I'm not that boatman

Oases and Idols

2010-08-12T23:34:00.000-07:00

Truthful I call him who goes into godless deserts, having broken his revering heart. In the yellow sands, burned by the sun, he squints thirstily at the islands abounding in wells, where living things rest under dark trees. yet his thirst does not persuade him to become like these, dwelling in comfort; for where there are oases there are also idols.

Hungry, violent, lonely, godless: thus the lion-will want itself. Free from the happiness of slaves, redeemed from gods and adorations, fearless and fear inspiring, great and lonely :such is the will of the truthful.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Friedrich Nietzche

"Do I really have to go back in there?"

"Yep, it's about time. You've been out here sulking long enough."

"I don't really belong there. They don't even understand half the things I talk about..."

"You're every bit as blind and mistaken about me as they are. Besides, what gave you the impression it was ever about you? Go. :)"

Practice Resurrection!

2010-04-04T13:03:00.000-07:00

The tomb is empty!

It happened, it happens, it will happen!

Resurrection: Rob Bell from The Work of Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Good Friday

2010-04-02T21:49:00.000-07:00

This is my first attempt at preaching. This is essentially the same thing I spoke about on Maundy Thursday, but I'll still try to throw up a synopsis of that later.

A liturgy of broken dreams.

2010-03-15T17:41:00.000-07:00

The following is the text of an invitation to a dinner some friends and I are going to put on to celebrate Maundy Thursday. If you read this and are at all interested in spending an evening in a new liturgy with us, drop me a line. Just go to my profile and use it to send me an email.

Sometimes knowing the ending from the beginning changes the way we see the story.

I remember when the 6th Sense came out. For those that still have not yet seen it all these years later I won't spoil it for you, but it has a twist ending. It's one of those details that once known, changes how you see the entire narrative. Well, a friend of mine called me one day to express their frustration that another one of their friends had spoiled it for them by telling them the twist, which they off handedly told me. I had not yet seen the movie and therefore I too knew the end from the beginning. I could never see the story with fresh eyes, as it was intended.

The story of the "Gospel" is all too familiar to many of us. Those of us that have been raised in a religious tradition, or have chosen to participate in one for any significant length of time, know the story of Jesus. We know it beginning to end. That is to say, we know the end from the beginning.

I think that has blinded us to many parts of the story. The disciples, those that walked and talked with Jesus, had no such luxury. They experienced walking in the Way of Jesus day to day, never really knowing what the future held for them. They saw each turn of the journey for what it was. They were not blinded by an assumed meaning of the story that they could substitute for the whole, and not worry about the turns and twists of everyday life with Jesus. They got to experience the immediacy of the Way.

We propose an experiment. Please come be with us as we celebrate an important step in the journey of following Jesus. Come participate in the creation of a new liturgy.

We invite you to come have dinner with us to celebrate Maundy Thursday. The day Jesus washed his disciples feet. The day they celebrated the Passover meal together and they looked forward to Jesus inaugurating the Kingdom of God. The disciples brought their expectations and dreams to this dinner.

We've all had hopes and dreams for our lives. Sometimes we've even thought we've had the future figured out. We knew what God had in store for us, and how God was going to bring it to fruition. But sometimes, it doesn't quite go as we expected.

Come eat with us. Bring all your hopes and dreams with you, especially your misplaced, mistaken, and broken ones. Come forget the end that you have imagined, and be with us in this step of our journey together. Come as we call for the in breaking of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom that eludes our expectations and dreams, and will exceed our imaginings of it.

New wine...

2010-03-13T21:48:00.000-08:00

Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"

Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

Matthew 9:14-17

I'm a member of a liturgical tribe. I'm an Episcopalian to be more specific. If one is trying to make a family tree of Western Christianity, the Episcopal tradition is the American expression of the Anglican tradition, or Church of England. It is a direct offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church. It has all the calisthenics of the RCC, but it generally takes itself a bit less seriously.

When someone not familiar with the liturgy might visit, they would note the better part of the congregation seems to know, without visible communication, when to sit, stand, kneel, or say a particular prayer, in unison. Oh gentle visitor, don't be fooled. This not a spontaneous demonstration of group telepathy. It is a result of practice, literally centuries of practice. Our tribe is playing out a script passed down to us by our fore bearers. These prayers, with their physical expressions of standing or kneeling, are result of generations of accumulated traditions. Granted, we do occasionally modify them, but they have deep roots in our history.

Sometimes these processes are viewed as the necessary and right way to conduct worship. It's almost as if they are expressions of some sort of Platonic form, that exists in the heavens, and we participate in their shadow forms, to the best of our abilities, here on earth. We should strive to find the most original, ancient, form of practice and adhere to it to make sure we are doing it right.

I'm not so sure that's the best way to look at liturgy. Anything, even ancient, was new at one time. Even something as basic to our faith as the Lord's Prayer had a genesis. There was a day when it was not. These prayers and practices were invented by good people, often times I believe, people led by the Holy Spirit. As the Holy Spirit, the presence of Jesus, moved in their lives, they were changed. They were stretched like wine skins are by the fermentation of new wine. The operation of God's presence in their lives worked itself out in new forms of piety, new ways of living, new prayers, new liturgies. These practices are where their love for their Savior led them. It is not where they began, it is where they arrived on their journey.

Is this a finished task? Has the new wine done all it can do in shaping the lives and practice of God's people? Are the prayers, practices, and liturgy that we have inherited the pinnacle, upon which we can either choose to stand or from which any movement requires descending?

Growing numbers of us don't think so. We choose to remain members of our respective tribes, understanding the value of tradition in making us who we are. But we also choose not to be constrained by the religious forms of the past as if they are writ in stone on the side of a mountain.

It's time to experiment. Some of us are going to celebrate Maundy Thursday with a meal and a new liturgy. If I survive I intend to post a synopsis of the result here.

Busy...

2010-03-07T10:51:00.000-08:00

Ok... I had a preaching clinic yesterday, I have to teach on the first half of Acts on Tuesday, I have to teach on Romans in two weeks, I have to Dungeon Master a D&D game in a couple of weeks, I have to put together a conceptual piece on developing new liturgy, which I will both use as an invitation to a Maundy Thursday dinner and a blog post, and I'll be preaching for the very first time on Good Friday.

I promise I'm not just eating bon-bons and laying in bed.

This is one of the reasons I love living in Northern California.

2010-02-10T22:13:00.000-08:00

This a scenic lookout in between where I live and a nearby city called Chico.

Spring is on it's way.

2010-02-06T23:35:00.000-08:00

For the last several months I've been sharing one laptop with my wife, due the untimely demise of one of them. I suspect foul play and the investigation is ongoing. My neuroses will not allow me to simply throw something up on my blog. I normally go through at least two edits for anything of substance I put up on here. That does not mesh well with sharing a 'puter with someone who has virtual pets to care for and a virtual restaurant to manage. Couple this situation with my job turning to shit and facilitating a good old situational depression and I've thoroughly neglected my blog.

The last several weeks have been a bit of a change. I've gotten to make a few new friends, Adele and Brett's blogs are on the blog roll now, and now have unfettered access to my computer again. I've also started walking during breaks during the work day. I'm going to try to take my life back from it's circumstances.

One of my new guilty pleasures is 30 Seconds to Mars.

Zen

2009-08-16T13:34:00.000-07:00

"Lovely snowflakes. They fall only here."

a zen koan

I saw this flower as I wandered around my yard drinking my coffee this morning.

This is a morning glory bloom. It will be wilt when the day gets warmer and no flower will grow specifically there to take it's place. The sunlight hitting it was passing through the leaves of several tall pine trees and a large cedar tree that stands above the vine. Tomorrow the sun will be in a slightly different place as the position of the earth continues to change with the progression of the seasons and if the wind is blowing at all the specific path the light took to get to that place may not be open consistently. This will most probably not happen again at this particular place again.

I'm thankful for having gotten to see it. I'm not just thankful for flowers and sunshine and my yard. I'm thankful for this flower in this context.

What a lovely flower. It grows only here.

The Little Things.

2009-06-27T20:06:00.000-07:00

It's finding stuff like this that make it worth growing sunflowers.

Too comfortable

2009-06-22T20:22:00.000-07:00

"Feeling free from constraint, free to act on one's wishes, means reaching a balance between the wishes, the imagination and the ability to act: one feels free in so far as the imagination is not greater than one's actual desires, while neither of the two reaches beyond the ability to act. the balance may therefore be established and kept unimpaired in two different ways either by tapering, cutting down the desires and/or imagination, or by expanding ones ability to act. Once the balance is achieved, and as long as it stays intact, 'liberation' is a meaningless slogan, lacking motivational force.

"...It could be the case that the will to improvement has been frustrated or not allowed to arise in the first place (fore example by the pressure of the 'reality principle' exerted, according to Sigmund Freud, on the human drive to pleasure and happiness); intentions, whether really experienced or just imaginable, have been cut down to the size of the ability to act, and particularly the ability to act reasonably- with a chance of success. On the other hand, it could be the case that through the direct manipulation of the intentions- some sort of 'brainwashing',- one could never put the 'objective' ability to act to the test, let alone find out what they really are, and therefore would set the ambitions below the level of the 'objective' freedom.

"...One such issue was the possibility that what feels like freedom is not in fact freedom at all; that people may be satisfied with their lot even though that lot were fare fro being 'objectively' satisfactory; that living in slavery, they feel free and so experience no urge to liberate themselves, thus forsaking or forfeiting the chance of becoming genuinely free. "

pg. 17

Liquid Modernity
Zygmunt Bauman

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:  “ ‘Why do the nations rage  and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand  and the rulers gather together  against the Lord  and against his Anointed One.' Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Acts 4: 23-31 (NIV)

In my college years I ran with a Charismatic/Pentecostal crowd. I actually had a pretty decent prayer life during that part of my history. I would go for long walks around the campus, sometimes sitting up at the top of the bleachers at the football field, talking to God. I prayed with friends too. It wasn't uncommon to be involved in a late night, sometimes impromptu, hours long prayer meeting. We would meet with friends in someone's apartment discuss the Bible and pray for what we saw as God's Kingdom to come.

We were passionate in our prayer lives, both individual and corporate. We were conspirators. We prayed about our interactions with our friends, asking that they “saw Jesus” in us. We lifted up our classmates and teachers to a loving God. We fervently believed that is was God's will, and consequently our will, that everyone we know be “saved”. We prayed about how we were going to make ends meet until our student loan or Pell Grant checks were going to be available. We also wanted God to change us, to make us into the image of Jesus (granted, we kind of had figured out what that meant and knew what we would end up looking like). And... we actually saw what appeared to be God intervening and people's lives changing.

Looking back I can see legitimate prayer taking place in my life. It was often times motivated by an acknowledgement of my inability to control certain things in my life or in the life of others and a real dependence upon God. I really wanted to see people's lives changed for the better, even if that change was actually wasn't enough to correspond with what it really meant to be truly saved in the sense that the New Testament talks about.

I'm in a different place now. Looking back I consider my previous way of viewing the world as truncated and incomplete. I no longer view the Gospel as only about being “saved”. I see focusing on people's status being changed from the out-group of “the lost” to the in-group of “the saved” as an easy and unfalsifiable substitute for the real point of the Gospel, someone's life totally reorienting around the teachings of Jesus in the context of a community submitting to the rule, kingdom, of God now. I was blind to certain forms of freedom that the Gospel brought. I would go so far as to say I was participating in a system that by it's design (not necessarily intent) hid some of these deficiencies from view. Following certain expected norms that reinforced systemic evils (the abuse of the poor by free market capitalism in Third World countries, marginalizing those of different religions, political ideology, or sexual orientation, to name a few) was labeled as unquestioned and unmitigated virtues.

I run with a different crowd now. I'm a participant in a liturgical tradition, Episcopal in particular. Our congregation appears to be in the process of rising from the dead. We have gone from a situation where we fully expected to shut the doors in a year to a place where we are growing. We're reevaluating our current ministry model to try to eliminate the rigid distinction between clergy and laity and reform our theology and practice to having the Body of Christ actually address the needs of the Body of Christ and surrounding community rather than place the responsibility on the 'professional religious' folks in our midst. Our little congregation is taking on an interesting flavor that melds a Charismatic pneumatology and a strong Social Justice streak.

Additionally I have a group of friends with which I regularly meet to consume irresponsible amounts of caffeine and discuss theology. We lament how our current vocations and lifestyles aren't congruent with the Gospel. We hatch grand schemes on how to reconfigure our communities of faith to be a source of God's blessing and an outpost of God's Kingdom in our local community. Two of our congregations are participating in a growing network that is feeding the people of our town.

But... despite our needs, despite our love for God and the Gospel, we simply don't have passionate vigorous corporate prayer lives (to be fair, I don't personally have a vigorous prayer life). Why?

(I began writing after this point in a corporate first person (We) standpoint. I don't feel comfortable with that in that I can't pretend to be the exemplar for the world I now live in. I will use first person singular in order to more honestly and responsibly express my concerns).

Many options seem to present themselves. Below is a small sampling:

Have I begun the process of, on a functional level, jettisoning an otherworldly Santa Claus figure that I call God? Have I taken full responsibility and control for my own life and my moral choices and in a faithfulness to God's agenda/Kingdom begun to move through the world as if God was not responsible for the world around me, but I am?

Has the world evolved in light of the presence of the Gospel into a world less hostile to that Gospel? Does attempting to live out that Gospel require less conflict with the “principalities and powers”, thus necessitating less in the way of passionate situational prayer to walk in the way of Jesus?

Or, have I traded blindness to part of the Gospel for blindness to parts of what I walked away from? Have I stopped drinking the fundamentalist Cool-Aid to drinking deeply of the spirits of the Enlightenment? Was I sold a bill of goods, a world view that mollifies me, that makes me comfortable with my incremental 'improvement' in how I spend my money, or how I view those, both near and far, that are less financially, mentally, or physically well off than I am? Am I still at peace with the world at large because I do not yet understand how pervasive, how radically different than the status quo, the Gospel actually is? Am I still part of the problem?

I know some of my compatriots may feel comfortable dismissing the parts of the New Testament that depict corporate prayer to an interventionist God as ancient superstition. I can't. Label me a primitive and I shall put the button right next to the ones labelled “heretic” and “savage” and I will wear them all with pride. I'm fine with being viewed as a fool by some, but I cannot simply be satisfied that the parts of the New Testament that don't match up to my life are the things that must be scratched out.

I speak on the behalf of justice at my place of work. I'm a member of my congregation's Vestry and I try to advocate for us to spend ourselves on the behalf of those outside the congregation. I meet with my friends and discuss how God want's us to live his Kingdom in the here and now. I try to be more responsible with how and where I spend my money so as to at least reduce my participation in systemic evil.

