#18 Something about Nouns and Verbs.

I have been thinking quite a bit lately about the interaction between belief and action.  I often say that in order to change a way you do something you need to change your beliefs.  So if you change the way you think about something it will change the way you act.  For instance, if you believe that all of creation is precious to God then maybe you would treat that creation differently based on that belief or assumption.  But if you hold the belief that God created the rest of the world for us, and in the end it is all going to be burned up or something, then you might treat the environment as something to consume.

But I have been wondering how do people actually change their beliefs.  Sometimes it takes a really persuasive argument, but in all actuality that is rare.  Most people don't change their beliefs because someone made a really valid and interesting point, but because of the relationship and integrity of the person who made that point.  It is in the doing of the relationship that beliefs are changed.  So maybe changing belief requires that you do something that is out of the norm.

Instead of arguing about the nouns of our faith we should be doing the verbs and let the nouns have meaning in light of the verbs (check out this HBX for more on that).  Indoctrination is the specialty of most religious movements.  But maybe we go about it all wrong.  I used to teach Confirmation at a pretty large affluent church.  This was always a really great experience because I love talking about our faith and laying out the various beliefs of the church.  I tend to take an approach of laying some various beliefs in front of the students and allowing them to wrestle with them.  Because I think you come to faith through wrestling with meaning not through being told what is the right way to believe.  I think I was doing it wrong though.  We spent almost the entire time talking and discussing the beliefs of the church and we spent almost no time actually doing these things.  We did a mission project, but we should be continual mission projects.  We should be always doing the verbs of the faith.  Go, preach, baptize, love, pray, give, clothe, visit, eat, etc.  These are the things that show what you actually believe.  These are the things that change what you actually believe.  These are the things that bring meaning to the nouns of the faith like Christology, Eucharist, Eschaton, etc.

Belief and action are wound together so tightly that they inform each other.  Belief doesn't always dictate our actions and actions don't always change beliefs.  But intentionally revising both based on the other seems like a great way to form your faith.  It is kind of an action reflection model, only with the awareness the sometimes it is a reflection action model.  Verbs and nouns inform each other.  They create meaning for each other.  They make more sense when placed together.  Also, don't forget about the power of the prepositional phrase and punctuation...

#17 Praying for peace doesn't mean praying for inaction.

In response to my last post, a friend of mine called me.  He is a pastor of a church and his community was going to do a prayer vigil for peace in the Syrian conflict.  This pastor, one of my few readers, is a very practical person.  He wondered to me, "Is praying for peace really just praying for no bombing?"

I think that is a fantastic question and one everyone should be asking.  Is praying for peace really just praying that no further violence is perpetrated by our country on another?  Is prayer for peace really just asking to blindly turn the other cheek?  My response to him was obviously, "No! Not at all!"  But something rings true about what he said.  In a practical sense, "turn the other cheek" seems like a poor way to solve conflict.

Praying for peace is about solving conflict, not just praying for no more violence or war.  Praying for peace is praying that people can figure out creative and non-violent ways to resolve conflict.  Walter Wink, an amazingly smart scholar, talks about how there is a third way to react to conflict, violence and injustice.  The first way is to respond with violence.  This tends to grow and grow until someone decides that nuking the entire planet because we don't agree is ridiculous.  The second way is the way too many people talk about turning the other cheek, which is to do nothing.  The third way is to turn the other cheek in a way that exposes the inhuman, violent actions without using violence yourself.  It might seem shameful to you at the time, but in the end it will show the sinful injustice of the other person(s).

It reminds me of those theatrical protests that happened in the sixties.  And by reminds me of, I mean reminds me of pictures I've seen and stories I've read/heard because I was born during the Reagan administration.  I think of the people who in an over the top fashion would stick a flower in the riot police officers' gun barrels.  It was if they were saying you should trade your weapon for something a little bit friendlier!  It's brilliant, and I think it is Abbie Hoffman's work.  I'm not sure.

