddhist or Muslim, they may find enlightenment/salvation). While similar in many respects, even the most similar of traditions contain a plurality of important differences and nuances which make them incompatible with other traditions.

Brothers and Sisters, we live in a fallen world. Other religions provide a continuous barrage to shake loose our footing, and the secular world seeks to make the entire endeavor seem ludicrous. However, we cannot fall for an ideology of us versus them. Spiritual relativism is a powerful force, and one which continually increases its grip on modern society. That does not make it true. Christianity was designed to operate under persecution, and yet when it overcomes us to cry out with our last breath "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" (Acts 7:60)

What we must do as believers is simple. We must understand what we believe as far as it may be understood. We must understand what those who challenge us believe. Finally, and most importantly, we must understand that we are not infallible. We will be wrong. We will encounter arguments that seem impossible to challenge. We must not let the fact that we are not God stand in the way of our belief in Him and what He has done. Agree to disagree. Admit that you don't know when you don't know. Satan will win some battles, but evil shall never win the war.

A Material World

The term "born again" comes from a conversation between Jesus and a Pharisee named Nicodemus. This theme has become incredibly important in the contemporary church. However, Jesus also once had a conversation with a rich man, who asked what he must do to achieve salvation. Jesus first asks about his personal life, if he had kept the commandments and such, if he was "born again." After the man gave an affirmative response, he then asked, "What do I still lack?" Jesus then responds with, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The man walked away, unwilling to part with what he had. At this point, Christ turned to his disciples and proclaimed "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:16-24)

In the Church today, I hear a lot of talk about being born again, but not a whole lot about selling off everything. Consider for a moment the growth of the "Christian" sectors of Music, books, clothing, and other industries. Billions of dollars annually is pumped into the market under the name of Christian Living. How many people out there go to church and wonder how much it cost to build the place you are worshiping in? Then think about property taxes, utility bills, maintenance costs, and all of the other expenses involved which stretch on ad nauseum. Take a look around next time you go to church. How many people are throwing their last pennies into the offering plate? How many people present are homeless? How many are in ratty clothes because they can't afford new ones?

When Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you," (Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7) I think he meant something more along the lines of "You will always be with the poor." Why will we always be among the poor? Because we will be poor ourselves. In the early Church, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had." (Acts 4:32) It seems that the USSR was about 2000 years after the first and only real Communist revolution.

Yet with all of this at our fingertips, we so often fall into the snares of the world and find ways to live a 'socially acceptable' life. We continue to live as consumer automatons, materialistic machines in a material world. But we do it the moral way, right? We buy organic food and shirts with Christian slogans made from materials sustainably produced, carry CD collections of the latest contemporary praise music and put "Jesus Saves" bumper stickers on our cars. We look at all that we've created and say, "it is good." At no point do we seem to consider if we're just doing the same sins with prettier names. We decry consumerism up to the point that it seriously impacts our ability to live the same way our neighbors do. We condemn corporatism unless the corporation slaps Jesus' name on their products.

If we are to be imitators of Christ, how many square feet should our homes be? How much should we pay for our cars? How many shoes should we own? What about ties? How much should we keep in our bank account?
Jesus was homeless, travel by foot, owned probably one pair of sandals at a time and one set of clothes, and lived on God's providence alone.

"I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired men and women singers, and a harem as well--the delights of the heart of a man. I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me. I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my work, and this was the reward for all my labor. Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 2:4-11)

Be careful brothers and sisters. We live in a material world. Before you purchase your next praise CD or "Jesus is my Homeboy" shirt, consider what you're doing. "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Romans 12:2)

In the Image of God

While making prayer beads with an interfaith group recently, someone suddenly asked what we all thought about fate. This seems to be a fairly common concern with a number of friends of mine in the past, so I decided it would probably be a good time to post it here. This is perhaps one of my most internally well developed theological ideas, and as such I tend to skip details, so let me apologize beforehand if I neglect to elaborate on something.

The first statement which must be made is that I believe there is neither a future nor a past, but one single dynamic moment in which we participate, along with God, in creating the next expression of that same moment. The only settled future is that which God has already decided will happen at that time (prophecy). It is not that it has happened, or even must happen, but that when time reaches that point, God will enact measures to ensure such an even or events occur.