But I have no battles. It's all so damned abstract and slow. Is this right? Is this how the Kingdom is to come? I have no need to pray, to wrestle with God, in a real way. Or, is it more accurate that I am blind to my need? Have I labelled my inadequacies as normal, my impotence as virtue?

I was not made for this. I was made to have an enemy, be it just an abstraction. The whole peace as an absence of war thing is gonna drive me insane.

God, I'm afraid to ask this, but would you mind slapping me around a bit? Crush my illusions, offend my sensibilities. Set me free from my prison of comfort.

That creepy feeling I'm missing something.

2009-06-22T17:53:00.000-07:00

Something is rolling around in my head and I'm trying to articulate it in an intelligible manner, but it's just not working yet.

This is a decent depiction of my current mood.

If I knew what I was doing, I'd be dangerous.

2009-06-15T20:45:00.000-07:00

No deep thoughts or rants this time. Just stuff in my yard.

My neighbor says she has a fig tree, and apparently this is runner from it that has crossed under the fence. I'm trying to both ground-layer it and air layer it at the same time. If it works, I'll have two trees instead of just a runner under the fence.

These are green sunflower from seed that I saved from last year. They are substantially thinner and more delicate than the other sunflowers growing elsewhere. I have to spray a rotten egg mixture on them once a week to keep the neighborhood deer from munching them (I learned the hard way for two years in a row).

These are a mixture of red and yellow sunflowers that are from saved seed. In fact, this is the third generation. To be fair, I always add some yellow seed, because the red seems more prominent when they cross pollenate.

These are various cuttings. A couple of different colors of geranium (peach and red), two different colors of lantana (red/orange and purple), a rose bush (red), a trumpet vine (looks like it might not make it) and a table grape.

And this is a successful Jasmine cutting propagation. I got it from a fence behind a local chocolate shop. I'm really happy this one took because all my attempts last year failed miserably.

SMACK!

2009-06-11T20:54:00.001-07:00

I don't live up to my own standards. I eat too much. I buy food out from people who don't get paid enough, wrapped in plastic and paper that will simply be thrown in the trash immediately after I eat. I drive more than I have to. I occasionally use styrofoam cups because it is easier than going to get a washable cup. I use plastic cutlery out of convenience and then toss it in the trash.

I work for the government. I work for Caesar. I actually had to swear to protect the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. I am a gatekeeper of the Prison Industrial Complex. I work in a situation where I must occasionally recommend that people be sentenced to prison when I know that after they are incarcerated and get out they will be more of a threat to the community as well as being more damaged as people. (Yes, I do believe some people should go to prison.) I make more than the median income in my home community, and I spend every dollar every paycheck.

I live in a three bedroom house with only one other person. I have three televisions in my house and one of them is nearly always on. I don't know my neighbors. I live too far away from the people in my life that matter to have regular contact with them.

I've always played the game with myself that I'm making progress because at least I know I'm not living up to Kingdom standards and that it bothers me.

“The key to understanding this parable lies in grasping how one's very religious convictions can actually fuel actions that would stand opposed to them. In the above example we can imagine the businessman thinking that his faith in Christ and his involvement in a local church are what encourages him to pose certain ethical questions about the industry he works in, questions about the type of investments his bank backs, the damage of debilitating international interest rates, and the greed that fuels so many of the decisions that the bank makes on a daily basis.

“He thinks that it is his faith that pushes him to influence banking decisions in a manner that includes the consideration of moral issues. Although he is a tough and committed businessman who is making a great deal of money, he knows deep in his heart that he is a Christian who does not place his true value on earthly treasure. Indeed, his attempt to influence the bank in ethical ways hint at this deep truth: namely, that he does not take the world of making money and business success too seriously. It is what he does in order to provide for his family and the local church, but it is not who he is.

“However, in contrast to this commonsense view of the situation, let us offers a different interpretation. In contrast to the idea that the man's faith is the deep inner truth that prevents him from fully engaging in a heartless capitalistic drive for wealth, one could say that it is precisely his faith in God that enables him to be a hard-nosed businessman man in the first place. While slightly moderating his drive for financial success at any cost, his supposedly true inner identity simply acts as the fuel that powers his work by allowing him to escape from facing up to the reality of his actions. In Christianity as a religion without religion one cannot make this distinction between one's action and ones beliefs.”

pp. 164-165

The Fidelity of Betrayal

Peter Rollins

I'm a putz and I need to do something different with my life.

Immigration

2009-06-08T21:26:00.001-07:00

I'm an immigrant. I don't mean in a geopolitical sense. I was born and raised here in the United States and continue to reside here. That being said, my roots and upbringing were in the Dallas/Fort Worth area of Texas and I now live in Northern California, nearly 2000 miles away. If we moved this little journey across The Pond to Europe, I'd be living in a totally different nation, with a different language, food, and social norms. Even here in the great homogenous hulk that is the United States there are subtle differences in culture and language between Texas and California.

One peculiarity about me is that despite where I was born and raised, I don't have much of a detectable Texan accent. I'm not accent free mind you, but it mostly hovers just below the surface. It comes out when I'm very tired, nervous, or angry. I also noticed it poked it's head out when I used to voice-chat with people from Texas while I played games over the internet. It may have been a subtle desire to establish rapport, to fit in, to feel at home.

But most times, it's pretty much undetectable. I think it's lack of prevalence is most probably due to the fact that when I was growing up I was told by my “yankee” father that several idiosyncratic Texan pronunciations made me sound uneducated. I have no intent to make that sound negative. I'm actually glad that I don't have a readily distinguishable accent. It allows me to blend in a bit more.

Having lived here in Northern California for nearly a decade I've picked up some of the things that make it different from where I was born. Northern Californians say the word “bye” in a way that is some where between “buy” and “baa”, the sound we say sheep make. Sometimes the word “almond” looses it's “l” and sounds like “amond”, but “Walmart” mundanely does not become “Wa-mart”. (Life is full of little disappointments.) On a political/cultural level, there are many more laws here but less perceived moral restraint based upon assumed religious values.

Occasionally I run into fellow transplants. More often than not I recognize their speech patterns first. When I approach them I may or may not put on the accent. The larger the group, the more apt I am to drop into a Texas drawl. If it is only one, I may keep my enigmatic vanilla speech patters in place, but I start asking questions about where they are from and I see if I can drop a few geographical references that only a native would know. Then they can drop their guard and we can talk.

I can relate to them in a way that a native Californian can't. I know that a recent visitor from Texas expects the stereotypical Californian to be a deeply tanned liberal vegetarian who has spent most summers at the beach. (yes, I'm purposely being ridiculously hyperbolic) I know that when they say “mexican food” what they really mean is TexMex, it must be spicy, and at least one item on the plate must be covered in melted cheese. When they say they want a “coke” it could be any of a myriad of carbonated beverages, and when they want a hamburger, they are probably thinking more of a Whataburger (with bacon and jalepenos. Yummy) than In-n-Out.

In my estimation a more significant immigration in my life was moving from a modern propositionally oriented faith to a postmodern faith that is a bit more mystical in orientation. I wasn't born here in Postmodernity, I travelled here from somewhere else.

I can remember reading the Bible attempting to connect the dots in the text to unlock it's secrets, to be 'moved by the Spirit' as I read the text for myself. I remember the heady intoxication of being certain of the clearly present Truth, it was right there in the text (never mind that many friends were certain that the truth was something else based upon the same text).

It was good to know that due to my acceptance of God's free gift of Jesus, through grace by faith I was one of God's chosen. I was different from the lost, those that could not see the truth because they were spiritually blind. Some of them were blinded by their sin, some by their intellect, some by their man-made traditions.

I longed to see the lost saved, to say the Sinners' Prayer and accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. I wanted to see them delivered from their sins of accepting Evolution over the Bible, of their chosen homosexuality, of their Pro-Choice political views.

Then I moved.

As I moved through life and found out more about the world I live in I became more and more impressed with this Jesus fellow. Not only was he Lord and Savior, but he was brilliant as well. I began to see genius in how he handled interpersonal, sociological, economic, and political issues. I began to see Jesus as someone that wasn't just reciting idealistic poetry that can never be really lived, but as someone that saw the particulars of the world He lived in, the world I now live in, and had some real strategies to make a difference. His followers seemed pretty bright too. They understood that the answer to life's problems wasn't just about pie in the sky by and by. It was about living as if God was in control now. Living as if Jesus was King, not Caesar.

I also saw that I had been wrong. That I had mistaken how I made connections in the texts, my interpretation of the Bible, for the Bible. My theological constructs, my tradition (that I called Sola Scriptura), were in my head, not in the text, and should not be weighted as much as the text.

I found out that I had mistaken my view of certain parts of the Bible for an accurate representation of the scientific world. This wasn't a new error. My predecessors, Martin Luther and John Calvin had done the same thing when they opposed the Heliocentric model of the Solar System by quoting scripture to the contrary. I guess there's worse company in which to be.

Finding people who believed in Evolution, or were involved in loving committed relationships with people of the same gender who obviously loved the Lord also cracked my worldview open. It is easy to characterize certain classes of people as hating God if you don't know any one in that class. It becomes harder to ascribe a fatal flaw to someone and use it to dismiss their views and life outright when you get to know them and love them.

I have become the foreigner now. I am the one living outside the land of certainty and God's favor. I am the one 'blinded by intellect' and my association with sinners.

Ah, but I can still recognize the accent of those from my land of origin. I can see their unease when I begin to talk of things that don't line up with their interpretational matrix of scripture, and are therefore 'unbiblical'. I understand that I can appear as “one of them”. I understand the judgement some of them have for me, but I love them. How can I but love them, they are from the land of my birth.

Lots of excuses, no good reasons.

2009-06-01T20:15:00.000-07:00

I've got to get back to this. For the last few months I haven't done jack on this thing. Even before I essentially stopped all together I hadn't posted anything of substance for quite a while.

Well, I've essentially been addicted to my damned X-Box 360 (note the box to the right of this post. I may well strip that from the blog in the not too distant future). I've been X-Box free for about 2 weeks now and am contemplating selling it outright. Not wasting brain cells in front of the machine has afforded me substantially more time to read.

Also, my wife accidently cooked her Macbook a couple of months ago, so I'm sharing my 'puter now. My blogging is essentially something I do while I'm doing other things during the course of an evening. Well, I just don't have the free form time to do that anymore. We're working on a possible solution to this, but that is quite possibly months off still.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch...

A couple of days ago I was involved in an exchange on Sola Scriptura on Emergent Village's website. Here is the thread. I'm going to cut and paste my first comment and all the relevant responses there after. I'm going to post in an unedited format, with all typos included. It was tempting to clean it up, but I don't want to change someone else's words and I don't want clean mine up and leave someone else's dirty. So, here it is.

46 Patrick Boatman May 28, 01:52 AM
I whole heartedly agree with your “Prima Scriptura” stance. I would go so far as to say that is the stance of the New Testament writers as well.

The writers of the NT were’nt a Sola Scriptura crowd. Paul references Jewish tradition, which he validates and expands upon in 1 Cor 10 when he talks of the rock that followed Israel. Paul quotes gentile philosophers (Titus, the comment about Cretans comes to mind, among other quotes) when making his points at times, even preaching to the throng on Mars hill by quoting pagan religious texts. The book of Jude quotes apocryphal texts to make a point (the argument over Moses’ body). When we set a standard of Sola Scriptura we are actually setting a different standard than the writers of scripture adhered to. If a document or person quotes philosophers, pagan religious texts, and religious traditions to make it’s points, it can’t really be called Sola Scriptura, can it? Can I do those things and call myself Sola Scriptura? :)

Sola Scriptura itself is an extrabiblical tradition.

Another note is that if one listens and considers when someone says something is “biblical” in a Sola Scriptura sense what they more often than not mean is that it is consistent with their interpretation of scripture (be it personal or traditional). If something is not explicitly stated in scripture, but is rather inferred based upon scripture then it is interpretation, a process that happens in the mind of the interpreter. Whether that inference is accurate or not is secondary to the fact that the cognitive process of interpretation does not carry the authoritative weight that scripture does. Some people, quite innocently and naively, equate their interpretation of scripture with scripture, then mistake a disagreement with their interpretation with a disagreement with scripture.

Hopefully that was at least somewhat coherent. The tiny window one types in makes it hard to check for logical continuity. :)

47 rick May 29, 02:41 AM
I’m not sure what Patrick is talking about but it is not Sola Scriptura. There is nothing that prevents a preacher from quoting the Beatles or Bob Dylan or Desmond Tutu in a sermon. As long as new doctrine is not being expressed and that it does not contradict the scriptures and that it is not placed on the same level as the revealed word.

Here’s what Sola Scriptura is: Sola scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today.

48 James May 29, 03:09 AM
Amen, Rick. I find it interesting that no one has replied/debated you. Solid truth will do that I guess. It’s funny how “high intellect” can really become a stumbling block when dealing with a relatively simple truth. I love Jesus!!! Hangest thou in there everyone, just don’t hangest yourself!

49 James May 29, 03:17 AM
Oh, I almost forgot….I also know why I love Jesus! Blessings.
50 Patrick Boatman May 29, 03:32 AM

Both Jude and 1 Cor 10 include information from extrabiblical sources, an apocryphal book and Jewish tradition that “is not found directly or logically within Scripture” treating the events described as real events, but having no support other than the extrabiblical sources, to make their doctrinal point. They fail your test of Sola Scriptura.

Secondly, your inclusion of the term “logically” makes the mistake of equating an inference with Scripture. Logical inference is an operation that takes place in your (or whoever wrote your definition) head and is not scripture. Even if the thinker is brilliant, the inferences is not Scripture. It mistakes interpretation for the Scripture itself. And 30,000 Protestant denominations and growing is a fairly good indication that different people infer differently.

Thirdly, your appeal to “foundational” and “formal principle”s of protestantism is an appeal to tradition that I simply don’t find compelling. (nope, I’m not RC)

51 rick May 29, 06:01 AM

Patrick: The Bible is an original document composed of remembered accounts, spoken sermons, the Sayings of Quoleth, Solomons songs, Davids poems, Pharoh’s comments, Greek plays, popular songs, quotes from satan, quotes from books that are not now existant, the finger of God, Hebrew commentaries and many other sources. It has 66 authors (if not more) and was all inspired by the Holy Spirit. Once the canon was complete the authors admonished us to not add or take away a word. Jesus said “For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.” I think John Calvin and Martin Luther and the reformers were smart enough to figure that out. That has nothing to do with the principal of Sola Scriptura.