Praying for peace isn't praying that people turn the other cheek or don't try to do something about the use of chemical weapons in Syria.  It is asking for conflict resolution in a non-violent way, without any threat of bombing to stop bombing. Instead negotiating and exposing injustice through thought provoking and  nonviolent action. When we pray for peace, we should also pray that we can be courageous enough to be instruments of creating the peace.

If you want to read some Walter Wink, I would advise, The Powers that Be.  It is an accessible writing about his thoughts on the powers of the world.  Also, it seems you could read, Jesus and the Nonviolence: A Third Way.  I've not read it, yet, but seems completely to the point.

#16 Something about Syria

I haven't really followed anything political in a long time, but for some reason I have been reading more and more about the possible American involvement in the Syrian Civil War.  Here are some of the things that I have found interesting (Please note that I am not a journalist, nor am I a politician, just an onlooker):

1. British PM David Cameron decided to take this to Parliament before calling for a military strike.  And they voted it down. There seems to be something telling about that.
2. France seems to be with President Obama.  What?  Can we call them french fries again?
3. Russia is against the action.  Not a surprise we have a new/old feud with them, which is also interesting to watch. We seem to be getting colder...
4. The UN is still doing their work deciding what to do with the breaking of international ban on chemical weapons.  You know investigating and deciding who is to blame, and how to proceed as an international community.
5. President Obama has cooled down on it a little and called for Congress to vote on it.  This is the first time in like 30 years that a President hasn't just pulled the trigger without Congressional approval, even though that's seems to be the way it is supposed to be.
6. I have heard that folks in Congress have a slight worry about casting a vote either way because it could be used against them in the next election.  Because pandering is the most important thing, not you know figuring out if we need to get involved to try to protect innocent life in a bloody war.
7. There doesn't seem to be a very clear objective in this.  No regime change just to send a message.  My question is: How does killing more people actually send a message? It appears that Bashar al-Assad is okay with killing his own people, especially if his regime is to blame.

Somehow I think this vote in Congress and how we proceed from here is going to significantly influence how we do foreign policy in the future.  I'm hoping that somehow we can come up with ways of creating peace that doesn't involve violence because peace through war doesn't seem logical, yet it is the prevailing wisdom of our age.

So here's to hope for a more peaceful form of conflict resolution.  Here's to hope for a way of doing foreign policy that spends less time bombing and more time trying to figure out what the underlying cause of the conflict is.

I know that I am coming off idealistic and it seems we don't have much chance of that, but I have to believe that a more peaceful world is possible.  Less eye for an eye; more turn the other cheek.

#15 Projection is not just for walls and screens.

My wife and daughter were out shopping the other day, and they had a rather peculiar experience.  After they had found all the things they were looking for and more, I'm sure, they went up to check out their wares.  The lady at the check out counter looked down at my two and a half year old daughter and said, "She looks guilty of something.  I'm going to be a mom soon and I can tell she is guilty of something."

My wife was speechless (a rare feat) and another worker in the store told the check out lady not to say things like that.  It was a rather odd circumstance.  This encounter made me think about projection, or more precisely this tale of this encounter made me think about projection.  I wasn't there so this is all hearsay.  I wondered what this lady was feeling guilty about that she would project it onto a cute, harmless, intelligent little toddler (I'm not biased about this kid at all, these things are all objectively true).

My thoughts of course jumped to her feeling guilty about being pregnant, which I am only assuming she is by the comment.  I have no other proof and my wife did not specify whether the lady had a baby bump or not, so it could be a poor assumption.  Then, I thought, "how incredibly Victorian Era of me to think that this woman feels guilty about becoming pregnant.  Sex isn't shameful and producing life isn't either."

My thoughts then turned to generalizations.  What if instead of projecting her own  feelings onto my genius like tot, she's projecting a generalization she holds about genius little tots.  Maybe she thinks that all children are actually guilty of something especially in a store.  This could all stem from her stealing something as a kid.   That can mess you up just ask Saint Augustine.  Regardless of where it comes from, it made me think slightly differently about projection, When it is a generalization is it called something else? Can a Psychologist please weigh in on this?

