Jesus and his dog...

Jesus has his attack dog take out Santa...

Good dog.

Goth Jesus

Don't know why but these Jesus (and Mary) statues that pop up over the holidays are kinda freaky (like clowns are freaky):

Another sad sandwich...

This one from Burger King. Here is what is advertised:

Here is what I got:

Pathetic.

Not sure why I expect anything more. Assembly line process using pre-packaged food by assembly line workers who'd rather be somewhere else.

Went to Panera the other day and paid way too much for a sandwich that didn't look much different than this.  When we went to inquire the guy behind the counter said that's all they are supposed to put on it.  I exchanged it.


Pathetic, that's what it is...

Is Jesus enough?

Gary North is son-in-law of R.J. Rushdoony, the "father of Christian Reconstructionism."

Pick out those troubling verses in the Hebrew Bible - all of them - and imagine them being implemented. No more shrimp and lobster for you!

Here's his solution to cursing one's parents:

"When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). - Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), pp. 59-60

Is Jesus enough?

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant – baptism and holy communion – must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision."

- Gary North, from The Myth of Pluralism (bold italics mine)

Seems to me that this is the very same elevation of the concept of "law" that got Jesus crucified.

Next time you read Paul's writings about the law, grasp them not as speakign of "Jewish law" (an almost caricature about his writings on law) but view them in light of the law in general. His writings are quite penetrating and relevant when viewed this way.

We are once again becoming (or have become) a society not of freedom but of laws.

The law is not the solution; Jesus is. And the law is not the way to introduce people to Jesus. The failue is not the law; the failure is the church (i.e. his body, i.e. his followers).

Alternative to capitalism?

What is the alternative to capitalism? The Kingdom of God.

Sounds simple, no? But it depends on your view of the Kingdom. Is it something far off in the future, something that come 'later' when we are long gone? Or is its potential a present reality?

Our view determines our embrace of capitalism's creedo that more (money, stuff, etc.) is better.

I am not saying other 'human' institutions and -isms are better, not at all (nor am I saying that capitalism is the best). Human institutions are all, to use a King James-ism, "vanity" because, well, ultimately they are made up of humans.

While I support the Occupy Wall Street concept, the danger in protests and the drive for change is determining what outcome is expected. This may sound obvious but a protest may start out of anger, out of blame, but it must have a goal to carry on or it just becomes a repository of various angers and will ultimately turn ugly.

What are the goals? To teach greedy folks values and ethics? To look out for the little guy (who may, in essence, long for the very same thing against which they protest)? Legislative change? Redistribution of wealth via government agency?

The Kingdom, however, is not of this world. But it affects change in the world as it is through us that the preparation is made. If we 'sell out' to capitalism, even as a compromise or conciliation, what do we have left for the kingdom?

I see this as a polarity. For every ounce of energy we give over to capitalist pursuit we have that much less energy for the things of the Kingdom.

We have the capacity to display the Kingdom, not through material means, but by our hearts and our relationships with people. The kingdom is within you is not the mystical 'divine spark' that many use as an excuse to opt out of religion and out of relating to others altogether. It is more accurate to say it is 'among' us in the sense of community.

The Kingdom. The body of Christ. It is not about us. It is about Him.

The Kingdom is here, though in a limited sense, but it is present. The goal is 'on earth as it is in heaven' and that means heaven, not earth, is the model. The more we begin to understand the Kingdom, the less fettered we will be by the creed of capitalism or any other human creed.

Alzheimer's and the Bible

Somehow or other I got into a discussion with someone close to me about what Scripture says about Alzheimer's (which is not in the Bible, at least know that I know of...). I pointed out that perhaps it's because the lifespan of people in Biblical times was far less than that of the lifespan of people in "Western" nations.

I've seen estimates of 40 years old, give or take, for the average lifespan of a person in Biblical times. This would go a long way toward explaining why there is no mention of a disease like Alzheimer's.

This person blurted out that people in Biblical times lived to 900 years old. I had to bite my tongue.

Do I believe people lived to be 900 and that it was only after the flood that changed? Not literally. Could be but I don't rely on it either way for my faith. If it's true, cool; if it's not, not a game changer.

Does that mean I have less faith because I question or seek alternative explanations? I don't really think so. My motive for questioning is not to discredit or to disprove anything (though that's always a possible outcome) but reconciliation. For hundred, even thousands, of years, the average lifespan of a human being is nowhwere near the ages of the "older" stories in the Bible.

In light of these facts, those ages seem, well, mythical. So I seek the symbolism, the message they are trying to convey, rather than trying to hold them up as scientific fact (and creationism, to me, seems like a pathetic child clamoring for attention and validation).