(BTW, I can’t imagine Brian McLaren agreeing that the smallest letter or little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] of hebrew scripture is critically important)

That’s not my definition of Sola Scriptura, it is Wikipedia’s. I suppose I could have quoted a number of others. The author is saying that if we can’t logically infer a doctrine from the text then one should not give it creedence. For example, the trinity is a logical inference. Leprachauns are not. The point of Sola Scriptura is that we don’t give equal weight to the Koran and we don’t give equal weight to traditions such as selling indulgences. Emergents like Tony Jones and Brian McLaren want to say that we can never really know the truth of the Bible completely therefore everyone’s opinions are equally valid and should be respected. Whereas I believe that if you are advocating worshipping angels I can appeal to the Bible to determine whether the practice is valid. The fact that it may be an old tradition would not sway me. The RC church rules by absolute papal authority. I suppose Papal authority is an alternative to denominations. Another way to look at denominations is that diversity is healthy and that they add flavor.

“Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today.” I am not making an appeal, this is just a statement of fact. A historian making an observation.

OK. So you are not a protestant.

53 Patrick Boatman May 29, 08:49 AM
Rick,
yes, I’m fully aware of the way the Bible has been cobbled together over it’s history. I think you would agree that it didn’t get faxed from heaven, similar to the Islamic view of the Qur’an. It was written by people. People that apparently used a different standard of what can be used in the formation of one’s beliefs. The did use extra-biblical materials and considered them authoritative. You’ve set up a standard of what God can use that they would fail.

On the “jots and tittles”, it might be interesting to find out if they were present in the oldest manuscripts, before vowel points were added to the text. But that is another matter all together. :)

I’m not Brian Mclaren, nor am I Tony Jones. If you want to talk to them, that would be fine. As for me, I will speak for me, about the issues previously discussed, rather than get into a discussion about personalities.

On Sola Scriptura… the moment one has begun to use logic (to which I am not opposed, but would rather advocate for) one has moved beyond the text into one’s own mind and therefore gone beyond the text and away from Sola Scriptura. When one uses logic, inference, it takes place in the mind, which does not carry the same weight as Scripture. The moment anyone says anything that is not a specific quote of the text one has moved away from Sola Scriptura. In fact, I would assert the very process of translating scripture (which I have no problem with, but would advocate) moves beyond Sola Scriptura because the process of translation require interpretation. Reading a text that is not in the original language takes one outside Sola Scriptura.

Next point, to assert one believes in Sola Scriptura is to affirm a tradition, therefore making the assertion a performative contradiction. The very affirmation negates the affirmation.

Doctrines are comprised (accurately or inaccurately) of dots connected in one’s head, outside the text. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity (which I believe and affirm) is reached by just such a process of inference/logic. An interesting twist on this is that unless everyone in your congregation can specifically line by line cite the scriptures (the process aside) to support the Trinity, the believe it based upon tradition. So, many people in your congregation most probably believe an inference (not Sola Scriptura) based upon a tradition (not Sola Scriptura). Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with that, but it is not Sola Scriptura.

Prima Scriptura puts scripture, the Bible in particular, first in the process of navigating faith. It does not “give equal weight to the Koran” or “give equal weight to traditions such as selling indulgences”. If this is your understanding of Prima Scriptura, then you misunderstand.

On Jones and McLaren… whereas they probably do think we can’t know the meaning of the Bible exhaustively, as do I, your statements of “everyone’s opinions are equally valid” does not follow. I’ve read or heard nothing from either indicating such a stance. It is however a common misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the “emergent” position. You might try looking into the difference between infinite (anything goes) and tranfinite (a bounded set with internal variation). Even at that, this is dragging personalities into the discussion. They can speak for themselves. You’re stuck speaking to me. :)

I am not arguing against the existence of denominations, I am simply pointing to them as pretty compelling evidence that the process of inference is not infallible. Not everyone can be “right” about everything, and have so much variation.

54 Patrick Boatman May 29, 08:59 AM

Crapnoid! I mistyped… it should be transfinite, not tranfinite.
57 Joe White May 29, 08:16 PM

Patrick Boatman wrote:

“On Sola Scriptura… the moment one has begun to use logic (to which I am not opposed, but would rather advocate for) one has moved beyond the text into one’s own mind and therefore gone beyond the text and away from Sola Scriptura.”

This is a caricature of Sola Scriptura, not the real thing.

Patrick, if you want to reject Sola Scriptura, reject the real deal, not your strawman.

58 Patrick Boatman May 29, 08:44 PM
Joe… I’m addressing issues that are typically ignored because they are inconvenient.

The cognitive process that is interpretation exists whether or not one is comfortable with it. If Sola Scriptura was really “scripture only” then everyone that espoused it would agree on all issues. It is a misnomer. It only really makes sense in a universe that doesn’t exist. One in which one, anyone, can just read the text and KNOW what it means. In the universe that does exist, everyone that KNOWS, unfortunately KNOWS something different than the next guy.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with
problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such
as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to
colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others,
and which they have woven, thread by thread into the
fabric of their lives.”

Leo Tolstoy

60 rick May 29, 11:26 PM
Patrick, you are getting lost here. God can compose scripture any way He wishes and once He does we are obligated to study it, memorize it, repeat it to our children, not add or take away from it and pay attention to every jot and title no matter how He composed it. Agreed? Just because God composed scripture from a variety of sources does not give you license today to pick and choose traditions and elevate them to the level of scripture (or as you put it, use extra-biblical materials and consider them authoritative) or to reject any scripture that you have deemed, mere tradition and not inspired. Agreed?

“All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” 2Timothy

“Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.” 2 Peter

“Then Jesus said to them, “You foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures.”

“Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke

“Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” Matthew

“Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition.” Mark

“Then the devil took him to the holy city, Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple, and said, “If you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say, ‘He will order his angels to protect you. And they will hold you up with their hands so you won’t even hurt your foot on a stone.’ Jesus responded, “The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.”

(Jesus used a logical inference here and established a hermeneutical principal that scripture comments on itself and can be comprehended)

“This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him—speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture.” 2 Peter.

You are getting lost in epistemology. Your issue is not just with logical inferences, because everything that we read and see is mediated by our brain, our culture etc. Your problem is a technical one of how do we know what we know, or epistemology. Logic is woven into everything we read and understand. However, just because we know in part or understand in part does not remove from us the obligation to be obedient to what we understand. Nor does it negate the fact that there is truth in the bible that can be known. Just because we can never exhaustively and perfectly know a thing doesn’t mean we are not obligated to read, believe and obey. We are expected to wrestle with scripture using our God-Imaged logical ability to arrive at an implicit and singular meaning of scripture. If we have any error it is because we do not know the scriptures, as Jesus said.

Why do you have a problem with the principal that “the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture.”

Do you have another tradition or book that is more reliable than the Bible? If so, we’d like to know. Is the Bible in error? What authority did you use to arrive at that conclusion? Do you have some other Christian doctrines that you’ve arrived at in a text outside the Bible? We’d like to know.

61 Patrick Boatman May 30, 12:23 AM

“Why do you have a problem with the principal that “the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture.” ”

First off, the article is about Sola Scriptura, not infallibility. Secondly, that is a tradition ABOUT (I don’t mean to be perceived as yelling, just want to emphasize the word) the Bible. Notice the above statement is not scripture, it is a statement about scripture based on inference, and is therefore a traditon. I’m not willing to accept your particular tradition. Not acknowledging something as a tradition does not make it cease to be a tradition. You continue to mistake (a common mistake) your interpretation for scripture. The statement above is not scripture.

Nice block of quotes. I have no problem with anything they say.

Here’s an interesting juxtaposition

“God can compose scripture any way He wishes” … Rick

“This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him”… Scripture.

I’m gonna go with scripture’s description of itself rather than your description of it.

Yes, I do think that Scripture God-Breathed, just like God breathed into Adam, Jesus breathed on the disciples, the breath of God brought beasts to life in Hebrew literature.

Yes, Jesus did appear to use logic in making connections, and I once again (having never argued once against it) would affirm the use of logic. That is not Sola Scriptura. Logic (as a human operation) is fallible (It CAN fail). Rejection of a human interpretive matrix, yours in particular, is not rejection of scripture.

Your arguments are imbedded with multiple inferences and traditions that are not acknowledged as things that occur outside of the text. I do not accept your interpretation of the text. I do not accept your traditions about the text. I do accept the text in the context of what the text says about itself. Failure to accept your interpretation and tradition is not a failure to accept the text.

Your questions about infallibility are off topic. You’re questions about me and my particular doctrinal beliefs are off topic. This article and chain of response is about Sola Scriptura, not me, not Brian Mclaren, not Tony Jones, not infallibility, not about relativism (which I reject). You’re beginning to change the subject and I have no desire to keep shifting premises when a previous premise doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. That could go on for ever. :-)

62 Joe White My 30, 12:30 AM
Patrick Boatman wrote:

“The cognitive process that is interpretation exists whether or not one is comfortable with it. If Sola Scriptura was really “scripture only” then everyone that espoused it would agree on all issues.”

Nonsense.

That’s akin to saying ‘if the scripture were true, everyone would believe it’.

63 Patrick Boatman May 30, 12:35 AM
Sorry, that was incredibly tortured logic on your part. Talk about a strawman.

If you’re gonna go there, have fun. I’m out because this has ceased to be rational dialogue. Have fun arguing against the imaginary me. The real me is going somewhere else.

64 Patrick Boatman May 30, 12:45 AM
That being said, i will probably cut and paste this dialogue to my blog. It’s been a while since I’ve posted something substantial there.

65 rick May 30, 01:20 AM
Patrick: Sorry. I was trying to stick with the definition of Sola Scriptura which describes the Bible as infallible or innerrant. Those were rhetorical questions at the end, not personal. Each one was based on a point contained in the definition of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is only a principal, not scripture. But I believe it is a principal that Jesus and the writers of the new testament seem to promote (that’s why the scipture quotes). Sorry for monopolizing space on this issue. You may be right, and I may be wrong but it’s fun to learn. I will be quiet now. God Bless you.

66 Patrick Boatman May 30, 01:26 AM
Rick, my bad. I failed to distinguish between you and Joe White. He’s the one arguing against an imaginary me.

Even at that I’m gonna step away too. God Bless. :)

Rocky Roman Road

2009-03-23T20:36:00.000-07:00

Is it an old road in disrepair, or is it an ancient ice cream flavor?

I've been preparing to teach on the book of Romans tomorrow night and have been digging into the relationship of Julius Caesar and Octavian Caesar. May sound boring, but it's actually pretty interesting. I might blog some on it later.

Until I get something more substantive and original, like the first part of my autobiography, here's a poem the priest that facilitated our Vestry retreat wrote. He based it on a session in which he asked we all bring "sacred objects" and tell something about why it was important to us. I brought a book, and those that know me may well be able to recognize the section about me.

I've edited what was forwarded to me because what I received appeared to leave a line out and the original included a misreading of a block of text on my t-shirt. So, here's a lightly edited version a poem by Father Eric Duff of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California. :)

Bracelet
Biggest fan
The sergeant
Raised to be a host
New mother
Another fan
Went to get a mammogram
Don’t get a referral
I’m sure its cancer
Surrounded by support
Appeared on my doorstep
Finished workshop
He cared for me in ways I could never imagine
Gone
I do ideas
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Gave up on objects
The truth possesses me
Valid criticisms
God’s very much alive
I’m uncertain about Quantum Mechanics
Brought this little Bible
NRSV
Still didn’t have a clue
Making disciples through covenant
Every week it came alive
All kinds of written things
A touch of heaven
The word is life
Got a little bit of wear on it
Seven story mountain
A conversion of will
Turning your will over
Deep connection
Made that transition
Turn that on its head
I’m new
Don’t have anything to say
My son had cancer
Thought he was going to die
Hung on to medal of Saint Jude
And rosary
Cancer free for 12 years
I love my son
Stuck to the fireplace
Split up
She started going to church
Turned their lives around
She crocheted
Sits in my front room
Life changed
Holy Spirit came
Saint David’s
Patron Saint of Whales
Pirates can’t see it
Connected through the generation
So simple
Just wood

He read it as part of the Eucharist we celebrated. I thought it did a good job expressing our unity and diversity.

I'm starting.

2009-03-16T21:07:00.000-07:00

Tonight I started actually typing my autobiography. Right now I'm doing my childhood and the narrative is a bit fragmented, not to mention not in chronological order. I plan on poking at it again tomorrow evening.

Don't expect anything world changing.

And now... my favorite stanza from No Line on the Horizon by U2. The song is called Stand Up Comedy.

Stand up, this is comedy
The DNA lottery may have left you smart
But can you stand up to beauty, dictator of the heart
I can stand up for hope, faith, love
But while I'm getting over certainty
Stop helping God across the road like a little old lady

I love this quote.

2009-03-11T22:34:00.000-07:00

Do not think me gentle because I speak in praise of gentleness, or elegant because I honor the grace that keeps this world. I am a man crude as any, gross of speech, intolerant, stubborn, angry, full of fits and furies. That I may have spoken well at times, is not natural. A wonder is what it is.

Wendell Berry

This page intentionally not left blank.

2009-03-09T18:23:00.000-07:00

I’ve been sick for the better part of the last week and tonight I’m finishing an outline for a class I’m teaching on the first half of the Book of Acts tomorrow. I hope to get the first installment of my autobiography out in the next week or so. (I have to teach on Romans in 2 weeks, so I better not sit on my hands).

I thought I'd post this rather than continuing to do nothing. :)

If there is no line, it is a horizon?

2009-03-03T21:12:00.001-08:00

Ok, it probably won't be as world changing as the work of the Wyld Stallyns but it's pretty good stuff. No line on the Horison is a bundle of contradictions. It bitingly satirical, reverent, inspirational, full of arrogance, and self deprecating. Typical U2 fare.

I've been pondering my autobiography. I'm wondering just how much to include. One might say, only the parts that are spiritual. My reply would that it is all spiritual. My 'mother issues', my relationship with my dad (hmmm... note the "dad" versus the more formal "mother"), my love of science and math in high school, finding a job in an arboretum on a job board in college, my inability to fit in with most people, my possible mild asperger's syndrome, my accidently job in a rehab after college. I do need to get it started though.

Digital Fast

2009-02-25T20:51:00.000-08:00

Ok, maybe... sorta... Lent starts today and I'm going to give up my Xbox 360, at least on weekdays. I am planning on going cold turkey from sweets though. Let's see how this goes. :)

I'm hoping that I'll spend more time on profitable things, like blogging maybe. I'm starting a discernment process on whether or not I want to study toward becoming a deacon in the Episcopal tradition. One thing I've been asked to do in preparation is a "spiritual autobiography" detailing all the major events in my spiritual development. A friend of mine (everyone wave at Jonathan) suggest I blog it, thus killing two birds with one stone. I think that might be a decent idea. So... hopefully there will be several more posts in the near future.