To be made in the image of God does not mean that God is a bipedal mammal with opposable thumbs. The statement itself indicates the nature of God: maker. God is the creator of things, and likewise, we share the quality of creativity. Not in the ordinary, mundane sense of the word, but in a spiritual way with implications throughout the cosmos. As God created the Universe and us, we participate in the creation of the future, the development towards union with God, and the eventual conclusion of existence. To attempt to link any form of physiological similarity with God – male or female, black or white or yellow or red, old or young, etc. – is so far beyond a moot point it becomes ludicrous. God is creative with ultimate reality, and so are we.

It is astounding how much debate occurs over the notion of Free Will. While a complicated issue, there is no way to reconcile a loving, self-sacrificing God with humans as mere slaves to fate.

Why would a loving God create people who He knew were going to be condemned? Why would He plan out a world which He would later need to destroy for its corruption? Why would He change his mind about ending the life of a king when the king’s heart changed? Why develop such a complex drama when the entirety of the work could have been refined from the start. Where is evil if God controls all?

The primary concern at hand is the understanding of God as omniscient. After all, if God doesn’t know the future, then there is something that God doesn’t know. Unfortunately, this argument makes one tragic assumption: that there is a future to know. Simply because we have a word for it does not mean it necessarily exists, nor does the ability to imagine the future mean there is a future, particularly since the imagining is done in the present. If there is no future to know, it is not a limitation of God that He doesn’t know it. If anything, this version of time empowers God, allowing Him to interact with creation at all times, freeing Him of the same restraints it frees humanity of. More than that, it frees God of direct responsibility for evil, which is generally accepted throughout scriptures as being something God isn’t a huge fan of. Free Will frees God from being the creator of evil and instead merely the creator of the potential for evil. Freedom is a gift, meant to be used for the benefit of all; its misuse is the aberration and thus the source of evil. Furthermore, it is Free Will which provides for a meaningful basis of salvation. Our sinful nature condemns us all, leaving every individual in need of salvation. Christ died to provide everyone with a means, if they so choose, to acquire that salvation and return to a right relationship with God. Without freedom of the will, it would simply be God’s decision to save who He wished, which would be all according to scripture. If He couldn’t save all, then He would certainly not be omnipotent. If all are saved, then it is not true that few find the hidden gate. If we are condemned without free will, we are condemned for the actions God chose for us to do before we were created, as God could have chosen not to create, or to modify the parameters around one’s life to ensure that one did not remain condemned. Scripture gives directives towards humanity to seek, believe and act, not simply to sit back. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

If we have Free Will, then there cannot truly be a future. If there was a future, our wills would not have the freedom to create a future. Thus, not only must there be free will, but there must also not be a future. We, like God, have a say in what happens next. It is in that very quality of helping to create the future that we are in the image of God. We are allowed to choose, just as God is allowed to choose.

The only thing about the future which is set is the things which God has already decided He will do. Prophecy is not a lie; when the time comes, God will make happen what He says He will make happen. If God says “I will flood the world in a few months,” then in a few months God can make a flood happen. At no point does prophecy mean that these things will happen without God’s input.

I apologize for the lack of scriptural citations in this, but if people wish, I can edit this to include the dozens of citations I vaguely reference. As I said at the beginning, I have wrestled with this more than perhaps any other single topic, and so I simply wrote it out of memory. May it properly portray the word of God in the spirit in which it was written.

Soteriology 101

Soteriology comes from the Greek words soter, which means savior, and logos, which doesn't translate well into english, but is generally used by ancient Greeks to mean purpose or reason (usually in the context of rational understanding). Essentially, soteriology is the understanding of salvation: What does it mean, and how does it work?

"Salvation belongs to our God, and to Christ the lamb, forever and ever." Does this sound familiar? Growing up in a Lutheran church, this was part of the standard congregational-response service. I want to prefix what follows, in light of this song, with a crucial caveat: Salvation is a gift of God, to bestow as He chooses. While I have some fairly well-informed and cogent ideas of how it works, I do not mean by this that I alone have the answers, or that if you disagree with me that you are automatically condemned. In other words, I take no responsibility for the fate of your soul.