I tend toward historicity; others tend toward accepting what the Bible says. At this point, there are two options: debate or just let it go. I opted for the latter.

Either way, I think it brings to light the fact that living to older ages is not without serious consequences and drawbacks. Perhaps all the Bible is trying to say is that our bodies are designed to only live for so long; they are not meant, in their current state, to live a long time.

"As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, Or if due to strength, eighty years, Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; For soon it is gone and we fly away." (Psalms 90:10)

Psalms speaks of 70 years and, by and large, that seems a reasonable estimate to having lived a full life. Not sure if the writer is speaking for all people or if he is speaking from his surroundings in the court. What about the common people? The writer makes no distinction. There are many who live to be older (80, in good health, the Psalms says) and live rich, rewarding lives; however, there are many who don't.

Whether people lived to be 900 or not, it's certainly a conversation starter and perhaps in any debate on the matter there is wisdom to be found.

Map of the World - USA Edition

Found this on the web, made me laugh out loud...

A taste of my own medicine...

I was looking for something on my blog and did a Google search (where else?) and stumbled across a paper someone had done for school about Christopher McCandless where my blog was quoted.

Quite a surprise.  What was even more surprising was the "interpretation" of my post.  Here is the piece (with my corrections in brackets):

Many people believed and looked at Chris as a hero and a person to look up to [they must've missed this quote of mine: "But he was not a hero. There was no glorifying his tale."]. In a blog [post, singular] written entirely about him, the author, an average man, lived and traveled the same as Chris McCandless throughout his entire life  [it was a brief period of time in my life].

He graduated high school at the same time and his parents are the same as Chris'. He has all the things in the world that Chris did: a savings account, a new car and all the stuff he got he didn’t really want [while there were similarities there were also huge differences, especially familial]. 

"I have a soft spot for Christopher McCandless. Without being too sentimental, I can honestly say he may have saved my life. I was the typical suburban dreamer, longing of living in the mountains, or moving to Tibet, being free and on the road. As Christopher McCandless learned, too late, it is hard. And, in the end, what really matters is not being self-sufficient but being interdependent upon others" (“Into the Wild”).

This man lived the same teen years as Chris did, too. He was going through family struggles, and wanting to move on and get away. The guy traveled with his wife [ex-girlfriend, mostly solo], meeting new people in Colorado, Montana and South Dakota. He loved Chris McCandless [captivated is not the same as loved] and his story and he wanted to live like him [it wasn't until Krakauer's book was published that I realized the details of the journey he had taken] in order to also be freed of his previous existence.

He gives Chris credit for saving his life, and by following his Chris’ story [I didn't follow his story; everything in the post was in retrospect], he made it through life without failing [he must've missed the other blog posts about how my downward spiral came after my journey...].

"The book is a great read (though it is as much about the author as it is about McCandless) and the movie is stunning. I cried several times during the film, something quite rare, though it had more to do with my process of healing, film as mirror, than it did a concern for the character in the film. It comes highly recommended" (“Into the Wild”).

By reading this book when going through life like Chris did [my story took place up until 1994; the book was published in 1997], it helped the author take a risk he had been previously unwilling to take [it was a calculated risk; the drugs were probably the greatest impetus to getting me on the road]. 

It helped him get through his negative feelings by relating to what Chris had done [I was aware of the end result of his journey; I knew nothing about his personal life until I read the book many years later].

Chris McCandless's story of following his ideals makes him an inspiration because he convinced other people to go pursue the lives that they had always dreamed of [we had parallel paths with different outcomes].

I did not find in him inspiration; I found in him a cautionary tale.

It's kind of cool to be quoted, I have to admit.

It's also interesting to see how one's meaning can be interpreted in a completely different fashion than the one intended.

It made me smile...irony indeed.

Bliss...

Source

Confederate Christian Nationalism...

When I considered that some of the home schooling that occurs in this country bears a peculiar Christian stamp to it that is reminiscent of the more fanatical madrassas that bear the name of Islam, I had no idea that it ran much deeper than I imagined...

"...the theological war thesis originated in texts by theologians who between them contended that the Confederacy comprised an orthodox Christian nation, at times intertwining this religious viewpoint with, amongst other things, defences of slavery, denunciations of public education and mass schooling, and proposals to maintain a hierarchical and unequal society."

Full text can be found here:

Confederate Christian Nationalism

Home schooling the equivalent of Islamic madrassas?

Rousas John Rushdoony, credited as the father of Christian Reconstructionism (a term that should scare the be-Jesus out of you) wrote that interracial marriage [is] "unequal yoking" [and] should be made illegal. He also opposed "enforced integration", referred to Southern slavery as "benevolent", and said that "some people are by nature slaves". (Source)

Ah, yes, the good ol' days of America. I would be in jail.