I wish swallowing it once was enough.

2009-01-14T20:58:00.000-08:00

Well, I've been…. Distracted lately.

In the last couple of months I've changed assignments at work, which leads to stress.

This has occurred in the context of the holiday season which means time off. Great, time off. Ah, not so great sometimes in that it means you have less days to get the same amount of work done as if you had no time off. This leads to more stress.

Add to this wonderful collections of stressors a short term, but debilitating illness. Since moving to California I've periodically gotten horrible ear infections. The kind that make your ear canal swell shut, require heavy duty antibiotics, and feel like someone is trying to scratch the side of your brain with an icepick.

Add to this the good old iatragenic effect of killing all thebeneficial bacteria in your G.I. Tract with the necessary antibiotics. Good times!

One thing I try to be cognizant of is my frame of reference. I've gotten a bit too caught up with what presents itself to my immediate attention (work, illness, stress) to see the big picture. I haven't been reading, spending time with friends, going to "church" (I feel funny using that word for the event that happens on Sunday morning), or really trying to see what God might be doing in the world around me.

Time to wake up. Time to take the red pill again.

I'm going to meet some folks for coffee and conversation and then work in a budding community garden on Saturday morning. I hope that's a good start.

Other people's words.

2008-11-16T20:57:00.001-08:00

I watched "Instinct" at youth group tonight and one of the characters said something that I've been thinking and feeling for a while. It's said by Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character.

Ok Ethan. You asked me a question once, "What has you all tied up in knots when you wake up sweating in the middle of the night?" You still wanna know? I've been thinking about it, been thinking about it a lot. It's not the work, I love the work. I've always loved the work. It's the game. The game, Ethan. And I was so good at it. I made sure all the right people liked me. At night, I'd go through the checklist in my mind: Am I cool with Ben Hillard? Am I cool with Dr. Josephson? Am I cool with all the people who can help me? Am I cool with all the people who can hurt me? Nobody thought I was weak or a loser. There was nobody I was offending, nobody I loved. *That* game, Ethan. But guess what? You taught me how to live outside of the game. You taught me how to *live*. And you know what scares me even more? That I'm going back in. "Forgive me, Ben. Put me back in the game. I'll make you like me again. I'll do the work, I'll do *all* the work, just put me back in the game." And you wanna know, you wanna know the psychology behind this? Now, pay attention, cause I'm good at this. I'm trying not to say goodbye to you. I'm trying not to say I'll miss you. I'm trying to forget you. Ethan Powell, case closed. *Case closed*. Look at me..

I'm not saying goodbye to anyone, but I can relate to how he sees his job. I'm tired of playing the game.

We are the ones we've been waiting for!

2008-11-04T20:52:00.000-08:00

A few days ago I filled out my absentee ballot. When I filled in the oval beside Obama/Biden I actually felt like that little motion made with a pen meant something. I voted for a man that, for once, seems to think and see the world the way I do. He just gave his victory speech on national television.

For the first time since I've been politically conscious I feel hope that America might become something more than just the most powerful empire on earth. I feel that my voice has been heard and counts. That we no longer have to settle for a choice between two caricatures, but can cut a path not determined mindless adherence to one of two polar opposites. I feel like we might be waking up from the fugue caused by our power, greed, and arrogance. I hope it is more than just a momentary impression.

To those that are fearful and frustrated by tonight. I'm sorry for your fear and I understand that nothing could be said in one blog post that will assuage that fear. I will pray for you, and when I meet you, I will try to love you to the best of my ability. I hope you will partner with us and become part of the "we" that we have been waiting for.

I would imagine that this will be my last post on politics, at least for a while. :)

We'll see how Prop 8 faired in the morning.

Proposition 8 and crimson fishes.

2008-10-29T18:04:00.000-07:00

What follows was an anonymous comment left on my blog in response to my post on Prop 8. First off, I think anonymous postings on blogs, if done intentionally as such, are cowardly. It's like running up to someone and criticizing them and then running away to hide. I will grant that the individual may not have known or had the capacity to leave a registered comment and if so the anonymity was forced upon them by circumstance. Even at that, I've disabled anonymous comments. Feel free to disagree with me, just leave your name. :)

Secondly, the comment fails to address the distinction I make between civil unions and marriages, and consequently isn't really a response. It's more just talking past what I said and ignoring it. Despite this I thought it might be worth addressing directly anyway.

I find many interesting comments here. I would like to say something in the interest of people's point of view because of their 'religion'. We all subscribe to values based on whatever we choose to believe or not. Everyone has the right to their opinion (Constitutional 1st Amendment rights) and should not be denegrated [sic] for their beliefs - regardless of why they believe what they do. Freedom of Religion is also part of our fundamental rights. Our nation was founded by 'believers' and has been fundamentally a Christian nation. While we must separate Church and State (meaning the State cannot dictate the beliefs held in the church or govern it in any way) we cannot separate morality in our laws without dire consequences to our society.

We outlaw stealing, murder, prostitution, drug abuse and a host of other behaviors we deem detrimental to the good of society. This is not to deny anyone their rights, as to allow them would trample on the rights of others.

While I have to agree that law is predicated on the concept of justice and the common good, I have to point out that it is always a balancing act. Any given law is subject to secondary unintended (or sometimes intended) effects that run counter to justice and the common good. For example, the South's support of slavery in the Civil War was not only about the assumption that some human beings are of a inferior status to others, it was also tied to the economics of the South. They had a model of producing commodities that had come to require cheap easily controlled labor. Abolishing slavery caused hardship to many people, but it was the right thing to do. Your argument oversimplifies the situation and simply ignores many of the issues involved.

Secondarily, this line of argumentation is predicated on same sex unions being a moral evil. This is not a granted point and therefore needs to be established for it be used as a point. You build on a foundation that has not yet been shown to be a foundation.

While Prop 8 is with us in this election because 4 State Supreme court judges overturned the will of 61% of California voters who voted to MAINTAIN marriage between a man and a woman in 2000 (Prop 22), same-sex marriage is the heart of the issue.

A majority vote in no way guarantees justice. This is why we have the Supreme Court to begin with. Many groups would have long since been crushed or run out of this country if a majority view was all that was needed to establish a matter of law.

There was a day when the majority of the population of this land thought it was ok to own other human beings. That didn't make just.

There was a day when the majority of the population of this land thought half of our species shouldn't have the right to vote. That didn't make it just.

Increased specificity of a definition is not “maintaining” anything. Adding an amendment to the constitution is a change. Regardless of it being good or bad, it is a change. You fail to describe what is actually happening and therefore the argument does not actually correspond to reality. It is a fiction.

Just look at this from a common sense standpoint. Extrapolate out from gay marriage [sic] a generation or two. We will have children who don't understand the male/female relationship because won't have been modeled in a same-sex home. You will have children who have come from a sperm bank or surrogate mother or adopted in same-sex 'marriages'. Nature has no way of working in these relationships.

We have so denegrated [sic] marriage (free sex; easy divorce, infidelity, etc) that, for some, gay marriage isn't a stretch at all.

Allowing same-sex marraige [sic} into our society as 'equal' to marriage between a man and a woman will confuse children and will create a society of people who don't know who they are.

I just love it when someone equates their viewpoint with “common sense”. It's a subtle attempt at social control in that it makes differing with their view on the given subject a divergence from “common sense”. One of the tricks of dogmatism (be it on the Left, or the Right) is to label those that disagree with you as somehow morally, spiritually, or intellectually flawed. This is not something that is limited to any given ideology. Both liberals and conservatives do it. I imagine that centrists like myself do it as well. It's always dirty pool no matter who does it.

We already have a huge percentage of the population that has no understanding of “male/female relationships”, whatever that specifically means. Your comment seems to be predicated upon an assumption of different roles for males and females, otherwise you would probably just say “marriage relationship.” Such a distinction This distinction between male and female roles in a marriage is something that is derived from a specific religious tradition, and should not be imposed upon people as a matter of law. So, one of the major building blocks of your argument is not given.

I would argue that the way we relate to each other should not be contingent on gender and the marriage relationship, aside from sex and romance, differs in degree rather than nature from our other relationships. I do believe that sex ideally shouldn't occur outside of a monogamous committed relationship, be it “marriage” or civil union (even if the civil union is heterosexual). Note, an insistence that people be married (my specific preference) or in a civil union if they are in a committed relationship would be a imposition of my religious beliefs that I am not willing to make because I consider such an imposition as unjust.

Allowing gay marriage won't facilitate people failing to know who they are. It will not however facilitate the social definitions you consider normative and might wish to see imposed upon the general populace. Your argument is based on a presupposition that is not granted. I (actually, as a religious person myself) do not see your assumed gender roles as normative or even moral.

It would appear that you are not really addressing what you say is problematic. Prop 8 does not keep same sex couples from adopting children. It does not make more children born within marriages. It does not keep people from obtaining sperm from a sperm bank and having a child that way. These are all red herrings and have nothing to do with your assertion that Prop 8 should pass.

Roots are important to healthy growth. Take the root from the plant and you soon have a withered and dried up plant incapable of producing healthy fruit/flowers, etc. (that's just how nature works) Roots are important to people, too.

Your analogy is inadequate. Roots are necessary for plants to survive. A human being can survive and even flourish in the absence of knowing both (or even either) parents. Nice try, but the analogy fails to provide the point you hoped it would.

Genealogy is the number one 'hobby' around the world. People want/'need [sic] to know where they came from, who their families are. It is a huge part of our identity...knowing who we are, belonging, etc.

The social chaos (not to mention the diseases) that will result from same-sex marriage (promotion of the gay lifestyle) will be our undoing!

Hunh? Committed monogamous same sex relationships lead to disease? What disease(s) is that? And we've been over “knowing who we are” already. Asserting “social chaos” will happen is a far cry from showing that it will. I can make all sorts of claims about hypothetical future universes but that isn't evidence of anything.

I recently became aware of a 4-year old boy who learned who his father is and was beaming it to his pre-school classmates. He knows his father's name...and now his name...which was a huge piece missing in his life. Now that he knows who his father is, his identity is becoming more whole. (consider how this child might feel if he were to find his father is a nameless stranger from a sperm bank who he will never have a relationship with!? or the friendly next-door neighbor who is a willing donor or who knows?

I'm glad that the child profited from finding out about his father. Would the kid get a positive benefit if he found out that his father was a drug dealer or murderer? Is knowing his father an intrinsic good and necessary? Or was the result actually more contextual than that?

One example in no way provides compelling evidence for a point. I can provide evidence of specific people surviving car accidents because they did not wear their seat-belt. This in no way proves that people should not wear seat-belts. It is called anecdotal evidence and in no way indicates the example is statistically significant or anything more than an interesting story.

Studies show that children do best in homes with a mother and a father in low conflict situations.

I'm sure that some studies do provide results that probably indicate that. Now, is that all studies, or just the ones with which you agree? :)

Those who advocate gay marriage don't want 'equal' rights, they want domination. They want to 'force' themselves to be accepted in places where their lifestyle goes against anothers [sic] beliefs/values - ie. churches, schools, Drs. who don't want to inseminate lesbian women because of their own values, adoption agencies, who for their own values don't want to adopt children to gay/lesbian couples, etc. Same-sex couples want to 'force' acceptance of their lifestyle in our society. They don't merely want to live/let live.

Just like those african-americans that wanted to “dominate” others by “forcing” people to allow them to have equal rights back in the 60's? Yeah, they wanted to “force” people to allow them to sit where they wanted on the bus, and use the same water fountains, and use the front door of a restaurant rather than the back. Those fascists! (Yep, I was being ironic in case anyone was wondering).

Welcome to America my anonymous friend! It was founded by people that wanted to “dominate others” by “forcing” them to accept their way of seeing and moving through the world as just as worthy of being accepted by the government.

Your use of language is telling. You speak of a status, “gay/lesbian couples” rather than a behavior set of homosexual sexual acts. I find that troubling.

Let's take a look at the world I live and work in. I'm a criminal justice professional who has worked primarily with addicts and the mentally ill for about 15 years. An alcoholic is an alcoholic regardless if they are active in recovery or in active alcohol use. A oxycodone addict is an oxycodone addict even if they haven't used for years. A schizophrenic is a schizophrenic even if their mental illness is medically controlled. (No, I'm not equating homosexuality with mental illness or addiction.)

Now, should decisions be made about these people based on status? “Nope, you can't have artificial insemination, you're an alcoholic.” “Nope, you can't live here, you're bi-polar.” This would be discrimination based on a status. We have laws against that sort of thing, not to mention that it is wrong.

Are the decisions of our hypothetical doctor based on behavior? Is it any of the doctor's business what happens in the bedroom of her client? Does the doctor check to see if the prospective parents are liars, adulterers, racists, or even married? Is it the doctor's job to make moral judgements about her clients' lifestyles and provide or not provide medical services based upon that judgement? I would say this is outside the bounds of the doctor's professional consideration even if her moral judgements are right.

And the majority of lesbians/gays don't want marriage at all because it is about SEX (Not children/not families) and they go from partner to partner with great frequency.

First off, how do you know what the percentages are? Secondly, who cares what they are? Why are those to whom this proposition means nothing and has no applicability even being discussed. Once again, a red herring.

Marriage is about CHILDREN. We owe it to the future generations to preserve the order in nature - common sense- that perpetuates our human race and creates the best possible chances for healthy human beings/families/identities.

VOTE YES ON 8. (but with no hate - just common sense)

So, are those who have no children not married? Are couples that are incapable of having children some how less married?

Just because you say something “Marriage is about CHILDREN.” (nice job on the all caps. It really makes it seem... like you yelled the word. ok.) doesn't make it true. Who says marriage is about children? God doesn't. The Bible doesn't. Maybe your understanding of the Bible does, but that's inside your head and isn't binding on any of us living outside your head. Just for fun, look at all the marriages in the Bible and count how many were motivated by a desire to have children. If there are any that fall into that category (heck, there may be) I'm certain it isn't the majority.

Nope, I'm not saying that marriage has nothing to do with children, but it certainly isn't “about CHILDREN”. Please fight the urge to force a false dichotomy on the issue that doesn't exist in the real world or in my words.

And... I already addressed the “common sense” thing.

Proposition 8 is an attempt for a group to impose their religious beliefs on the entire state of California.

Yes or no on Proposition 8?

2008-10-26T23:06:00.000-07:00

I live in California and this year one of the propositions on the ballot, Proposition 8, would amend the constitution to define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. It's an attempt to address a sticky matter that occurs at the intersection of politics and religion.