In the basic Christian model of the Universe, humanity rebelled against God and therefore faces the consequences of sin (that which separates us from God). Sin is an unfortunately nebulous term, and I should at some point blog purely on sin, but I'll save that for later. Essentially, the point I'm making is that salvation is the attainment of a proper relationship to God, which we lose through sin. Through Christ, God entered the world in order to provide two pieces: first, a perfect example to follow (the prophets are great, but people are better at mimicking what they see than simply learning through what they hear), and more importantly, to provide the fallen with an ideal avatar in order to attain salvation. The first I'll leave for now since it's relatively self explanatory. The second is both the topic at hand and the more controversial subject in general.

In order to be fully reconciled to God, someone had to be fully reconciled to God as an individual. The only way this was able to be accomplished was through God Himself taking on human form. This way, purely by definition, the man must be in a relationship to God since Jesus was an extension of God. With one person in this direct relationship, the next step is to make everyone else into a metaphor. The key here is the difference between a metahpor and a simile: a simile is to say that "X is like Y." However, this leaves both X and Y as separate entities, and therefore there is no necessary inclusion. However, if I am baptized in the name of Christ, and I seek to be an "imitator of God" (Ephesians 5:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:6), I become one with Christ, and therefore am also reconciled to God. Christianity involves a lot of complex usages of the properties of equality, and this is the most critical one.

"There is one body and one spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called--one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:4-6) Therefore, to be a Christian is to become one with Christ, in spirit and action. To be a Christian is to be as indistinguishable as possible from Christ. In this way, we are granted the same relationship to God, and therefore, ipso facto, salvation.

Contrary to popular protestant belief, we are not saved by faith alone. In fact, "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." (James 2:17) "I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20b) "Anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:38). It is true that it is not the deeds themselves that save us, but a person cannot have one without the other.

Most unfortunate of all, we must acknowledge that by Christ's own admission, the majority of people will not be saved. "For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

In conclusion, the basics of salvation, as indicated in scripture, are as follows: We are saved by becoming one with Christ, this involves action as well as faith, and the majority of people will not be saved. I could go into great detail on any portion of this, but I thought I should toss out a few parameters before going into any of that.

Who Is God?

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who has been struggling to understand her faith. During the conversation she made a remark which I found intriguing. "I know I believe in God," she said, "I'm just trying to figure out who he is." (Very paraphrased) Given this as a springboard, I thought I'd provide my understanding of God as a personality. I'll leave doctrinal and metaphysical notions about God aside for now as much as possible and stick with God as a subject.

As stated in the book of 1 John, "God is Love" (1 John 4:8, 16). Unfortunately, the english language lacks the depth needed for this to make any sense on its own. If I were to replace the word love with something that explains God a little better, I would rewrite the sentance, "God is 'desiring of a deep, personal relationship with you so important that the relationship is maintained through anger, sadness, joy and pain and, when it comes down to it, death is a small price to pay to protect one another." Not quite as concise as the author of 1 John, but it feels a little more appropriate.

This love is generally framed as the love of a father for his children (thus, God the Father). I'd like to make a note on this: The word translated as 'father' in scripture does not mean 'father.' Abba means 'daddy!' It is an informal term of endearment, not a politically correct term. God loves us the way (good) parents love (good) children (though His love isn't reserved for those of us who are good children). We don't always understand why we have to eat our vegetables or why we can't play with the funny looking dog (which is actually a bear), we obey because we understand that our parents know things we don't. It's not always fun, and it doesn't always seem fair, but it's infinitely better than the alternative.

I'd like to append to this another important piece that's generally neglected. There seems to be an overwhelming emphasis on talking to daddy as though we're expecting a beating. In Luke 18:13-14, the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector provides the imagery. "'But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.'" What we fail to keep in mind is that when you're 5 years old, sometimes you approach your parents ashamed, and sometimes you run up to them and ask them to play with you. Yes, we should approach God ashamed of what we've done, but we should also talk about other things. God wants a relationship with us, not just be a salvation vending machine. Look down and beat your breast at times, but turn your face to heaven and open your arms too! Pray "filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy." (1 Peter 1:8)