We do this all the time we project a generalization on someone when we first meet them as a way to make sense of the world.  We generalized based on race, sex, age, and all kinds of other factors.  Interestingly, not all of these projected generalizations are uniform.  Depending on where you are from and your own life experiences you think differently about different groups of people.  For instance, I don't look at a two year old and automatically think you are guilty of something.  I think look at this toddler isn't he or she cute and probably high energy.  Unless they aren't cute, then I want to tell them that there are so many more important qualities than being cute, like being smart and generous.

Regardless of whether you are projecting your feelings, beliefs, or generalizations on other people it still says more about you and your life experience than it says about the other person. So if you want to really get to know yourself, then spend some time meeting new people and see what you think about them before you know them.  Then, read your projection likes it a PowerPoint presentation in Psych 203: Awareness and Self-hood.  (Hat tip to all you starting college today.)

#14 Labels are not just for soup cans!

Could you imagine walking through a grocery store looking for something nice and processed to purchase, but there were no labels on any of them?  Or going to the cupboard (under your stairs?) to find a can of green beans only to discover that all the labels have been removed from the cans by some sick puppy who likes to make people guess about what they are going to prepare as a side with their pork chops?  Could you imagine the chaos of not knowing what these things are?  

I have been reading some blog post lately (which is entirely too much of my existence) which have been talking about labels.  One is about how Tony Jones doesn't want to be labeled with the tainted horrible "mainline Christian" label (see here), or for that matter he doesn't want to be labeled as a pastor either.  I am in fact mainline and I don't take offense to this at all because he hates the polity of the church that has gotten in the way and I respect that.  The institution is something I have struggled with, yet I have chosen to stay close to it. Anyway, don't label Mr. Jones because, quite frankly, it is up to him what labels he wants to choose.

Labels in and of themselves are fine.  There is nothing wrong with them.  They just help give a short cut into a history of someone.  For instance, I am a United Methodist.  Now, you have some baggage with that term maybe, which might be, "take a stand on something, dammit!"  Or it could be, "oh you must be nice."  But I also would label myself a progressive Christian.  Now you have new preconceived notions of me from that.  On Facebook, my religious views say that I am "Trinitarian Eucharistic." What doesn't that mean to you?  So even when you are just talking about my religious associations you need lots of labels to get any kind of picture of me.

The problem is when you put labels on me.  If you label me, usually it is done as a way to distance me from you.  For instance, if you are "Evangelical," you may say I am "Progressive" with a sneer, which is a way of saying I don't agree with him (and he is going to hell. Was that an overstatement? Probably).  Or you could say it because, well, I just told you I am a progressive.  My advice is lose the sneer.  Anyway, the point of this rambling is that labeling is fine as long as we are respectful about them.  Bo Sanders wrote here:

Like labeling a Pilsner and a Pale Ale, it is necessary to know that you are getting a different product BECAUSE it has come through a different process and has different ingredients.

Labels help us give a little background information about where we came from.  The first (and only at this point) comment on Mr. Sanders' post talks about having a label placed on him that helped him understand how others see him.  I think that is worth doing as well, but you don't have to embrace any labels but the one you place on yourself.  Who you are, what labels you are going to live into, it's up to you, and it is your choice, so choose wisely my friends!

#13 NPR makes Me Cry (Is this an assertion?)

I was in my car on my way back to work after lunch, when I turned on NRP to see what's going on.  I caught the end of Here and Now, which is produced in Boston.  It was incredibly emotional as people told stories and talked about tragedy and heartache that happened in a city they love.  When signing off Robin Young, the host of the show, had to compose herself before finishing her sign off.  I lost it.  I've never been to Boston.  My home town has never been bombed.  I have never really felt that heartache for my city.  But I bawled because a moment that was supposed to be filled with joy and inspiration was quickly turned into a horrible moment of pain and despair.

Then, I have to juxtapose this feeling with the thought of all the people who moved toward the pain and suffering.  The people who cared enough to reach out to the stranger and help stop the bleeding, or move someone from harms way.  The EMT and Police Officers who are trained to react in way to help and protect in this moment. Here is a great piece to read about this from comedian Patton Oswald, it is amazing and well worth the read.