First off, I do have an issue with how matters currently stand. It does appear that the current law carries some negative effects for those who find same sex marriage against their convictions, religious or otherwise.

I don't pretend to have analyzed the the subtleties of the law and how it will interact with various practices, but it has been claimed that it will cause issues for ministers and groups that cannot, within the bounds of their religious beliefs, perform marriages of same sex couples. Commercials in support of Proposition 8 have claimed that such groups may lose their tax exempt status.

If this is true, it essentially puts a state imposed standard upon which religious groups will be eligible for tax exempt status based on a particular issue of their own views on morality, based on their religious beliefs. It will become a litmus test. If you hold to belief A to the point it will constrain your actions, you are ineligible for tax exempt status. If you do not hold to belief A, or at least do not hold it with sufficient conviction for it to constrain your actions, you are eligible for tax exempt status.

So, I think we've established that the law, as it currently stands, does pose a problem.

My response begins with the fact that marriage is a religious concept. It predates civil societies and government involvement in the issue. Marriage commitments and ceremonies, as opposed to simple mating, happened before marriage licenses, retirement benefits, and family insurance coverage were ever invented. Granted, it's a concept that civil society adopted, and modified, as early societies used a fusion of religion and politics to provide a social contract for common good, at the very least for the good of those in power.

Things like a change in legal status that allows for certain rights and responsibilities was added by civil government. These later additions might best be described as a civil union. It allows for two people to tie their lives together in such a way as to facilitate certain rights and responsibilities, like property held in common, that in the event of one partner dying the surviving partner will still have rights to, or shared health insurance based on the employment of one party. I think this is actually something that even most conservatives would agree should be allowed for same sex couples.

It appears that Proposition 8 is, if I'm generous with my assumptions about motivations, a well intentioned attempt to fix a real problem. The current legal situation might lead to government making decisions on which sets of religious beliefs are deserving of tax exempt status and which ones are not. It may also coerce certain groups to allow behaviors that, whether the rest of the world agrees with them or not, they consider to be an evil to be avoided. All that being given, I think Proposition 8 is not an appropriate solution to the problem. It is falling from the frying pan and right into the fire.

Proposition 8, following in the footsteps of previous law, makes an amalgam of civil union, a matter of government, and marriage, a matter of religious tradition, and then proceeds to make a religious proclamation about a specific definition of marriage a matter of constitutional law. It is within the state's power to determine what kind of civil unions it will recognize, it is not however within the state's power to dictate what one must believe in one's religion. This sets up an incredibly dangerous precedent of having a cultural majority impose their religious beliefs upon the general population. Some groups that hold a majority stake in our culture right now might be comfortable with this imposition, but they might not in the not too distant future as California's demographics continue to change.

Making such a legal distinction will allow for easy remedy of several issues. Any given religious tradition should be free to determine if it will recognize same sex unions as marriage or not. The state should not impose upon any group a list of acceptable doctrines and beliefs. On the other hand, the state is not obligated validate through civil union status the marriage of underage children or polygamy. Ideally, marriages and civil unions would be concurrent and maybe facilitated by the same officiant during the same event, but this is not necessary. It would allow each religious tradition to make it's own determination on the issue of same sex marriage while acknowledging same sex couples with the same legal status as a heterosexual couple. It might be possible to have a civil union performed to allow for insurance benefits for a couple that do not have any religious belief and do not wish to be married. It would allow for the state to simply not validate marriages through civil union status when they occur outside of certain parameters.

Put simply, Proposition 8 will institutionalize a common misconception and will dictate religious belief. If we instead separate the concepts of marriage and civil union it will allow religious groups to self determine their own definition of marriage and will allow for all couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual, the same protection under law.

I will be voting no on Proposition 8.

In the interest of fairness

2008-10-23T21:44:00.000-07:00

I've posted pro-Obama propaganda. It's only fair for me to post some pro-McCain stuff.

Remember, a vote for McCain is a step towards the apocalypse and second coming! Yeah!

Change.

2008-10-23T21:03:00.000-07:00

The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little.

Herodotus

I haven't blogged much lately, just in case you couldn't tell by the almost totl lack of new material the past couple of months. Things on my job have been really stressful lately. The grant funded program I've worked in for the last year was defunded by the state. That sucks. What made it even worse is that this contingency wasn't adequately planned for. Several of the partner agencies scrambled in an attempt to make it go on, but one was severely underfunded and simply couldn't pony up the money.

So, it's been up to the line staff to try to cobble something serviceable until a new funding source is found with no direction from anyone on a management level. I've felt like I had been given a task to do and had the necessary tools placed just outside my reach. I've lost sleep, been so stressed that I can't concentrate enough to read anything more involved than a magazine article, and have been useless to those around me that count on me. I've had enough. I put in a transfer request at work and it was granted.

I'm a bit apprehensive in that I'm stepping out of a domain that I've operated in for approaching 7 years, forensic treatment, and will be moving to just standard probation. That being said, it feels like the clouds are starting to clear. I'm sleeping a bit better and can actually speak in more than just pidgin English.

Context.

2008-10-14T20:45:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's post was an email from a "Fundamentalist Pentecostal" that I was attempting to engage in discussion about "emergent" christianity. I was tempted to interject commentary into his post to explain what he was responding to. On further thought I decided that might not be the fairest thing to do. I will post my email below.

We had been having an ongoing discussion about the nature of prophecy, among other things. He insists that he is a prophet but hasn't really provided a reason to believe it beyond his assertion that he is a prophet. He claimed to have prophesied the recent stock market crash and wanted me to email a couple he knows to verify he did make the prophesy.

Telling me about something after the fact does me no good. And providing me an email address to a witness does me no good. I don't take the word of anyone unless I know what kind of person they are. I've met some pretty gullible "believers" before. Wanting to believe something is true is a strong motivator in how something is seen or remembered sometimes.

I've met "pastors" that made peoples legs or arms longer and people, good people, participated in it and believed it. The pastors ended up being arrested for embezzlement or beating their wife and what they did is a commonly known parlor trick that just requires the other person it is being done on to believe it is possible.

This is not to say I don't believe in miracles. I've known some good credible witnesses to things before. I believe they are not people that wanted things to happen so much that they would deceive themselves into thinking they did. They also aren't people that make a big deal about it and try to draw a crowd (which I don't find in the Bible. In fact, Jesus made a point of leaving places when he drew a crowd. Regardless of any arguments for why it is done, the matter remains that it's not in the Bible.)

I've also known some people that want things to be true so much that they actually get their memories to make things be true that didn't happen. Nope, these people aren't evil, nor are they "liars". It's just that memory can do that. Although juries like eye witness testimony, it's a known fact in legal circles that eye witness testimony is not a reliable way to prove a case. The witnesses may have seen things wrong, they may remember things a different way than they actually occurred, or they might in the worst possible scenario lie. That's the reason they use CSI type folks, objective evidence, although subject to misinterpretation if one is not careful, cannot change over time like a memory, nor can it lie.

That being said, I'm not trying to argue that what you are saying isn't true. What I am saying is that emails from people I don't know, after the fact, aren't a responsible way for me to find out if it's true or not.

I don't claim to have how prophecy works cornered yet. But, I'm pretty sure that it's not in God's plan to trust what someone says just because they say they are a prophet, especially when they've said things that I know aren't true. How would I know what is said is trustworthy *before* it comes to pass if the sayer has said things and they've been shown to be false?

You've provided me no way to tell if something said is a valid prophecy before it's true. You have said that it's a matter of discernment and that you can do that. Problem there is that I know you've been wrong, so even that apparently doesn't work all the time. (And, if you aren't trying to utilize discernment when you say you get a word, is that a responsible way to operate? It's not like using a God given gift costs you some sort of limited resource.)

Additionally, you've provided no way to determine if someone saying they are prophet is true or not outside of something that we just determined can be wrong, "discernment". In light of the fact that what you seem to be calling discernment fails, that's a scary proposition. I don't think that God leaves us that high and dry if we are without recourse to a specific gifting.

As a purely hypothetical scenario (A big "what if...?") What if you're discernment has failed to the point that you're totally wrong about many things? How would you find out? If some sort of fallible spiritual gift is the *only* way to tell, then you could very well be an agent of the Antichrist. (No, I don't think you're an agent of the Antichrist.)

And, if the gifting is the only way and it is infallible and you do say things without using discernment, seeing that you have the gift, and they are wrong that would strike me as being irresponsible to the point of being bordering on criminal. If that is the only way and you don't do it then you misrepresent God and cause his name to be doubted by saying things are true, that aren't, when you have the capacity to know but you don't take the time.

In the end it's all too subjective for me. There's no way for Joe Blow to tell if something that a prophet says is true or not until it happens. Apparently discernment isn't good enough because it fails on occasion.

What's interesting is that you seem to be so certain about things that are actually subjective. You seem to be setting yourself up as the standard by which things are measured. If you believe something to be true, it is true. If you believe something isn't true, then it's not true. You seem to be drawing a direct connection between what happens in your head and what is true in the outside world.

If you believe it, it is true, if you don't believe it, it is not true. You haven't provided any way to tell if something is true or not outside of you believing it, much less for there to be a way to find out if something is true when you don't believe it.

Is it even possible for something to be true and you not believe it?

If it is not possible, I would argue that is making the standard about what is in your head, not God who is who He is regardless of what anyone thinks.

If it is possible, how could we know if something is true even if you don't believe in it?

Once again, his response was posted yesterday. Granted, from a chronological stand point they're backwards, but they make sense if you read the blog posts from top to bottom. :)

Well, that didn't seem to work.

2008-10-13T21:54:00.001-07:00

I'm thinking I reached an impasse with the fundamentalist fellow. Here's his last message, unedited.

**** Edit. I did edit the post to take out some confusing line breaks that occurred during the cut and past process.

I think I might post my email that the below is a response to in order to provide context.

****

Ray said..... It's all about intimacy with God. We are called to have relationship, not a one way relationship, a two way relationship, we talk, then God talks. Knowledge is not only found in books alone, for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of wisdom.

If you get close enough to God, God will reveal what is truth and what is not, everything can't be proven or disproved with the bible. I feel blessed to have this gift, you can'prove I don't have it, anymore than and I can prove I do, so I guess we will leave it at that.

I don't believe in in post modernism or relativism. It takes faith out of the equation, not t mention truth. These seem to be our fundamentaldifferences, where we can not agree. Emergent does not seem have eyes and ears to hear, spiritually that is. Now more than ever I am convinced of
this.

There is so much more than the graphe alone, the rhema word of God can teach you too. And guide you in ways the bible can't. Holy Spirit can be a GPS if you get close to him. The bible can't tell you whether to turn right or left at the light.

Sorry I can't think in terms of objective reality, because I don'believe in it. And don't tell me it's there whether I believe it or not. To me it's not. That Brother Parick, is a matter of faith. To me imposing your theory of objectivity on our dialog is just polite rational way of trying to beat my faith down, which I'm sure you don't mean to do.

No one can take away what God has spoke to me, you see, I know, that I know, that I know, for the Holy Spirit is my teacher. This has been enlightening though, to peer inside the mind of emergent has been interesting. I feel your arguments over rationalize everything. It makes me wonder how you came to faith in the first place?

And sorry Patrick, I don't buy into your objective reality theory any more that you buy into my beliefs on on the experiential realm. Maybe you don't understand how it works? If you had ever had any similar experiences as I have had, we would be in agreement. The battle has always been with the haves, and have nots since the day of Pentecost. So I guess your right about having honest dialog (shrugs) : ) How can we if we don't believe each other?

It looks to me like emergent has to see with the natural eyes in order to believe anything, even then it may not be real. Defining truths in subjective vs. objective terms is poppycock, nope, it's done through the Holy Spirit. I will stick with my little fundamentalist magic decoder ring, I guess some kids get in their cereal boxes, and others don't : ) I am praying really hard that God will fill you to apostolic proportions, this is the only way that the error in emergent will be revealed to you.

The above was in response to an email where I explained that I wasn't sure that he understood the difference between subjective and objective reality. I kind of think that's important if you're gonna blog about 'absolutes' and 'truth'.

So, apparently reality is subjective, but what he tells me is supposed to carry more weight than just being his opinion. Not quite sure how that is even possible. It's a bit like saying that language is useless for conveying information. Saying it requires the assumption that it is not true.

Maybe I'll get back to blogging now. :)

I'm not dead.

2008-09-23T21:07:00.000-07:00

I have neglected this thing for over a month and I need to get back to it. That being said, I've begun an ongoing dialogue with a self proclaimed "fundamentalist" of the pentecostal variety. We're discussing emergent christianity, the Bible, and various other related topics. Although the different ways of speaking of and perceiving the world have lead to some frustrating moments, for the most part it's been enjoyable.

Here's his blog. It's pretty different from mine, but it might be worth peeking at.

How can we access Grace?

He's agreed to allow me to post our discussion on my blog. I'm not quite sure how to do it though. The current format doesn't really lend itself to easy reading. It began with a block of text. The response has been done by breaking the block up and then posting responses point by point. Then those points were responded to. It gets complicated. I'll figure something out.

Gotta get the album now.

2008-08-16T10:42:00.001-07:00

Granted, this is a home made video that someone cobbled together. I love the song/rap.

The Flobots

Fight with Tools

We are winning

Tinder

2008-08-10T18:55:00.000-07:00

****EDIT... Yes, the quote below actually has something to do with the post. It's not just there to demonstrate how dry the book is.****

The nihilating application of the conceptual machinery is most often used with individuals or groups foreign to the society in question and thus ineligible for therapy. The conceptual operation here is rather simple. The threat to the social definitions of reality is neutralized by assigning an inferior ontological status, and thereby a not-to-be-taken-seriously cognitive status, to all definitions existing outside the symbolic universe.

The Social Construction of Reality

Peter L. Berger & Thomas Luckman

I'm currently reading the above quoted book. Nope, it's not for a class, nor is it for my job. I'm reading it because I want to, sorta. It was referenced in another book that I read a few years ago and I thought it might be a good idea to pick it up. Well, it's a pretty dry read. It's definitely aimed at an academic audience. As I'm continuing to plod through it (only 189 pages. 189 pages packed with an excruciating level of conceptual density) I refer to it as "tinder", a really dry small piece of wood. I'm only reading it on the bus, on the way to work, and hope to finish it soon.

Now, all the griping about the book aside, I saw the sign above as I drove to my in-laws to pick up the dog my wife and I are taking care of for the next two days. I took the picture just as their service was ending and they walked out to their cars. I'm sure they wondered what the big burly fellow in the "geek" t-shirt was doing as he walked up the the sign with his cellphone out.