That being said, God is not always warm and fuzzy. As Exodus 20:5 shows, when providing the 10 commandments, the voice from heaven rumbles, "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God." While I'm not sure I necessarily like the word jealous applied to God, the old testament "doom and gloom" notion of God is not one that can be left out. God will punish, just as any good parent. The unfortunate result of free will is that we have some authority over what happens, and sometimes that may leave God in a position He would rather not be in. I have a hard time believing that God really wanted to massacre the Egyptian army that tried to pursue the Israelites on their way back to Canaan, but it was ultimately more important for all of humanity that the Hebrew people survived in that instance. (Exodus 26-28) Sodom and Gomorrah were utterly destroyed (Genesis 19:1-29), but the real question is what would have happened had they remained? Another generation lost to sin? Other cities corrupted? It is important to keep in mind that, in the Biblical sphere, being lost to sin is infinitely worse than simply dying. Death means nothing; what you do in life means everything. We see the destruction of an angry and jealous God, yet I maintain this was not purely out of spite. Anger and jealously have their place, and sometimes they are the only way.

One version of God that very few people ever reference comes from a linguistic curiosity. The word translated as helper or handmaiden in Genesis which is used to describe Eve only shows up in one other place in all of scripture: Hosea 13:9, where it refers to God. This could be something of an allusion to Matthew 23:11, which is the infamous "The greatest among you will be your servant." Or, it could be taken in a much more equalizing way, presenting God as a nurturer and caregiver who seeks to assist humanity, not out of inferiority, but out of love.

The final Biblical image I would like to use, and my personal favorite, is God as the refiner of silver. (Malachi 3:3) The traditional method to refine silver is for the refiner to take a piece of silver ore in a special set of tongs, and put it into the opening of an incredibly powerful furnace. The ore must be held there for a period of time in order to burn out any impurities. The beautiful part is that as the silver becomes more and more refined, the texture smooths out, and the metal becomes reflective. A refiner knows when the ore is pure silver when he can see his reflection in the metal. While not necessarily the most comforting way to look at God, I find it meaningful and moving. God holds us in the hottest part of the fire to make us pure, and He knows when we are finished when He can see His reflection in us. :)

A Purpose

I've known since I was a Junior in High School what I was supposed to do with my life, and virtually everyone else did too. When I was younger, I had been fascinated with advanced technology and the natural sciences, but those days were well behind me. Not only was my interest in those subjects fairly shallow, my skill set favored a very different niche. I was going to work my way into the public sphere and become a policymaker. Through prayer and signs, God nudged me in that direction as well. Thus, I obeyed joyfully.



As of late, I have come to question that path. The more I learn, the more I notice a terrible, fatal flaw in the system. It is small enough to be overlooked, and many good and virtuous people have made the mistake of pretending it doesn't exist. It is a great weapon of deception, which makes perfect sense given the fallen nature of the World. The flaw is simply this: politics cannot meaingfully resolve any of the most serious threats to humanity. While the government can be a great tool for justice or injustice, it can never create the utopian society promised to the just and virtuous in scripture.



The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. failed to realize this. I by no means wish to undermine the immense moral and political contribution that MLKJ made, but simply put the dream he was fighting for was not one the political world could embrace: either its methodology or its result will be wrong, and patching one hole means tearing cloth from another. Other reformers have hit the same wall: the gap between the moral and the political. Political implemenation of a moral imperative will fall short of the golden mean it is aimed for, and instead fall victim to the extremes prevalent in the world we live in. Forced morality may be viewed as a movement towards fascist control, or a moral pacifier, allowing us to neglect more important matters.


Early Christian communities navigated the relationship with the government quite well. As an illegal organization, the Church did not bear the blessings of the State, and therefore it was a much less complicated system. However, per the instructions of Paul, the state was not to be considered an enemy. The Church was an autonomous nation within the boundaries of another, secular nation. All of the laws were obeyed to the letter, except those which directly interfered with proper Christian practice. In fact, early communities referred to themselves as ecclesia, which refers to a politically autonomous group (ie, in the modern notion of the nation-state, an ecclesia would be essentially equivalent to a country). One's citizenship was first and foremost to the Church, which was essentially the state as well. Paul, while a Roman citizen, was first and foremost a citizen of the Church, the ecclesia, and then to Rome only by convention.

How often in the modern world do we think of ourselves as member of our country, and then members of a church? While many would love to try and argue that the United States was founded as a christian nation, I would beg to differ (most founding fathers did not count themselves as Christians, and if you really want evidence, look at article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli). Far too often we seem to forget that "no one can serve two masters." (Matthew 6:24). If we are members of the Church, united as "one body," (Romans 12:5, Ephesians 5:23) then why do we continue to imagine ourselves as under the jurisdiction of the American Caesar?