It gets better (don't miss the appropriately intoned sarcasm there...).

According to Right Wing Watch, John Eidsmoe, Michele Bachmann's mentor at Oral Roberts University, quotes Rushdoony in his book God and Caesar:

"The world moreover cannot be surrendered to Satan. It is God s world and must be brought under God's law politically economically and in every other way possible."

Turns out he shares the Reconstructionist ideology as well as does, in turn, Bachmann and similar ilk. Granted, just because someone holds similar views thrice removed from the founder does not mean they share all the same views. However, there is a family tree that is troubling.

And let's forget some other signs that the apocalypse will be upon us soon.

Bachmann recently signed a pledge on marriage that states that a

"black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA's first African American President."

Of course, the statement has since been removed. They have not denied that it was wrong; they removed it because it was controversial.

Here is the whole story.

Finally, let's not forget the story circulating that the Tea Party recently booted Eidsmoe from a recent rally because of his ties to White Supremacist groups.

According to Right Wing Watch:

Eidsmoe has spoken before the League of the South, tagged by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group because it believes slavery was ordained by God. He's also spoken at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, which opposes racial integration; has compared Michael Jackson to an ape, referred to blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity," and says America should "remain European in character," according to the SPLC.

"Eidsmoe doesn't just flirt with white supremacists, he regularly speaks to them," said SPLC research director Heidi Beirich.

(Source)

In his defense, as noted in a parenthetical in a recent New Yorker article, Eidsmoe states that he deeply despises racism and will speak to anyone.

However, I get the vibe that home schooling is indoctrination and is, in essence, akin to the madrassas in Afghanistan.

When I add up all the pieces I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between what's coming and Sharia law. Hopefully my math is wrong.

I may soften my tone a bit as I consult other sources to balance the "facts" quoted above; however, if my math is correct and the apocalypse does comes upon us, I believe I may just favor the latter.

The poor you will always have with you...

"Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper,
a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table.
But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste?
“For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.”
But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me.
“For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.
“For when she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial.
“Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.” (matthew 26:6-13)

"While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head.
But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted?
“For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her.
But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me.
“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.
“She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial.
“Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.” (Mark 14:3-9)

"Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him.
Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said,
“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?”
Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.
Therefore Jesus said, “Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial.
“For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:1-8)

John, as always, dose the work of an apologist, adds certain details missing from the earlier texts ("the woman" is now Mary and Lazarus, notably absent from the Synoptics, is there) and some explanatory gloss (e.g. "not because he was concerned about the poor").  Some of the key differences are highlighted in blue. 

Luke's account of the story is completely different.

"Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table.
And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume,
and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume.
Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.” (Luke 7:36-39)

Jesus then goes on to explain to those at the table (in this case, a Pharisee is the prop used to make the point) that Peter did not give him water, give him a kiss or anoint his head but the woman (unnamed in this account) did all those things.  He then declared her sins forgiven.  No statement about the value of the perfume or its profits being given to the poor.

Luke does, however, have some of the harder sayings pertaining to the poor that are unique to his Gospel account.  Luke tells us to invite the poor to the banquet (14:13) and to sell everything we have and give it to the poor (12:33 and 18:22).

Anyhow, this started out with Jesus' statement - echoing that found in Deuteronomy 15 - about there always being the poor among us.  Once again, I find myself standing back amazed at how accounts of one (or similar) stories have different renderings in each Gospel account and it reinforces why I can not accept the literalness of the text verbatim.

I get the spiritual truth(s) that lie underneath but to literally believe this word for word to be true would mean that there were four separate stories.  No, I believe that these are stories.  I don't believe this makes them any less "true" but it most certainly represents different spins on a core story.

So what about the poor?  No wonder they got lost in this.  We in the West tend to fall back on the argument about whether or not we can even trust the Bible as true since issues such as this one come up with little to no effort.  We then fall into arguing not about how to help the poor but fighting over the letter of the Book.

Currently reading John Sniegocki's Catholic Social Teaching and Economic Globalization and it's got me convicted, though at the moment it's more paralyzing than mobilizing as I'm angry at how unjust our government (in particular, its people) can be and how insane it is for so many "Christians" to be defending it in the name of freedom.

If the "poor" (still need to understand that loaded term a bit more) is a barometer of how we are doing as a people of faith, I'd say that we have a lot to be desired.  The idea of "charity" sometimes seems as if it means the same thing as "welfare" as it is understood today, though perhaps more like a good deed, a notch on the holiness belt.

However, in the KJV version of 1 Corinthians 13 which speak of faith, hope and charity the word 'charity' is from the Greek word agape which means (divine) love (see the different nuances in the Greek terms translated as 'love' in Jesus' questions to Peter at the end of John).