Many people after moments like this can say where is Christ in this?  Where was God?  Why would God allow this?  This along with thousands of other tragedies that unfold all throughout the world, such as earthquakes, terrorist attacks, and homicide on the street corner, cause people to think critically about who they believe God is in the face of it all.

Some will stick to old party lines that God ordained this and is somehow using it for God's purpose.  Where is the love in that?  Or some will say things like God doesn't cause this to happen but God can bring good out of it.  This is better, but if God has the power to stop it then why doesn't God.  This is a classic question of theodicy.  And one that almost always leave us wanting for a better explanation.  If this interests you, then check out Tony Jones blog, where this weeks "Questions that Haunt Christianity" is about just this.  Leave a comment and see Tony's response on Saturday, I think.

Here is how I come down on it, but again, I don't know that I have anything useful to say: I believe that God is loving to the extreme meaning that God limits God's power because love requires choice.  You can choose to love, to hate, or to be indifferent, but regardless it requires choice.  Giving us choice means we can choose to do absolutely awful things to each other.  It is a side effect of the opportunity to love.  This love that God has chosen for us led God to become incarnate, enter into the mess we have made, then suffer and die under our rule only to overcome it through resurrection.

The question posed earlier was where is Christ in all of this?  My thought is that you can see Christ on every suffering face.  You can see the crucified Christ in every victim of pointless acts of violence.  You can see Christ face in every moment of death and despair.  But you can also see the Rise Christ on the face of every person who turned towards his/her neighbor and helped.  You can see Christ Resurrected in every person who is offering love and grace in the midst of grief.  You can see God's Kingdom intersect with ours when a person steps out of his/her normal role and expectation to risk loving in the face of pain, suffering, and injustice.

Let's not try to make sense of the senseless.  Instead, let's live a life where we know that God reveals love and grace through both Good Friday moments and through Easter Sunday moments.  From the pain and suffering of the Good Friday comes the new creation of Resurrection.  This is the Hope of the Christian faith. My prayer is that we can live resurrection in the face of despair for others and can see the Resurrection from the help of others in the face of our own struggles, pain and despair.

#12 Lack of Coffee causes Mild to Severe Irritability.

Yesterday, I made the last of my coffee, but forgot all about it when I went to the store.  This morning my day started with cereal with my daughter.  Usually, I have cereal and coffee.  There was no coffee.  I thought no big deal.  I'll get a cup of coffee on the way to work and be fine.  Well, as the morning progressed, I found that everything began to make me incredibly anger.  Angrier than I should be for just, you know, a two year old running off with her blankets while we were making her bed.

The kicker for me, when I realized how caffeine withdrawals effect me was as we were all leaving to head to work.  My wife forgot her lunch, and ran back into to get it, which mildly annoyed me (but shouldn't have).  Then, I came back out with all the pieces of leftover home made pizza.  She basically said that's more than I need and why didn't I just take a piece or two out for me.  Usually, I would have just said I don't know, it didn't cross my mind and we would have worked it out.  Instead, my withdrawing self saw this utterance as an attack on my intelligence.  So I got really mad and hateful with her--over pizza.

Now that I have had really big cup of coffee, I realize how stupid I was.  Is this how people are when they quit smoking or some other drug?  They don't feel normal until that next hit of whatever.  I didn't have hallucinations of dead babies crawling on the ceiling like in Trainspotting, but I kind of get how some people do awful things to get the next fix.

In conclusion, I'm sorry for being a jackass to my wife.  I am an addict.

#11 Church is the new scapegoat.

Have you ever heard someone say, "I'm spiritual, but not religious."?  I have been really close to saying it myself except you know I'm a seminary trained employee of the church, which means I am the poster board of religion.  I grew up in it, and I have pretty much never strayed.  Even during my period in college of searching out other faiths to see if one fits better, I was almost Buddhist you know, I still attended a church and my campus ministry.  So, ummm...I'm religious, but not spiritual.

When people say that they love Jesus and his ideals, but they don't like the church or the term Christian, I get it. My reasons for looking for a new faith community were the same reasons people have today.  People have done absolutely awful things in the name of Christ, from war to cheesy t-shirts that co-opt a corporate logo and give it a pseudo-Christian spin.  The Church has a 2000 year laundry list of mistakes, but does that mean it is evil?