We are all subject to the Fall, yet we trust our king more than our God.
"When they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." 1 Samuel 8:6-9

It is time we stop trusting those on the ground, we the fallen, to lift us up. I have spent my life preparing to tell people that this is possible, and it isn't. I do not mean by this that we as Christians should abandon participation. The government is a wonderful tool, and it can do great things, but it can never solve the deepest and most disturbing issues facing humanity. Rather, it is the icon of their cause. Let us shake our feet of its dust, and continue on down the narrow path.

A Truly Inconvenient Truth

No, this has nothing to do with Al Gore or global warming. I'll save that for later.



I've never been very good at beginning at the beginning, so I apologize in advance if I start too deep. I often critique presentations of Christian lessons as being far too simplistic and losing sight of important nuances and details. Then I am reminded by my pastoral friends that not everyone is ready for that kind of depth. A great deal of people out there have never heard the basics, so I shouldn't expect people to learn quantum physics when they've never seen Newton's laws. I'm not trying to claim intellectual superiority, only greater time spent dedicated to delving into the depths of Christian thought.


While this is far from the beginning, I would like to start by explaining the kind of Christianity I study and talk about. While we in the modern world try to water it down to fit the kind of lifestyle we can live with, it is truly a much deeper and more intense state. Fundamentally, Christianity is a completely revolutionary point of reference, and as such a very powerful force when practiced the way it was from the start. What is truly inconvenient is the kind of commitment it takes. For those of you reading this who consider yourself Christians, read the following verses and consider them for a moment. Do not rationalize or explain them away, just take them at face value for a moment and see how you measure up.

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Matthew 10:37-39


"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." Matthew 24:9


"You know the commandments: ' Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.' 'All these I have kept since I was a boy,' he said. When Jesus heard this he said to him, 'You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me.'" Luke 18:20-22

How many of you would leave your families and livelihoods to dedicate yourself to the furthering of the Kingdom? How many of you are persecuted and despised by the powerful and worldly, to the point of torture? How many of you take up your cross each day, truly bearing the burdens placed upon you? How many of you are truly willing to give up everything you own to embrace the physical poverty of Christ and therefore share in spiritual riches? I'm not saying I'm any better-I still own a good deal of things, I have never been in jail, I have never suffered on the streets or abandoned my family. I simply want us all to make sure we understand the gravity of what we're talking about when we talk about Christianity. This is more than a set of ethics or a statement of faith. Christianity is a lifestyle and worldview; an ultimate dedication to the ultimate beginning and end of all that is.

We as Christians, blindly or not, must consider this when we describe ourselves as such. If you are not willing to sacrifice all, make sure you really believe what you're saying.

Introduction

Welcome to my newly created blog. I've tried to do blogs in the past, but have never been very good at keeping them going. My hope is that I will be able to remain more consistent on this one.

I am not crazy, though many would say I probably don't have far to go. My liberal friends call me conservative and my conservative friends call me liberal. I study religion, politics, philosophy and economics, or as I like to say, everything you're not supposed to talk about. Needless to say, if there is a controversy out there, I likely have an opinion on it, and I'd like to think most of them are moderately educated.

At any rate, anyone out there willing to put up with my rants will learn a great deal about me at a pretty rapid pace. Before we get there, I feel I should explain the title of my blog. I am not a psychotic egotist out to become the next Nostradamus or Isaiah. I do not believe that what comes out of my mouth is a directive from God. However, I do feel it is my calling in life to be the guy that says enough of the right things to anger enough of the wrong people and eventually end up with a bullet in my head. I have some kooky ideas and some interesting twists on other, more mundane positions. I love to point out the failures in any given system and am more than happy to provide advice on how to improve those systems. I am not a prophet, but I believe to some extent we all share the potential to be prophets of the mundane sort: speaking truth when no one wants to hear it and sticking to it no matter how many people hope we're wrong.

May God watch over my words here in this blog as well as those I say aloud. May this be a tool to further Your kingdom and Your righteousness. May I be granted wisdom and courage to speak the truth as best as I am able. Most importantly, Your will be done. Amen.