Charity is not a duty, i.e. a "good deed," it is something that should overflow from the heart of those who are His.  It is of love, compassion, the recognition that while one is poor (whether materially, in spirit, or both), so too is everyone.

Sorry, got off track a little...going to see if I can extract an essence from the above since it just kind of spilled out...

The Americanization of Sufism

There are two aspects to this post, the first (as usual) a bit on the cynical side, the other a different perspective.

I've written on the Americanization of Rumi in several other posts. This is when Rumi is ripped from his Islamic context and promoted as the poet of love which thus sanitizes him and leaves open his poetry to any version of love we bring to it.

One of my favorite movies is Baraka. However, as I've gotten a little older and a little wiser and realize that every movie (and song and book and news report, etc.) is selling a point of view, I have seen through much of the propaganda of this film as well. If you're interested you can read some earlier posts on the subject.

There is a scene in Baraka featuring the whirling dervishes (the Melevi Order of Sufism founded by the followers of Rumi) so familiar to many a student of religion. It's a beautiful scene:



However, in reality, here is what it looks like:

Notice the folks in the background.

I have an old VHS tape of mystical Iran and it shows another side of Sufism, this one of dervishes in Kurdistan.



It's a powerful scene but certainly isn't one that your average Western tourist gets to see.  Don't see this one in too many Sufi/Rumi books.  This too is mild compared to some of the deeper aspects of their tradition:



This is not a critique in any way, shape or form of those participants in the ritual. I cannot speak for them nor can I judge their frame of mind and depth of experience. That isn't the point of the post.

My wife was moved by the intensity of the participants in the second video shown above.  She appreciated the cultural difference.

Not that I don't (which is why I have the tape in the first place) but there is something destructive in the "prettification" of everything (video one) that is somehow 'other' to traditional American culture. Too often beauty is shallow.

However, rather than appreciating the differences, there is a tendency to ignore those things we don't like (video two and three) and mix it into a homogeneous soup that offends no one. Too often those things that offend are demonized.

Religion without offense is neutered (and I need to work on my cynicism...).

Bull Riding for Jesus?

And we wonder why people think Christians are just a bit nuts, not because they believe in Jesus but because, well, we appear a bit nuts.

Bull Riding for Jesus

Maybe it's just me but I don't think that God gives a hoot about bull riding just as God doesn't give a hoot about who wins the Super Bowl.

So, rather than do the smart thing and avoid death, why not ask God to cover the rider because he consciously chooses to do something in which he may be killed:

"It's the world's most dangerous sport for a reason. You get on that bull, you have a good shot at dying," Schock said.

Kind of reminds me of the story of the Israelites receiving a word from God about not going to war and going ahead with it anyhow and then praying to God to show up and bless their venture. End result? Slaughter.

Rather than be persecuted, why not go into the lion's den or jump into the fire on our own volition?

Rather than bless our insanity, maybe God's will is that we stop bull riding altogether?

The sameness of the world and the trappings therein...

Two separate photos, two separate days, two different ends of town.

Sometimes there are moments where the world slows down and true awareness of one's surroundings strikes.

One was taken while waiting for almost ten minutes at an ATM. With the increasing obsolescence of the teller, performing multiple transactions for a carload of people is not an infrequent occurrence.

The other was taken in a moment of pause after having similarly waited, this time for a [insert brand name] cup of coffee.

Minus the sun in one and the rain in the other, there is essentially little difference.

Makes me think (quite cynically): this is the best we can do? This is the product of man's (apparent) brilliance?

Really just pointing out the obvious but sometimes it makes me aware of why it is that we are not to place our hope in the tangible, fleeting world in which we live.

Faith without having all the answers...

I've been heavy into Abraham Heschels' The Prophets lately. I always seem to come back to the Hebrew Prophets. I tend to shun Daniel as the book has been accosted by a type of Christianity that scares me. I lean more toward the late dating of the book and would tend to agree with Jewish tradition that views him as part of the Ketuvim. I suppose it can go either way if a pole must be chosen and it depends whether you give weight to the modern understanding or if you give more weight to the Bible as God's word.

Somewhere in the middle are folks like me. I used to straddle the fence on things. Now it is a conscious and well-informed choice.

I accept the Bible as God's Word revealed to (or through) man but I don't believe that he spoke King James English (or Hebrew or Aramaic for that matter). I believe the 'proof' of the Bible is its affect on those who find their faith in it (which, of course, opens up another can of worms because most certainly there are those who "faith" caused them to use it to justify all kinds of heinous acts).

Yet I also find the historical approach to the Bible to be beneficial in grounding it and, thus, to bringing us closer to a realistic truth rather than one steeped in mythologizing and tradition.