My question... why are we only praying for the christians? Why aren't we also praying for the Tibetan Buddhists and Falon Gong, not to mention any other ideological groups that are being persecuted? Does their lack of adherence to Christianity make them less human, their suffering less worthy of our attention? Are we secretly happy that those that are competing with us for global ideological market share are encountering opposition? Is their persecution somehow happening because they "oppose" God while our occurs alongside theirs because we are about God's business?

I'm willing to bet that the people attending that congregation are good compassionate people, so I don't want to ascribe specific evil through action or inaction to them. I'm no doubt blind to many systemic evils that participate in on a regular basis (come to think of it, I don't think the coffee I'll be drinking tomorrow when I wake up is fair-trade). That being said, it grieves me to see a church sign that subtly signals that those that don't follow our path are not as worthy of compassion or prayerful consideration when it comes to their suffering because of their beliefs.

Here something I ran into the other day, The Gadfly Project. Apparently a fellow went to China, ostensibly for the olympics, and 'decorated' some hotel rooms in protest of China's persecution of religious groups. I believe he's arranged for the hotel to be compensated for the damage, but is still on the run from Chinese authorities. He twitters a message every few hours.

They made me do it.

2008-08-06T21:00:00.000-07:00

I just got back (less than a week ago) from another trip to San Francisco. I got to spend 5 days with the people at ReImagine. They essentially lead you through a series of spiritual exercises in the context of living out the Gospel in the community in which they live. One of the things they do is have each participant write a poem based on their experiences and then share it at a picnic/poetry slam on the last day. The below is haiku based on my experience. It was inspired by our time spent at the Page Street Center and the Golden Gate Park Botanical Garden. (The picture is a single flower that I found in my yard this summer. There were none like it within sight. I'm not quite sure where it came from, but I saved the seeds.)

If the gardener
Waters and cares for the plant
It is not a weed

Would you buy insurance from this man?

2008-07-16T20:50:00.000-07:00

“As corpses the meant to live; in black they decked out their corpses; out of their speech, too, I still smell the bad odor of death chambers. And whoever lives near them lives near black ponds out of which an ominous frog sings its song with sweet melancholy. They would have to sing better songs for me to learn to have faith in their Redeemer: and his disciples would have to look more redeemed!”

Friedrich Nietzche

Thus Spoke Zarathustra (The Portable Nietzsche)

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Romans 8:18-21

One of my beefs with contemporary Western Christianity is the way it often reduces the Gospel to only one domain, fire insurance. The Good News is apparently only applicable to something totally unfalsifiable, the afterlife. To quote Dr. John Macarthur, Jesus "didn't come to fix life here. He didn't come to eliminate poverty. He didn't come to eliminate slavery." I remember hearing some of my pastors saying that Jesus was “born to die” and that his only purpose was to die for our sins that we might be saved. In short, apparently Jesus didn't come to change anything that can actually be seen, heard, tasted, touched, or felt. He only came to save us from Hell, which none of us has ever seen, and send us to Heaven, which none of us has ever seen.

Here's where my skeptical brain kicks in. How do we know we're not just being sold a bill of goods? Snake Oil? “The Balm of Gilead”? (a nod to my friend Little Miss Mortis) Do we just trust those that tell us we can be “saved” while life, our life, their life, goes on otherwise unchanged? We still go to the same job, eat the same things, dress the same way, spend our leisure time on the same activities, but now we've got a really killer retirement package that we “receive by grace through faith”?

If this is only thing that the “Gospel” is about, doesn't that kind of make a good deal of Jesus' teaching kind of pointless filler? If the Gospel, in it's totality, is about going to Heaven by appropriating God's grace by belief in Jesus' death and resurrection what the heck is the point of the parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matt 25:31-46)? Why worry about most of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) if I've already got all the Gospel has to offer? Apparently, being a peacemaker (Matt 5:9) isn't actually what makes you a child of God. (To be fair, the text does say “Shall be called” not “Shall be”. I guess you can be called one and not be one. I wish Jesus was less confusing on this issue). Are all the interpersonal, social, and moral aspects of the New Testament like optional equipment on a new car, nice to have but not necessary to get you from point A to point B?

I'm thinking this is where I kick the platonic assumptions to the curb. I do believe that Jesus saves us from our sins, but I think He intends to do so in the here and now as well as the sweet by and by. I believe he intends for us to be free from the bondage and consequences of our addiction to consumerism, noise, drugs, lust, the mindless consumption of electronic media, the economic ease and privilege of living at the center of the Empire, etc. now, as well as later.

I refuse to serve a neutered Jesus that has been made in our image and is safe for mass consumption. I don't need a smarmy platitude-spewing Lord that is simply there to give me an eternal pass on all my instances of wrath, greed, apathy, or elitism. I want him to be fierce in my life. Like Aslan in Narnia, I pray that Jesus is good, but not safe for me to spend time with. I want him to destroy my apathy and self-deception to reveal what His Kingdom, what His Gospel is truly about. I want to see the Gospel, the declaration of the ascendancy of a new King, turn the world upside down again, to save people here and now. I want to see Jesus save addicts, mend broken families, reconcile communities, and bring peace to nations. I just pray that I have the courage to walk into that new land when I'm given a glimpse of it. Then, after a long hard fight, I'll take that retirement plan.

Ashes and the Incarnation

2008-07-09T21:27:00.001-07:00

There are fires in Northern California again. They are threatening the East side of Paradise this time. Last time we sheltered at my in-laws house on the East side while we were under evacuation. This time they are under evacuation and staying at a motel while we dog-sit and house some of their sentimental valuables.

The air is horrible. It's consistently rated as hazardous and visibility in the mornings is probably less than a mile. It's hard not to cough breathing the morning air. By afternoon it starts to thin out a bit and it starts all over again at night. Ash is falling from the sky like a light snow. Not so heavy as to cut down on visibility, but enough to always be able to see something falling. It's mostly white with occasional black pieces.

The worst part is the stress. While I'm much better off both physically and psychologically this time it still takes it out of you. My home is relatively safe this time, so I'm still going to work every day. That being said I'm always mindful that things may change at a moment's notice and I'll have to run home (half an hour if I'm at work), grab some clothes, our cats, and the pictures and mementos already in boxes, and get out of town. It makes it hard to relax or really even focus on anything.

One of the things I've noticed is that hearing about something like this on the news does it no justice. When I've heard about wildfires before I've felt compassion for those that were experiencing the crisis, but had no idea what the actual experience was like. I had a fleeting thought about something unpleasant, maybe said a little prayer, or on a really good day make a donation, and then went on with my day. I have to wonder, is that the way I should react to the pain and suffering of others? I imagine that a reaction like that is normal, but does that mean it's the right reaction? These aren't just rhetorical questions. I really don't know the answer.

Is this part of what the Incarnation is about? Was God not willing to just have fleeting thoughts about human suffering that inspired periodic event of compassionate action? Did He find it necessary to enter our world and experience our suffering first hand to truly do right by us? I'm reticent to say that God must do anything, but I wonder.

Finally!

2008-07-03T19:21:00.000-07:00

My sunflowers started blooming today. :)

Back home.

2008-06-16T22:12:00.000-07:00

The precautionary evacuation was lifted yesterday, Sunday. Good thing, because we came back on Saturday night, we just didn't unpack.

When I woke up on Sunday morning I walked outside and the lighting on my nasturtiums was just perfect.

I also took a picture of my sunflowers, first seen as seedlings a few posts back. Some of them are over 6 feet tall now and the main flower bud has just started to develop in a few.

Last year I scattered various wildflower seeds that I bought at various places. This is the only one of this variety that has come up so far. I have no idea what species it is.

And finally, here's a single blue lupine growing in my yard. This picture is a few weeks old. It has since lost it's blooms and gone to seed. I hope to see it again next year.

It's good to be home again. :)

Um, does anyone smell smoke?

2008-06-14T11:14:00.000-07:00

My little corner of the world has been on fire lately. I don't mean this metaphorically either. It's been burning. The Paradise area of California has been experiencing a nasty wildland fire.

Last I read it's consumed 23,000 acres, including over 66 homes, and is taking over 2000 firefighters and 400 fire engines to fight. Good news is that it appears the firefighters turned the corner last night and it went from 15% containment to 35% containment over night.

My residence is still under a "precautionary evacuation" at the writing of this, as there is still active fire a couple of ridges over from our neighborhood. There is still a small chance that the wind will change and cook our neighborhood. That being said, we hope to go home in the next 24 hours. Although my in-laws' house is nice, I want to get back to my own bed. I imagine our cats (currently in a storage room) would like to get back to the house as well.

Mammon, demons, and the State of California

2008-06-03T21:48:00.001-07:00

They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him. This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him any more, not even with a chain. For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.

When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won't torture me!" For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!"

Mark 5:1-8 NIV

Its 2008, we are in the middle of recession and it's budget time in the state of California.

One of the things frequently placed upon the chopping block in situations like this is funding for mental health services. Although this doesn't directly affect my employment, it does directly affect the population with whom I work. Last year I got to witness first-hand the dismantling of a nationally recognized program that assisted the homeless mentally ill population of our community. Several of these people subsequently had negative involvement with law enforcement and the program I work in inherited them.

These people need other people to assist them, at least for a couple of years, in making a workable way of life for themselves. They have real “demons” that need exorcising before they can live a life most people consider normal: having a stable residence where they feel safe to sleep at night and to keep their possessions, having a job that gives them sense of contributing to the world they live in, a caring community of people that don't try to take advantage of them, a sense of wellness that comes from regular meals and the ability to keep up basic hygiene.

In the absence of the assistance that the social services agencies that are being cut provide many of these people will continue to self medicate with illicit drugs, will steal to survive, or to get drunk or high, will live in the small forgotten places of the Empire, and will engage in behaviors that at best we will consider to be bizarre, and at worst will put themselves or others in danger.

We will respond in the only way we will have left. We will incarcerate them. They will be “chained hand and foot”, and they will eventually be released. Then they will go back to living “among the tombs and among the hills” and they will be even more broken than before, and the whole process will begin again.

Now, I don't want to create the impression that I only believe in a metaphorical interpretation of the Gospel, that the only thing we can learn from the story above is compassion. I believe that Jesus was God incarnate. I believe that the story above, or something similar to it, probably actually happened. I think that we all need the love of God that Jesus offers to us. I also believe that we must do what Jesus did. We must seek out the broken and reach out to them in compassion. We must heal the world around us, like Jesus did.

God, teach us that are strong and affluent to suffer, rather than balance our budget on the weak and the broken.

Lazy. No other word for it.

2008-05-27T21:02:00.000-07:00

I have actually gone a whole month without posting anything and I have no good reason for it. I decided to acknowledge my shortcoming by posting this rather than allowing the blog to be left alone. I don't want this to be something I feel increasing shame at each time I think about how long it is since I've posted, and then start avoiding it to avoid the shame.

I *will* make further posts. Those that know me, feel free to bother me if I don't do anything in then next week or so.

Happy Birthday to me!!!

2008-04-30T22:00:00.001-07:00

I had a birthday in recent weeks and the youth group I help with had a surprise belated birthday party for me last Sunday. I got a bunch of stickers to decorate my laptop.

I also got a DVD with the following two creative interpretations of my life.

Not as seen on TV

2008-04-28T18:41:00.000-07:00

Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
1 Corinthians 12:14-26
NIV

I enjoy the TV show Bones . Its not one of those fanatical devotions like I border on for Serenity/Firefly("I aim to misbehave!"). I enjoy the geeky side of with all the 'squints' using there various scientific disciplines to bring different information to the situation until they catch the bad guy.

Even more than that I enjoy the interplay of the characters. Most of the characters are prototypically left-brained analytical types, with a couple of right-brained intuitive types thrown in to balance them out. You have a religious character and a specifically nonreligious character, a socially impaired intellectual and a interpersonally savvy artist, a nice cross-section of personalities and capabilities. They are presented with complicated problems that require them to all bring their gifts to the table and provide a piece of the puzzle that none of the others can touch. None of them can get the job done by themselves. They need each other.

One of the things I appreciate the most about the show is the situations in which a point is glaringly obvious from one character's viewpoint, but the others can't see it unless it is explained to them in detail. One of them might pick up a behavioral cue, or a subtlety of the physical evidence, and another character simply does not have the frame of reference to even understand the point, much less understand its significance. They're specific places in the world allow them to see some things with crystal clarity, leaving them completely blind to others. Despite this, they all get along. They don't seem to take deep offense at another's observations, or lack there of.

I don't know about you, gentle (or not so gentle) reader, but living in community doesn't seem to be this consistently clean and pleasant in real life. I'm occasionally involved in a situation that the different players present experience in different ways. One person may see a particular interaction as particularly profitable, while another might think it laughable or even negative in nature. What one sees as being of value another one sees as ridiculous or meaningless.

Now, I'm not saying this to dismiss those that can't understand what I'm saying. I've been the one devaluing the thoughts of another before. Sometimes I hear people say things that are no doubt meaningful to them, and even others present, but I have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about. Or I may view their thoughts as ignorant or unevolved, and consequently not worthy of my consideration. Ok, who the hell am I? Just because I can't see the value or rationale behind something that in no way means that it doesn't exist.

I need these people. I'm not even close to being omniscient (yet), and they all bring something to the table that I can't. They all provide pieces of the puzzle that I can't get a hand on myself. Just because I can't see something on first blush does not mean it doesn't have value. Hell, if God can speak through a jackass, I imagine God can use a friend or coworker.

I'm a gadfly.

2008-04-08T21:03:00.000-07:00

"You should have eyes that always seek an enemy, your enemy. And some of you hate at first sight. Your enemy you shall seek, your war you shall wage--for your thoughts. And if your thought be vanquished, then your honesty should still find cause for triumph in that. You should love peace as a means to new wars-- and the short peace more than the long." (page 159)

"In a friend one should have one's best enemy. You should be closest to him with your heart when you resist him." (page 168)

"He loves his enemies; this art he understands best of all whom I have ever seen. But he takes revenge for this on his friends." (page 415)

Friedrich Nietzsche

Thus Spoke Zarathustra (The Portable Nietzsche)

Sometimes I wonder if I talk too much. I can remember, when I was younger, actually choosing to talk, not so much as to add to a conversation, but more to seem intelligent. I'm better at judging my motives now, but I don't pretend to be perfect. Now I try to weigh the actual benefit and necessity of my interjection of a new idea or perspective into a conversation before I open my mouth. There are times when, even if I disagree with what is being said, there is no net positive impact to be had from my questioning of or disagreement with others.