In today's culture, people are suspect of the organized and established religion.  I can't blame them.  We love to blame other people and organizations for the struggles of the world.  Today, with Catholic sex abuse scandal, Westboro Baptist "Church," and crazy people saying things like God ordained natural disasters to punish us for homosexuality or whatever "sin" they think is the worst at the time.  Therefore, we have decided to use Christianity/the Church as a scapegoat.  If the church hadn't gotten involved in politics the nation would be in better shape.  If Christians would butt out there would be less wars because Just War Theory is bogus.  If the church was more like Jesus we would absolutely be involved with it, but it isn't.  It's actually the reason for all of the ills in the world.

You know what is amazing about the church.  It is a mix of people who meet together as broken, awful, sinful, wounded, and unloved people to hope for a life of fullness, grace, and love.  The Church has done awful things because it is made up of broken people.  We do awful things when we forget that we are in fact people who are capable of being wrong and horrible to each other.  Let's stop blaming the Church for our problems and start trying to authentically do our faith with other people who are hurting.  Then, we should call that the Church.

#10 Being God-forsaken brings meaning to the Resurrection.

Whenever I hear the song "I'm Yours" by Jason Mraz, I want to, and often do, rant about how he says that it is our God-forsaken right to be loved, looooved, loved.  I didn't realize that God had in fact forsaken our right to be loved.  I think he probably meant God-given or something like that, and I can't believe none of the producers asked him about that line.  Whatever, we all have words we misuse, so I don't hate Jason Mraz or even think he's stupid, just made a very public mistake.

The song always makes me think about that idea of God-forsakenness (there is red squiggle under forsakenness, which I do not agree with at all).  Does God really forsake things?  I mean I've driven through Kansas on I-70 and it is boring and as much as I hate to say it there is still beauty and God in it.  If God hasn't forsaken Kansas, then God is not going to forsake anything.  See what I did there.

It's Holy Week so it seems the time to think about forsakenness some more.  I am reminded of Jesus' haunting cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!"  It is a moment that should bring a little confusion to anybody who believes in the Incarnation.  How is it possible for God to have forsaken Jesus, since Jesus is God?  It's the kind of question that makes my brain hurt.  How does God abandon Godself?

In reality, does God really abandon anyone?  Jesus on the cross is having a real feeling of being abandoned.  In his being, Jesus does not feel like God is moving or in this situation at all.  God feels exactly what the rest of us feel from time to time.  God feels like God is not present and does not care.  God feels forsaken.  We all have those moments of feeling like God has left the building and doesn't give a flip about the awful, excruciating, and all-consuming pain and grief that we are feeling.  Does that mean that it is okay to feel that way from time to time?  I mean Jesus did.  Obviously, most of the time we aren't dying a horribly painful death when we shout the open of Psalm 22.  Usually, it's because the peanut butter has run out, or something equally as horrible.

In that moment when Jesus felt forsaken and we feel forsaken, it might be good to realize that God is present.  God is present in the junk as well as the joy..  God is present in suffering.  God is present in Kansas. God is present in our abandonment.  God is present.  I believe that God is present all around us, and that Good Friday and Holy Saturday are the days when we are to feel with the disciples that feeling of abandonment or forsakenness.  We are to face our own fears, failures, suffering, and grief.  Then, see the Crucified God present in the suffering and participating in our suffering.  The power of the Resurrection and God's invitation to you in it will become significantly more meaningful if you force yourself to face your reality of pain and rejection and empty peanut butter jars.  Because we are never truly forsaken, but we have to face the pain we cause and feel before we can experience the joy of new life in Resurrection.

Did I just write a sermon?  What are your thoughts on forsakenness and Jesus' cry from cross?

Although I didn't cite anyone in this post, I do want you to know that I have been heavily influenced by Jurgen Moltmann and Peter Rollins on this idea.

#9 Protestant Christians suck at Rituals.