There's a paradox here because for the longest time a verse like this would have reinforced why I was not a Christian and why I did not care to read the Bible. I fought long and hard against it. So when I "gave in" and became a Christian I did so only after realizing I did not have to leave my brain at the door and that (and this one has been more slow and painful to realize) I do not need to have all the answers to have faith.

Faith is not blind stupidity. Accepting what someone tells you without thinking it through yourself or running scared from a challenge to what you hold to be true is blind stupidity. Faith is certitude that comes with time and experience.

The reason I bring this up is that I was reading Ezekiel 20:25:

"I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live..." (NASB)

If there was ever a moment in Scripture that gives pause, this is it. In plain English, it sounds as if God set them up to fail. No need to even ponder the glee with which Christians throughout history have used this in light of Jewish law.

But me, being the good skeptic, figured this is a translation thing and does not mean what we think it means in plain English. So the digging began.

This is not a new issue. This has troubled the faithful for as long as the Bible has been around.

Here are some alternatives (I claim no expertise on the subject, I'm only presenting alternatives, the work of which was done by others so proper sourcing is given):

1)

"Ezekiel refers to the Deuteronomic code as “not good laws” and “rules by which they could not live,” because, on the one hand, they degraded the pristine Priestly standards and, on the other, they were interwoven with predictions of human disobedience and inevitable divine judgment."

(Scott Walker Hahn and John Sietze Bergsma as found in JBL 123/2 (2004) 201–218)

In other words, the documentary hypothesis provides a historically grounded alternative.

2) Hyam Maccoby (author of The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity) quotes Meir Loeb Malbim and adds:

"(For they said that)" in front of verse 25.

This is viewed as God being sarcastic. (Source)

By the way, there's nothing wrong with immersing yourself in books written against your faith. It's amazing what you may actually learn about your faith and you may just find it strengthened not in a reactive way but because many times such polemic draws things out of Scripture you might otherwise miss. If you're looking for justification for such an approach, Paul says to investigate everything and hang on to that which is good.

3) An article by Skip Moen, quoting Daniel Block, states that the word use in verse 25 is a masculine variation of the normally used feminine, thus adding a nuance that is lost in translation. The end result is this:

"He uses a verbal strategy to jump from the beneficial intention of Torah to the disastrous consequences of Torah rejection. In other words, as it turns out the huqqot [feminine] God gave have become huqqim [masculine] in the lives of the people. The people have turned what gives life into something that produces death."

4) Another option is that this verse admits to the human element in the Torah. Christians tend to love this one. However, there's a catch. If this is true, this also gives Muslim justification for their beliefs that the Bible is corrupt.

So there are options people and it's a minefield! A Biblical literalist (especially the King James only variety) would roll their eyes on this one (or chuck a big King James bible at your head).

A hardcore hater uses it to justify disregarding the Bible as nothing but a human document filled with inconsistencies and irrelevance (but of course they too tend to rely on a "literal" interpretation and thus share common ground with the King James only Christian).

I tend toward the more "quantum" view of Scripture and hold this in a state between several alternatives. I have no idea which rendering is actually correct but having the options actually leaves me more open-minded, provided I can move foward with the 'trust' element without having the ability to give a logical discourse on the matter. Some day I will understand it or maybe I won't but either way I trust that the lack of understanding is mine.

Personally, I like having options because it leads to dialogue and dialogue leads to interaction and interaction is what leads us toward love.

Dogmatism and debate, without an openness to learning and a willingness to admit we don't know (without losing faith), is what leads to death.

This self-deprecation is actually at the root of all religious traditions and this "quantum" view is actually more Daoist than it is Christian. Christians tend toward absolutes; Daoists tend to realize that our knowledge is limited which, paradoxically, should also be a Christian thing - it's called humility.

Can you be a Christian and still be human?

I struggle with this one. The Christian message continues to burrough deeper into my soul. When balanced but not overridden by the intellect this is a healthy way to live.

What I struggle with is finding a way to live it out. Yet in every church I attend, no matter how much I sense God's presence there, I am still aware of how weird some of this is. Of course to define it as "weird" is to compare it to something so to what am I comparing it?

Probably my desire to still do what I want. Over the years what I want has changed so hopefully this "want" is more aligned to a life where I can live out the Spirit in and through me.

Slasher flicks are of no interest nor are films meant to shock us out of our numbness. Heavy metal music is of no interest anymore and while
classic rock takes me back in time, it has no present reality for me.

This isn't a judgment, I'm simply not there anymore. So my "want" (at least in terms of music and movies) has changed as I've continued the spiritual pursuit. Perhaps it's maturity, perhaps it's just a natural process.

But I am not compelled to like Christian music or Christian movies just because they are tagged Christian. I just don't like a lot of these things. Don't get me wrong, there are many I do. They hit me in a way other forms of entertainment do not.