Lately I've been speaking up in various contexts a bit more than I have in the past. One situation that I was particularly worried about, actually turned out very well. I was in a group of people discussing church finances and participation in congregational life. When we began to discuss "Best Practices" in getting people to commit I was the final one to speak. I told them that for people of my generation (I was the only person under 40, and just barely at that) it was meaningless to speak of commitment to supporting the congregation outside the context of Mission (what does the congregation stand for and what is it doing in the community?). I was initially gently and gracefully deflected by the leader of the meeting, and then she had to step away for a few minutes. Others present then began to talk about Mission and when the leader returned she began to speak to it's importance as well. I was surprised. If I had done that in my previous religious context, conservative evangelicalism, it would probably have elicited a pretty lively disagreement.

There are those in my life that I do this with on a one-on-one basis, and I can be brutal in my deconstruction of sacred cows. One of my problems is that I enjoy the process. I like to analyze positions and see if I can find cracks in them. I then proceed to see just how big of a crack I can create. I also think turn-about is fair-play. I appreciate those that show me where my blind spots are, where what I have assumed was solid rock is nothing more than paper. A way I describe it to some is that sometimes compassion comes at you with a big knife. I will additionally purposely expose myself to views with which I know I will disagree. I'm not talking about watered down representations, but intelligent, educated, articulate proponents of positions that I disagree with. I figure that if my faith, or view on another topic, is really based on anything of substance it will stand up to the onslaught. I've seemed to survive thus far. I've had to jettison some minor pieces of my world-view that I no longer believed that I could in good conscience support, but I seem to be better for it so far.

When I provide this "service" to my friends I like to think I'm doing them a favor by showing them the weaknesses in their world-views. However, sometimes I wonder if I'm not just going into someone's house, the only place they have to live, and tearing down a few walls, some of them exterior, and then walking away. This is not to mention the fact that I might simply be better at rhetoric than some people, and totally lack the self awareness to know I'm dead wrong.

To speak, or not to speak...? Am I contributing to people's lives, or am I causing destruction, either in self deluded compassion or for my own entertainment? The tension can be taxing. That being said, I think it would be more worrisome if I readily 'knew' the answer.

It's Spring and my sunflower seeds are sprouting.

2008-03-29T22:28:00.000-07:00

Last year I planted a couple of packages of sunflower seeds. I made it a point to let the flowers go to seed, rather than cut them for in the house. I saved the seeds and planted them a couple of weeks ago. They're starting to sprout and I expect to have twice as big a bed of flowers as last year.

One of the most profound experiences of my life was the two year period during which I worked at an university arboretum. I actually got the job off the work-study board in the financial aid department and only tried it because other options didn't work out. I didn't get to any of the office jobs in time, and the job in the library was given to the fellow that walked in the door only a few minutes before me.

I did mundane tasks, like weeding, or cleaning the green houses. With my previous experience working in a hardware store, I got the added bonus of getting to fix problems with the irrigation system. I was taught how to change the shape of entire hillsides to prevent erosion, or to make a garden. I propagated plants from cuttings and harvested seeds for the next generation.

Two full years gave me an opportunity to actually experience the rhythm of the seasons. To watch flowers flourish, die, and go to seed. I got to train rose bushes I planted in trellises into walls of flowers by walking by every few days and taking a few minutes to push new growths back through the boards.

Some of the things I took away from that experience:

1. Sometimes a dream has to die, or at least appear to, in order to actually produce fruit.

2. If you have the patience, you don't have to get the stuff you want fully grown from somewhere else. You just snatch seeds, or cuttings, and grow your own. It may take longer, but it takes a whole lot less money. Not to mention that it's more satisfying.

3. If you pay a little attention to something on a regular basis, that adds up, and you may end up making something beautiful.

I imagine there would be more if I thought more about it.

I've got my new Morning Glory seeds soaking tonight and I will be planting them tomorrow. :)

Does not play well with others

2008-03-23T19:55:00.000-07:00

Its been over two weeks since I slaved over a hot computer long enough to put anything on the ole blog. I really should be more faithful to this. I don't want to be one of those people that starts one of these and then just abandons it in a few months.

I've come to accept the fact that I'm not a people person. I'm not exactly paralyzed by crowds, but I don't like them. I can handle myself in front of a crowd in terms of public speaking. I just don't like being *in* a crowd and expected to interact socially with multiple people for any real period of time. After a short period of time the fragile circuitry in that part of my brain shorts out and I become a snarling dog. If I added alcohol to this, as some of my friends wanted me to, it would be a real mess.

I also can't get into to watching sports. I think it's my inability to enter into some typical group psychologies. I just don't identify strongly with other people playing a game, and am also puzzled by those that do buy in to the point of occasionally being upset by sporting events.

I am however a person person. I do enjoy spending time talking to a person, or a few people. Over dinner, or over a beer, or three. I enjoy intelligent conversation with people that I know will disagree with me and can hold their own. I do like mindless interactions at times, but mostly with people that I already know in significant way. It's not something I do to establish a relationship, its something I do when one already exists.

It kind of puts strain on some of my relationships in that what many people do to relax and get to know others only stresses me and causes me to withdraw. Oh well, I've always been kind of a loner. The trick is to be a loner that stays connected.

Sometimes I forget my place.

2008-03-06T21:05:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm alive. I'm recovering from an embarrassingly ineffectual battle against the latest version of the common flu. I haven't been that sick since I was a kid living with my parents (two decades ago). I ran a fever for close to a week with a peak temperature of 103.4. Not high enough to bring on the hallucinations and delirium of my childhood fevers, but enough to inspire small spells of bizarre behavior like repeatedly touching things on the bathroom counter. It was curious to be crazy enough to do that, but to be sane enough to eventually realize it was crazy. I ended up going to the doctor and getting a shot of antibiotics, a course oral antibiotics, an inhaler for my shortness of breath, and some wonderful codeine laced cough syrup that probably had high abuse potential.

Occasionally I get a reminder of how small and fragile human life is. Normally it comes when I see the ocean, get away from the light pollution and see the Milky Way sprawled across the night sky, or look out across the Sacramento Valley through the clear cold air at the snow covered Coastal Range after a nasty winter storm. This time was less pleasant. I was laid low by something higher up on the food chain than I am. We prey on just about every other creature on the planet. Viruses, to my knowledge, have no natural enemies, and we are their food and breeding ground. Thank God for modern medicine.

Probably the most frustrating part of being sick was the social isolation. I'm actually pretty close to being a loner in that I don't crave or (up for debate) need validation from other people. That being said, I'm very invested in the concept of community, interconnectedness, and interdependence. My wife and I were treated very well by those we know during this time. Many people brought us food but out of our desire to keep the infection from spreading, we had them leave it on the porch and we would pick it up after they left. Not much in the way of significant social interaction.

I've missed the interplay, the small course changes in plans or thought caused by interacting with others. Nudges in either the right direction, or maybe in the wrong way to keep me on my toes. I think better around other people, people to question my actions and assumptions. I guess the best way to describe it is that I'm more alive when I'm interacting with other people than when I'm off by myself for too long.

I've converted.

2008-02-21T15:01:00.000-08:00

I've seen the light and now have a personal relationship with Mac.

This was shamelessly stolen from my favorite webcomic (sorry Jonathan) Penny Arcade .

EDIT*** OK, the sizing is a bit off. I'm new to this Mac thing. :)

Is this the end, or the beginning?

2008-02-16T20:12:00.000-08:00

Walking down the street, Jesus saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked, "Rabbi, who sinned: this man or his parents, causing him to be born blind?" Jesus said, "You're asking the wrong question. You're looking for someone to blame. There is no such cause-effect here. Look instead for what God can do. We need to be energetically at work for the One who sent me here, working while the sun shines. Whe night falls, the workday is over. For as long as I am in the world, there is plenty of light . I am the world's Light."

John 9:1-5
The Message

Just got back from San Francisco yesterday. First a shout out to Blank Frank (his blog is listed on the right of the page, the "Ex-con" one.). Frank by the time I got to Turk I was too stinkin' tired to walk to Taylor. Next time I walk 4 1/2 miles in SF I'm not gonna wear boots. I yelled your name at Turk and Hyde.

I went with some friends to visit a community that calls itself ReImagine. They are essentially a church without a building, a group of people that have chosen to live in close proximity to one another in an intentional (as in specifically chosen and willed) community and try to live in the way of Jesus. They meet on a weekly basis for a hospitality night, share a meal, and discuss their faith and journey together.

Two noteworthy things happened while we were there. Mark Scandrette, the founder (along with his wife) of the community, made us awesome whole-wheat banana and chocolate crepes for breakfast.

Secondly, we went on a prayer walk starting in The Mission District, through The Castro, and ending in The Tenderloin. It was suggested that you periodically stop and reflect on what you'd seen. In some of the areas it was really easy to see darkness, to see the brokenness of the world. We saw addiction (drugs, sex, consumerism), mental illness, apathy, economic disparity and injustice. It would not take much work to see some of the situations as hopeless.

Two things you were to consider were how God was already present and working in the situation and to view everyone, even those that are so easy to judge as the maker of their circumstance, as worthy of God's love and our love. At the end each participant (except Joshua, who is a lazy bum) wrote a poem based on their experience. Such as it is, find mine below.

Cherry blossoms and concertina wire
Buddhist temples in Lutheran castles
Freedom from fear and t-shirt rainbows
Open Bible locked on Fridays
This is not the end
This is only the beginning

No drug reps were harmed in the making of this post.

2008-02-12T19:30:00.000-08:00

If you've ever wondered why prescription medications are so expensive I've got the answer. Popcorn. Well, that, and clipboards, and coffee cups, and neat little folding cubicle calendars, and clocks, and computer mouses with floating plastic fish in them, and pens. I mean really nice pens, the sort that you get angry at yourself for losing.

Today, all over the United States pharmaceutical reps walked into doctor's offices and clinics and dropped of tons of free swag with their products name on it. I should know because I picked up about 20 nice pens and 4 packages of microwave popcorn at a local Behavioral Health office and redistributed it to my coworkers back at the office. I've also been invited back to the office for when the company rep is going to feed them in a few weeks and give his speal about how great their drug is. You should see the stacks of stuff these guys give away. My insulated plastic coffee mug that I use on daily basis was picked up from a rep. One of my clipboards, a lovely blue plastic one with a green clip, came from a rep. My sticky notes (I'm nearly out) came from a drug rep. And all my best pens. Some of them are metal ones that are made to accept ink refills when they run out. It's crazy.

I just read online that drug companies spend anywhere from 7% to 30% of their sales on advertising. Let's assume for a minute that its only 7%. What the hell do their sales figues have to look like for all the swag I see given away only add up to 7%?

Anyway, here's a package of popcorn that I picked up today. Read the label.

It is comforting to know that there is no active drug in the popcorn. I do believe they left some of the inactive variety in there for flavoring. Hmmmmmm.... that's good psychotropic popcorn.

AND....

I love Mr. Deity. I actually enjoyed the first season more than the second, current one. The second season just hasn't seemed to match up, until this one. This is what I've come to expect from that crew.

What I like about the show is that it's intelligent and irreverent without being disrespectful. You can tell that the writer(s) are fairly theologically literate and have really wrestled with the issues presented. God bless these guys, even if they don't know what to think of God. :)

From Crackle: Mr. Deity and the Good - Season 2, Ep 8

***EDIT

There's two things that I don't like. It's when someone sensationalizes while discussing an issue, and the other is when someone doesn't think about what they say. I did both above. I should have said that the swag given away is *one*of*the*reasons* pharmaceuticals are so expensive, rather than it being "the answer" to the issue.

Secondly, I'm sure than swag only makes up a portion of the advertising budget. There are TV commercials intended to get us to hound our doctors about medications when we don't even really know what the hell they do. I also wonder how they classify the expenditures on dinners and cocktails for doctors and lunches given at clinics. Is that "advertising" per their definition.

They will know we are Christians by our doctrine?

2008-02-11T19:14:00.001-08:00

I have to credit my friend Jonathan for the title of this one.

"To love is to know God precisely because God is love. The emerging community, at its best, can teach us again that love must be the first word on our lips and also the last, and that we must seek to incarnate that sacred word in the world. I recently heard a well-known speaker say that if faith does not cost us something, than it is nothing. Only much later could I respond: if faith does not cost us everything, it is nothing. Orthodoxy as right belief will cost us little: indeed, it will allow us to sit back with our Pharisaic doctrine, guarding the 'truth' with the purity of our interpretation. But orthodoxy, as believing in the right way, as bringing love to the world around us and within us... that will cost us everything. For to live by that sword, as we all know, is to die by it."

(pg. 3)
How (Not) to Speak of God
by Peter Rollins

I'm starting the above book, and just ten pages into it its helping crystallize and articulate things that have been rolling around in my head for years. Its good stuff.

I remember when I was in college taking History of the Ancient World. We began to discuss the Torah (first five books of the Tanakh, or Old Testament) from an historical stand point. The professor pointed out that the language used at times (e.g. "no other gods before me" in the Ten Commandments), seemed to indicate that the author may have believed in the existence of many deities, but chose to worship only YHWH. In short, Moses, or whoever wrote the books in question, was not a monotheist, that individual was what is termed a henotheist. Well, this thought bounced around for a few minutes in my little modernist "the Bible is inerrant" brain, knocked some stuff over, and was promptly expelled. (I will not presume that any inerrantist cannot deal with this issue. It is to say that I could not deal with the issue at the time).

It brought to mind whether Abraham was monotheist, not to mention a host of other characters. Could these great men of faith, my spiritual fore bearers, have walked in such great error? What about David's Mighty Men, who supported him in administering his kingdom? Was it time and effort spent in vain on their part? Did they just die and go to hell? (I know, no concept of Heaven or Hell yet.)

As I've grown older and learned more the issues only become more muddied and the previously sharp lines between categories of "Christian" and "Nonchristian" have become like pencil marks rubbed with a wet thumb.

The early Christians did not have a cohesive New Testament that we so readily refer to now. They had a multiplicity of books that circulated, some of which we now recognize as part of the Canon, and others we do not, like the Gospel of Peter with its giant angels and talking cross and the Gospel of Thomas with naked sayings of Jesus with no framing narrative. For the sake of discussion let us put these aside and deal only with the canonical gospels.

Mark has a very spare christology. It would be difficult to derive the Deity of Christ if all you had was Mark's account. Additionally the oldest manuscripts of Mark hint at the resurrection but leave out some of the meatier stuff.

What if you were stuck with Mark, like some communities probably were? What if you believed in Jesus' teaching and his sacrificial death, but weren't quite sure about the resurrection and had no concept of him being the Incarnation of God? Would that be enough?

Was the possibly henotheist faith of Moses enough? The even more probably henotheistic (?polytheistic?) faith of Abraham enough? What of the loving service of David's Mighty Men as they served him, as he served his God?