I've been thinking a lot about rituals.  You may not know this about me but I love the ritual of Holy Communion.  I think it is a moment when we intentionally enter into a reality that is always around us.  It is beautiful and mystical and most of all meaningful.  Rituals are ways that we are intentional with our rhythms to help participate more deeply with the world around us.  Here's what I figured out recently: Protestant Christians suck at ritualizing our faith.  In fact, I think we are scared to be too ritualistic because we fear we'll become Catholic (how about the new Pope, huh? Added hits with that comment).

I don't know if fear of becoming Catholic is really it because the Lutheran church kept most of the rituals and the Episcopal church has definitely keep up with rituals.  Do they have meaning?  I don't know I'm not really in these denominations.  And of course every local church has its own rituals.  For instance, I once heard a story of a monk who would bring his cat to lead morning prayers.  He would hook the leash on the lectern while he led the prayer time.  The same place still has a hook on a new lectern for the cat's leash because it became part of the tradition.  The monk had moved on to a different ministry setting, and on a visit asked why they had the hook on the lectern.  The answer was that they just always had, and it was part of how things worked there.  This act of bringing his cat to morning prayer created a culture that continued long after the man had left. (Side Note: I have no idea where I heard this story, if I retold it correctly, if this is remotely true, or why he kept his cat on a leash).

We have rituals that build just based on where we are that take on new meaning or are empty of meaning but we keep them out of comfort.  I think we have some work to do in the Protestant Traditions to bring our rituals home with us.  For instance, did you know that Jewish families celebrate most of their religious traditions in their homes more than at the synagogue.  The Sabbath has a set of rituals that happen in the home.  It's not just don't go to work instead go to church so that the pastor has to work on the holy day of rest but the rest of us don't kind of thing.  It is a ritual to remember our rhythms and set a pacing for our lives that centers around God.

I believe that we need a religious ritualization of the home.  I think we should set up a time to be in community as a family where we talk about how God works in this world.  It could be turning off the TV and  reading something together.  It could be talking to your teens about your faith and having them do the same (even God forbid your struggles with belief).  It could be flannel board hour at home with your two year old where you tell Bible stories.  It could be lighting a candle at sundown while saying a prayer together.  But we need a ritual at home to help make faith more than something that is done for an hour every Sunday and if your ambitious another hour on Wednesday.  Let's do church, religion, faith at home with the people see most.  Oh and atheist, you can even do this and talk about whatever your brand of atheism believes; science is the new Catholic, or humanism is the new Protestantism, or Nietzsche is the new Jesus, or whatever (I think I lost all the atheist with the first line, so if you made it this far, congrats, we must be friends).  Regardless of your belief, if you make a meaningful ritual out of it, then it becomes part of how you participate in a greater reality on an ongoing basis.

#8 Just because a lot of people are coming doesn't mean you're doing something right.

The very first time I met a certain pastor he said to me, "I think the Church Growth Model and the Prosperity Gospel are really the same thing."  At the time I totally shrugged it off, and yes I'm pretty sure he capitalized those terms when he talked. It left me wondering, "What the hell was that?"

Usually people don't start first time conversation by linking dangerous theological concepts with a certain model of the church.  It was really completely outside the social norms that should have dictated the conversation.  It went from, Hi, I'm Mark and I'm new youth pastor in town to his assertion.  Now that it has been nearly three years since that conversation I can honestly say that it was one of my more memorable "nice to meet you" conversations I have ever had.

I have thought about what he said, which by the way does have some merit.  There have been times that I have looked at an organization like a church and said they must be doing something right because they have a lot of people supporting it.  Is that true?  Is the number of people a direct correlation to the rightness of the program?

Let's follow that logic out a little shall we.  Let's say that an organization is gaining a lot of followers.  This organization has over the course of just a few years built up a following of several hundred thousand people. This is a pretty big organization.  Now, let's say that the reason this organization is growing is because it is placing irrational amount of blame on one ethnic group for the struggles that are going on in the world, and promises to make the world a better place through relocating this group and stripping them of power and wealth.  Is this organization doing the right thing?  Most would say no, yet they are getting a large following, therefore, just because a lot of people are supporting something doesn't make it right.