"Secular" music (personally, music is music, all of it forms of expression of the human experience, corporate drivel notwithstanding) and movies still speak to me about the human experience, even if much of it is propaganda trying to sell me a point of view, though I do realize religion tends to do the same thing. Everything is propaganda, really, all trying to "sell" you something.

So at work I am content to do my work and talk to people about things that in the end don't really matter but to that person may mean a lot. I have many things that mean something to me even if they don't mean a lot in the long run. But it can be a place where I channel my passion and gifts, even if it isn't in some churchified way.

So to be human, to talk to people about things with no intention or judgment other than just trying to love and understand the human experience. Doesn't that make us, and others, more receptive to the move of the Spirit in between us, even if there are no labels that indicate we hold the same beliefs?

God loves us where we are, Christian or not. He doesn't love us any more because we are "Christian" or "born again" or whatever tag we use. No, God loves us just the same. The difference is our perception. These things don't make us any better than anyone else. They simply provide a different worldview.

To put a spin on the traditional saying of Paul, "new is creation." We see the world anew. The old man may be passing away but the old man is still the same old flesh we've always had. This is not what is new; what is new is our perception.

So we remain human with all our quirks and flaws. And we should accept this; after all, isn't this how we were made? Just be sensitive to the leading of the Spirit and be open to changing over time.

If you're a Christian and you still like rock and roll than do so. Like movies? Smoke? Drink liquor? Eat too much? Drink too much coffee? I think it comes down to awareness and discernment and realizing that we are influenced by what we feed our minds with and if we keep feeding our minds with non-beneficial things our 'self' will follow.

I bring this up only because I am listening to dub techno like crazy lately and really enjoy it. Can't say I get any "spiritual" meaning from it but it does provide a level of peace that is quite soothing.

And I am enjoying my work in a factory. I value the labor and the working with the hands. There is no saving grace in making parts that end up on Harley Davidson motorcycles but it is a fascinating process to watch a piece of metal become a chrome fender.

But there is nothing revelatory in all of this. There isn't much excitement at all, no buzz, no excitement, no awe inspiring sense of wonder. And I think it is in this day-to-day stuff, "life" as we think of it, that real meaning is found. It is the consistency, the routine, the "desert" on the way to those highs we all seek that the real spiritual walk is found.

It kind of reflects the way in which we are able to re-create in our own lives. I won't go there but as life goes on, more and more it seems that everything is symbol. At what point does this lead to loss of a grip on reality? I know it's a possibility and it's always right there. At what point have we gone over the edge and how do we really know?

A sad chicken sandwich...

Lately we've been moving more and more toward a "raw" food based diet. This isn't the weird, militant kind of raw food diet. This has just been the inevitable progression of fifteen years or more of paying attention to what we eat and educating ourselves as the nutritional climate evolves.

If you were to do some inverting to the FDA's pyramid (primarily the lower blocks) you'd have the raw food pyramid.

While I tend to shun all hints of conspiracies, it is quite curious when you ponder that the base of the FDA food pyramid coincides with the areas of food production that are most corporatized. After all, the "green" stuff can be grown in your own back yard (until the government and/or corporations figure out a way to make this illegal or tax it).  Look at the bottom of the FDA pyramid.  Can you say sponsorship?

Anyhow, last week I had put in a thirteen hour day and had run out of food (I usually pack enough for a ten hour day). Hungry, I decided to whirl through KFC. It's probably been five years or more since I've even set foot in a KFC. Figured they'd have a grilled chicken sandwich option.

Nope. They had a grilled chicken meal. So I asked about the sandwiches and I was told they have a regular chicken sandwich and the double down. "You mean, the kill you twice as fast sandwich?" I slipped out. The cashier, caught off guard, smiled after he pondered it for a moment.

I wanted some road food so settled for a regular chicken sandwich. Added a medium soda, again something I don't normally do at a fast food restaurant because of the markup. But I was hungry, a bit edgy and wanted to hit the road home.

The cashier informed me that as is the case in America it's more expensive to do it this way and a "meal" would be cheaper. So I threw in green beans, figuring there may be some nutrition buried in there.

Got the food to go and was on the road.

White bread, bacon, thousand island dressing and a smaller-than-advertised slab of fried chicken. I was amazed at how incredibly unappetizing it looked. The green beans were just shy of liquid and the soda provided no joy.

As I ate, I was saddened by the whole experience. Bored employees, the whole assembly line process and food that had no nutritional value made the entire experience just plain sad. Can't say it ever provided joy in the past but I have never eaten food that actually made me sad. Other than some protein and some calories, there was absolutely nothing positive there.