Now, some of my conservative evangelical brethren (and sistren?) would readily say that the Christians that had no faith beyond the words of Mark sadly went to Hell. They would probably do the same thing with David's fellows. Moses and Abraham would be a bit stickier, in that they are affirmed as men of faith in the Bible. This might be dealt with by an adamant insistence that they were monotheists, otherwise they wouldn't be described the way they were. Who knows, maybe that's all right. They might make a loophole declaring a different "dispensation" for that period of history. It was ok back then, but we can't get away with it now.

Let me suggest another possibility. Maybe we always have and always will struggle to know God for who He is. Maybe we still see through a glass darkly and only know in part (1 Cor. 13:12). Maybe its more about doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God (Mic. 6:8) rather than being absolutely certain about all the details.

Yes, I know by definition its propaganda.

2008-02-05T20:59:00.001-08:00

This is technically propaganda, then again the Gospels are technically propaganda too.

It's damned good propaganda. I get teary eyed when I watch it. That's probably because I'm a ninny.

Its been snowing in Paradise.

2008-02-03T22:34:00.000-08:00

Its been snowing here lately, never really enough to shut the town down. I love the snow. I'm not quite sure why beyond the color. I think it has something to do with how it dampens the noise and keeps you from seeing long distances. It seems to make the world smaller, simpler, and less harsh.

What does that say about me? Hmmmm....

Ick Theology

2008-01-28T19:04:00.000-08:00

Referencing my previous post, what I'm going to talk about is something I've talked about with others before.

On the way home from work today I stopped at an intersection behind someone who had one of those placards on their car that shows a "Truth Fish" eating a "Darwin Fish". I tried to take a picture of it with my cell phone but was unsuccessful because the car began moving just as I snapped the pic. The picture to the left is something that I found on a Google search for "Truth Fish".

Its interesting how symbols can change in meaning over time. Mind you, this can happen when the text book definition of the symbol remains the same. Added cultural baggage and a different context can radically change the connotation of the symbol, even if the verbal information it stands for doesn't change one iota.

The Ichthus fish is a symbol derived from the acrostic of the Greek phrase "Jesus Christ God's Son Saves." The first letters: Iota, Chi, Theta, Upsilon, Sigma, spell the word "ichthus", greek for fish. During the first and second centuries the fish symbol was used by the followers of Jesus to identify each other in a way that would not signal outsiders as to their true allegiances. Christians were seen as irreligious "atheistic" rebels that would not engage in the civil religion of the Roman Empire. It wasn't particularly wise to advertise your religious, and quite frankly political, affiliations openly in such a context. A way that Christians would identify themselves to each other was to scratch the outline of a fish in the dirt or on a wall and see how other people would react to it. Those in the know would recognize the one making the symbol as a brother or sister and know they could openly discuss their belief in the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Those not in the know would think they were hungry for fish and chips that evening. :)

Now the fish is an open show of solidarity with one's coreligionists. It is an expression that "Yes, I'm a Christian and I'm proud of it." And, in the case of the "Truth Fish" above, it's and assertion that "we will overcome you", an assertion of dominance. My experience, which is admittedly not universal in scope, has been that such a fish belongs to someone that wants to see "Christian Morality" (often synonymous with a Far Right political agenda) made the imposed and enforced norm for American society. In a country that is, regardless of the decline of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, primarily "Christian" this can be kind of scary to the nonchristian, or even those Christians that are not Far Right in their views. (Ah, to be fair, the "Truth Fish" is a response to the "Darwin Fish", that is actually probably a product of the fear I just mentioned.)

The Ichthus fish has evolved from a clandestine form of communication between the members of a peaceful persecuted minority, to a declaration of cultural superiority and a promise that you will be eaten if you oppose us. Ok, maybe not eaten, maybe just nibbled upon. :)

"There is nothing new in my head", um I meant "under the sun."

2008-01-28T18:51:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine recently pointed out that I'm not discussing anything new in my blog. Everything I've posted has been something I've discussed with him before. He's probably right. I'm a collector of ideas, most of them not terribly new. I can live with that.

Thinking about my intent in doing this, I imagine its mostly about learning how to make sense to other people. I've got a lot of stuff rolling around in my head that I need to learn how to put out there in an intelligible form. That's not about a presumption that what I'm thinking has any objective value to it, it's more that I need to converse with someone to move forward. In good old Nietzchian fashion, I need someone to war with me, to vanquish my ideas when they are weak.

Hehe.... like anyone is reading this. :)

Midday in the Garden of Good and Evil

2008-01-22T19:40:00.000-08:00

A few years ago I went to a largish conservative evangelical church in a largish town in Northern California. One Sunday a group was stationed in the foyer registering voters and passing out voter guides. When I read the guide it advocated for traditional "Christian values" and provided suggested votes on various propositions up for consideration.

One issue discussed was a proposition that would put a 1% tax on any personal income above 1 million dollars and put that money towards providing services for the state's mentally ill population. It would be used to fund programs that I had seen work. Opportunities for them to obtain stable housing, supportive community services, or divert them to treatment rather that to jail when they encountered the criminal justice system.

I have come into regular contact with this population for years and have seen programs like this change people's lives. I've also seen programs like this dry up and blow away as they are written out of the budget on a state level, leaving the previous recipients of services to fend for themselves, sometimes leading to further negative involvement with the criminal justice system. Trust me, no one saves money by sending these people through the court system, paying for the time of the judge, attorneys, clerks, bailiffs, and probation officers, as well paying for housing in the jail (often times single celled due to behavioral issues, and requiring special medical attention), and maybe later prison. This is not to mention the moral concerns of criminalizing mental illness.

The voter guide advocated for voting against the proposition. It offered that we should not put a 1% tax on the rich for the sake of the mentally ill because they did not feel that the money already given was well used by the state mental health system.

What does that have to do with being a Christian? How does that position express the values of the Kingdom of God?

"Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!" At that moment the spirit left her."
Acts 16:16-18 NIV

Put yourself in the situation. You've got a girl who is being exploited by someone else, is apparently demonized, and is engaged in fortune telling for the profit of her masters. If we set aside the controversy over whether there are actually personal evil spirits (I tend to think there might be) and whether fortune telling is wrong (I tend to think any attempt to gain insider info is egoistic) and grant them, simply for the sake of argument, the value that the writer seems to place upon them, there is something further to consider. The girl is telling bystanders to listen to what you are saying. What do you do? It's simple to look at the text and give the answer already provided, but that would be cheating. :) Remember, it took several days of Paul being troubled before he knew what to do.

Do you tell others not to listen to her, thus causing onlookers to wonder what to do with the fact that she is advocating for you? Does this mean they should or shouldn't listen to you? After all, look at what you do to those who advocate for you?

Do you do nothing and simply accept her acclamation? This might be perceived as a validation of her fortune telling, and a tacit acceptance of her demonization and status as an exploited slave.

Or do you do what Paul does and take the time to ferret out the evil from the good, explicitly reject what is wrong in the situation and redeem what is worth saving?

It's all too easy for us to be robbed of the truth when its made to walk along side a lie. When presented with stewardship of the environment coupled with a deification of the same we often fail to separate the two. We might either reject stewardship because we don't want to worship nature, or take care of the earth because "She is our Mother."

We can marry the immorality of drug or alcohol use to the addiction that is both the cause and effect of it and either absolve the addict of the responsibility for the consequences of his actions as a victim of circumstance or brand him an unredeemable criminal who should simply receive the the punishment due his crime.

We can mistake the religious rhetoric of the far political Right coupled with civil religion for the voice of God, or we can react to this melange of political ideology and religion and in our compassion reject any religious affiliations or thoughts and buy the party line of the political Left.

We can equate legitimate struggle with questions on the nature of a prepackaged (correct or not) view of God (or Scripture, or Church, etc.) with rejection of obvious "Truth", or assume that matters of faith are not worth consideration because of the mindless acceptance of oversimplified positions we can encounter.

We like simple answers so we gravitate to the poles on the scale. We want shortcuts to being right. We want someone to chew our food for us.

You know, life used to be so simple....

2008-01-16T20:39:00.000-08:00

"It is, unfortunately, one of the abiding temptations of pastors and scholars to reduce Jesus to words alone, to replace a lived life with a preached sermon or an interesting idea. To remove, however, that which is radically subversive, socially revolutionary, and politically dangerous from Jesus' actions is to leave his life meaningless and his death inexplicable. "

pg. 93
Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography
By John Dominic Crossan

Although I would never have articulated it as such, for fear of being branded a person of little faith, or more accurately, incorrect faith, I used to wonder why they killed a platitude spouting Jesus that just wanted us to be nice to each other and consider the lilies.

I'm trying to figure out what it is for *me* to follow Jesus in this day and age. What sacrifices am I called to make for the sake of seeing God's Kingdom, or Dream, come to pass in the world that I've been planted in. Will it require some form of civil disobedience? Will it lead me into opposition to people that I've come to respect and spent years cultivating relationships with?

I'm considering going back to school and getting a Master's in Social Work. I'm beginning to contemplate how much that process will likely change my life. I may have to switch jobs to employment that is more conducive to going to school, which will more than likely mean a decrease in pay. This will be coupled with trying to find a creative way to pay for school on top of my normal expenses. Most probably there will be no reading outside of my coursework for three years. And the stress.....

All I know for certain is that I'm tired of being where I am in my life. Its time for some sort of change.

Snow on the good and bad, the nice and nasty.

2008-01-11T21:57:00.000-08:00

Today it snowed in Baghdad for the first time that anyone living there can remember, some say maybe a century.

People woke each other in the early morning hours to make sure the could share the experience, and as in the attached picture, parents took their children out to walk in the drifting snowflakes. One college student said "I rushed quickly to the balcony to see a very beautiful scene... I tried to film it with my cell phone camera. This scene has really brought me joy. I called my other friends and the morning turned to be a very happy one in my life."

News reports related that some people wondered aloud if it was a sign from God. They additionally reported no known incidents of violence in the city.

The final paragraph of the Associate Press article read:
"For a couple of hours anyway, a city where mortar shells routinely zoom across to the Green Zone became united as one big White Zone. As of late afternoon, there were no reports of violence. The snow showed no favoritism as it fell faintly on neighborhoods Shiite and Sunni alike, and (with apologies to James Joyce) upon all the living and the dead."

It reminded me of something else I had read:
"You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone give you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best-- the sun to warm and the rain to nourish-- to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal" Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that."

Matthew 5:43-47 (The Message)

The snow fell on everyone, insurgent and soldier, Iraqi civilian and American contractor, and for a short while there was peace. May God grant peace to the people of Iraq.

Biology, Psychopathy, and the Kingdom of God

2008-01-09T19:43:00.001-08:00

I work with criminals. To be more specific I work with people negatively involved with the criminal justice system that have documented mental health issues. An interesting and frustrating group of people. The team I'm part of tries to tailor a specialized treatment plan to help them achieve a better quality of life and integrate into society in a way that isn't destructive to them or those around them.

Well, sometimes we run into someone that doesn't respond to treatment and they continue to move through the world violating the rights and persons of others.

I've got someone on my caseload who may be a psychopath. Now that's actually not quite as scary as it sounds. "Psychopath" as a category has gotten a bad rap due to it's misuse in modern media (TV and movies). The quick and dirty of it is someone that doesn't have a innate sense of morality like most of us. They understand the rules, but they don't find themselves invested in playing by them. The know the song, but they can't hear the music. That doesn't mean they are going to kill anyone. It does however mean you might not want afford them the same level of trust you would most people.

Now back to this fellow. We sent him away for evaluation and the report that was returned to us has all three evaluating parties recommending a prison sentence. Based on this report our team has to make a recommendation to a judge as to what should be done with him.

Is sending him to prison at all redemptive? Yes, I know he won't be victimizing regular citizens for the time he's behind bars. And I know that it will make some people feel better that he will be "paying for his sins" as it were. But is this working towards a solution to the issue?

It appears that his brain doesn't work in the same way as the rest of us, and quite possibly never will. Will a prison sentence profit him or anyone around him in the long run? Is this simply deferring a debt at a high interest rate? We send away a baby shark and in a couple of years the community gets a great white shark instead. Rather than helping anyone, victims or perpetrator, are we just continuing to aid in solidifying his character as a predator? If we're not going to gloss over issues like this and respond in an intelligent and redemptive way, what are we to do?

Vanity of Vanities, All is Vanity

2008-01-08T21:12:00.000-08:00

My wife and I got our Christmas presents today in the mail. She got an I Love Lucy ornament and I got a mug and a pack of gum. Initially I considered opening the pack and chewing some, but then thought "What's the point anyway?"

It's even got a catchy slogan on the back. "We don't believe in flavor."

I've got one week to prepare a lesson on the book of Daniel, and I still don't have a clue on what I'm going to talk about. The section is entitled "Hope". I need to read the section of the book and then see what it stirs up. If it covers what I think it does I might try to pull in some of what John D. Caputo talks about in What Would Jesus Deconstruct?, with his discourses on the im/possible. If we conceive how to get there (the future) from where we are do we really even need God in the situation? The concept of the Kingdom of God seems predicated on the goal being impossible, and it is in that impossibility that the Kingdom becomes possible. That is hoping against hope. Heck, it seemed to make sense when Caputo wrote it. :)

It's a new year.

2008-01-05T19:23:00.000-08:00

Its a new year and everyone is making resolutions. I guess this is as good a time as any to turn over a new leaf and start blogging. I've grown tired of how much time I waste playing inane games and watching even more inane television and I've resolved to increase the portion of my life that I dedicate to things of value. Things that show a return on the investment of time one places in them. I don't know that this will pan out, but I'm gonna give it a go.

I've just gotten finished reading What Would Jesus Deconstruct? by John D. Caputo. Its been a while since I've read a book that resonated so much with what I see in the world around me, or maybe more accurately what I see myself seeing in the world around me. :) It was a curious process, reading the book. The old conservative evangelical that depends on propositional truth continues to live in the back of my head. As I read he continued to say that some of the more interesting parts were simply word salad (eg. the possible impossible, or the non/step). I didn't know the old codger (the conservative) was still so alive and well back there. I imagine some of the thoughts I entertain these days scare the living shit out of him. :)

I've just started Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan. The first portion of the book is a bit frustrating in that he takes generalizations about First Century Mediterranean society and assumes that they are an accurate portrayal of First Century Jewish culture. Not quite sure how painting with such a broad brush will ever lead to an accurate picture of a specific instance. That being said, I found his parallels between the gospel infancy accounts and contemporary Jewish literature very interesting.

Well, I think this is all I'm gonna get out of my brain for the evening. I hope I actually work on this and don't just let it fade into the nothingness.