I am grateful for the way we are beginning to eat but it saddens me to think of how our government and our corporations are basically death merchants. Granted, they are feeding the population what they (think they) want but to what extent has the propaganda of our corporatocracy fed us this from birth? You are being lied to.

I wonder: does the upper management of KFC (or any fast food chain) actually eat the food they peddle?

Social Justice in the Workplace...

I've been on a roll at work lately, "stirring up trouble" as I put it. It's not meant to be trouble but sometimes when those without a voice find someone to speak for them it can ruffle some feathers. Isn't this what Jesus did?

My faith is deepening in ways I never imagined. I bring Jesus with me to the workplace, not to preach about Jesus or "minister" with the intent of leading people to the Lord in the traditional, formulaic, evangelical way.

I figure Jesus is so well known in our culture that the only way to really "preach" Jesus is to try and display him in my life. This isn't a phony thing, an imitation of what I think I should act like. I'm either doing it or I'm not. Mind you, I'm far from perfect in this regard which is fine because I'm not Jesus so I will mess up.

I've heard a few comments and they are usually about "church" such as it is well known I will fight not to work on Sunday because I go to church. People who know me a little more closely know that I talk about "philosophy" (i.e. Jesus) a lot. I just don't get all preachy.

My whole focus at work has lately tended to be about two things: being honest with the customer and, more importantly, focusing on building up the workers on the factory floor (i.e. the voiceless).

This past week it was in the 90s and it was hot enough for one of the workers to bring in their own industrial fan as there are not enough fans to dispel the heat, especially in light of some of the smoke from one of the areas. This area has caused more than a few people to be sick, let alone trying to work there in 90 degree heat.

So I sent out a mass email about the health issues related to this. It went up the food chain and ruffled some feathers. Now an inquiry was made several weeks prior to my email but it did not get very far.

Two things were immediately brought out of this email:

1) don't send out mass emails
2) employees are not allowed to bring in their own personal fans

It wasn't the health of the workers that was the immediate concern. It was the rules.

With a little more pushing (and acknowledgment of the email rule) and prompting, about two weeks later some fans showed up. What if I hadn't said anything? What if the worker hadn't brought in a personally owne fan (which cost about half a days' wage)? Would these fans have ever appeared?

Maybe. Maybe not.

But "social justice" and displaying Jesus need not be all churchy. Think of others and give voice to the voiceless. Go for the heart. Sometimes that is all the Jesus people need to see.

That was not my intent, mind you. My intent was that it was hot, smoky and there were not enough fans. My intent was "the other" and not me (and, to a lesser degree, trying to wake up the powers that be from the air conditioned slumber which makes it easy to forget what is happening down below).

But because of my neverending quest to get to know Jesus, I am finding my own voice and no longer have the fear I once had. I believe this strength is coming from a deepening relationship with him, the kind of relationship that is no longer stuck in the head but has moved to the heart.

So this idea of what it means to be a Christian is evolving for me. It isn't weird. It isn't otherworldly. It isn't meant to be confined to the church, creating enclaves of homeschooled, church cultured and sheltered Christians who are afraid of the outside world.

Jesus was in the mix, hanging out with those who were not seen as valuable by the one institution which was supposed to see their value as they are, not by some condition such as what or how they believe. He was trying to meet their need. In so doing, room was made in the heart for the love of God and for them to recognize their value.

I have no interest in changing the world or even trying to change any social structure. "The system" may be corrupt but it's only when individuals change that "systems" can begin to change. And the only way individuals change is when they have someone who shows them an alternative way to live in the world, in it but not of it, to use the well known quote from the New Testament.

Get out in the mix, be human. It's ok. Allow the Spirit to guide you, wherever you are, not some set of parameters you think is the way you are supposed to behave. It's not about earning spiritual gold stars. It's about being a light to the world. Live by the Spirit, not by the rules.

The power of the Word...

Story time, so bear with...

If I haven't mentioned it before I work in a Quality position at a manufacturing plant. We stamp, weld and laser trim parts as well as manufacture the dies that can make the parts. Sometimes we make the die and run the parts; sometimes one or the other.

I've been there a little over six years having started out as a temp after a job didn't work out. Working for temp wages running the presses and now in the Quality department, there's very little I haven't done. It's also the longest, by double the amount, I've ever worked anywhere.

Over time, as my faith walk has deepened and I've gained some confidence in it, I find myself taking on the role of being the voice from the people on the floor. The social work (and Jesus' centered faith walk) has helped me to realize that everything in life come down to power - those who have it, those who don't. More significantly, it's about realizing Who has the power and how that power can be used in the world in which we live.

So I've been involved in the welding department now for several months, working with a weld tech who has all the appearances of a punk rocker (or gamer). Tatoos, piercings, peculiar mannerisms. Yet he's smart. Having come in as a temp several years ago as well he has learned well the mechanics of making the welders hum.

It's been fun to watch him grow and develop and gain a modicum of confidence more than he had when he came in the door. Lately, however, a new person in upper management has taken a strong dislike to him. For those of us who know and work with him, quirks and all we find him to be on the road to improvement. He works hard, puts in the hours, cares and, with some guidance, does what is needed.

But for some people, appearance is everything and nothing will shake that perception - especially when that perception comes from that barricade that separates "upstairs" from "the floor". I find myself bridging that gap. Without the floor, the upstairs make an organization top heavy and it teeters and sways until it blows over. Some days, it seems we're going to blow over.

Most of our successes and improvements on the floor comes from the operators who know the products and the processes. They often speak up but it falls on deaf ears. Over the past few years I've come to realize that sometimes the best operators are the ones who have little voice - they can't speak the language, they look funny, they live in fear of being fired, they are just plain strange. However, on more than a few occasions I have found myself praising the efforts of a few individuals who, because of these quirks, may have otherwise found themselves out of a job.

When you compliment someone and tell them they do a good job and that they have value, not only do they do better work but their countenance actually changes. I've seen it over and over again.

Well, this past week, rumor had it that this weld tech was going to be fired and that I was the backup plan to run the department. Now I understand the processes and how it works but the mechanics of it? We'd be sunk. Even piecing together the knowledge of a half dozen people could not replace what this guy does.

So I talked to my boss. I would be pulled out from under him without his having had any knowledge of the move. He was pissed; I was pissed. More than a few people expressed serious concern about losing him.

For about half an hour my boss and I talked. And the air was somber. I was willing to be fired before making that move. A six month project, sure. Full time, not in the plans.

So I went back to my computer and stared at it for about forty minutes. I couldn't move. Thoughts of finding another job were at the forefront. But as the minutes dragged on I had the realization that I could not allow this to happen without saying something. I couldn't live with myself.

Now it wasn't really about me. I was upset about the unjust treatment of this guy toward him. I was upset that such a move was being made with no plan B and no communication to anyone else. It was as if his distaste for him, that emotional turmoil, was enough to drive such an irrational decision. I had visions of the company sliding further behind.

So I marched up to his office. No anger, no malice, just serious concern. I asked him if the rumor was true; he verified that it was. I told him flat out I thought it was a bad move. I spoke more from the point of view of "the company" but also stood up for the weld tech and, acknowleding his quirks, praised his skills and that no one in the shop knows what he knows. He has that depth of experience that is irreplaceable.

I let him know that it was his decision. He said that he would consider it because he respected me. That was a high compliment, one I do not take lightly.

So the next morning, the weld tech proceeded to inform me that he was still employed and that he had bought some time because I (and another, I later found out) spoke up for him. The power of the Word.

Not only was he glowing, others on the floor were also glowing when they found out. The fact that someone stuck up for him - goofy as he is, he is well liked - spoke volumes. It saved him his job; it was also a good move in terms of keep the company out of trouble.

It's up to him now. I hold no illusions that the opinions of him are still the same. The move is purely a business move. But by speaking up, life changed for many people involved.

My boss and another manager in the department were genuinely blown away but the turn of events. They were both going to let it just happen as it usually does without saying a word. Though I contemplated it for a while, in the end there was no need to seek advice, ask permission or worry about going over someone's head. I felt led to do it.

Now I'm usually pretty easy going and don't try and rock the boat but there are two things that get me going: lying to customers and when "my people" are treated unjustly. It is then that I become vocal.

Let you think I think it was completely selfless, please realize that the self-preservation aspect was present: I did not want the job that would have befallen me. It would have been a deadend move (and the hours would move to seven days a week, on call 24-7). Been there, done that; don't want to do it again.

What's the point? This whole idea of "marketplace ministry" (a phrase I can't stand; it sounds so very MLM) is too slick, too choreographed, too intentional. Our intention should not be to try and "save the world" but to love those who are in it, whether they be our friends or our "enemies" (even though, in essence, our enemies are still our neighbors). The ministry should not be "win souls for Christ" in the sense of "leading them to the Lord" like a trophy or racking up salvation points. The saving is up to God.

Our ministry is to be a vessel, to be a light, to allow the Word to shine through us, to Love. I'm reminded of the word of Jeremiah:

"He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; Then it was well. Is not that what it means to know Me?" Declares the LORD." (22:16)

The atmosphere was changed that day. It wasn't really "me" but the power of my actions. I didn't preach at him, quote scripture or tell him about Jesus. I simply "pled the cause of the afflicted and the needy."

Love is the hardest thing in the world because it is a choice and it requires stepping out of self for the cause of another.

This thing is real.