My assertion is that just because a lot of people coming doesn't mean you are doing something right.  It means you are doing something popular.  It means you are marketing well.  But it doesn't mean that theologically or ethically you are doing the right thing.  This is the basic link my awkward conversationalist was making.  Church Growth is about getting lots of people and it follows that if you are faithful to God then everyone will flock to your church, which is in fact prosperity gospel.  Maybe if we follow the line of the prophets, we are following God when the majority of the people in the world are ignoring you.

Therefore, it is not that you're doing something right if you have a lot of people attending, but it is not that you are doing something wrong either.  High church attendance means you have lots of people interested in what you are doing.  It could be right or it could be wrong.  Growth doesn't mean you're right theologically or ethically it just means there are a lot of people checking out what you're doing. Let's not read too much into numbers, please.

#7 I feel like I know Portland thanks to the show Portlandia.

We don't have a TV anymore, but we do have a lap top computer that Netflix streams TV shows and movies to.  It's pretty awesome.  But it means that I am always at least one season behind on every TV show, which I have to just live with.

Because of Netflix though I have been exposed to shows that I probably would have never watched without their recommendation.  Portlandia is one of those shows.  So I really like the first two seasons, and because of this show I'm pretty sure I can count Portland as a place that I have visited.  I've never physically been there, but I think the show has shown me exactly what it is about and, therefore Portland has been checked off of my bucket list.

I would like to conclude this post by saying that this has been, indeed, my most meaningless assertion.  I'm not sure I can top this, but stay tuned and I will try.

P.S. I also have checked Gotham City off of my list because of the new Batman movies.  There's nothing wrong with living life vicariously through my lap top computer, right?

#6 I like to read about the Bible more than I like to read the bible.

I have found as I try to prepare for lessons for my youth group that I don't really enjoy reading the Bible itself.  I can open the Bible up and decide that I'm going to read Romans or something, and I absolutely can read it.  The problem is I don't really care that much about it when I just start reading it to read it.  The text means very little and I get a little caught up in the rhetoric and lost in the words and miss most of the meaning.  Then I get a little bored.

Rather if you give me a book that is a commentary on Romans, I will eat that up.  I love reading about the historical social world of the original writers.  I love read about what we know of Paul and what letters are actually his and which might not be.  I love the read about the ideas people have about how Paul's mission actually may have happened.  Or how in the letters Paul seems to have done things differently than how Acts portrays them.  I like to know what words and sentences could be translated differently with the chance that they are actually a veiled slam on the Roman Empire.  I like reading about Jewish revolts and the destruction of the Temple and disputes on when these books may have been written and disputes on authorship of these books of the Bible.

The story underneath the surface of the Bible that scholars have dedicated their lives to discern is way more fascinating to me than the actual texts.  But once I learn more about the background of the text it changes the way I may understand parts of the Bible.  Meaning changes and it becomes more interesting.  Trying to figure out the motivation behind the letters Paul wrote changes the feel of the letter, which in turn makes me think about it differently.  Maybe he wasn't writing to us today, but we can still learn from it.

In closing, I don't really like to read the Bible, but I love to read things about the Bible.  Reading about the Bible is way more interesting to me.  And maybe in the long run it makes the Bible come to life a little more and speak to me differently.  Bible reading plans for me suck, but reading plans that include books about the Bible sounds way more interesting.

Is anyone else like me?  What's your favorite book about the Bible?  What's your favorite book of the Bible?  Why?

Does anyone really comment?

Assertion #5:New Year's Resolutions make me feel bad about myself.

It's the start of another year.  Somehow we made it through another one despite the threat of certain doom from various contemporary and ancient sources.  And although I'm thankful to be alive at the end of this tumultuous year, there is one thing I hate about the new year.  A new year always makes me feel bad about myself.

 A new year means a time of reflection and evaluation, then setting the dreaded New Year's Resolution.  I don't know how you are, but I am really hard on myself.  When asked, I struggle to come up with strengths but I'm ready to tell you all my weaknesses.  It is a problem I have always had, and as a kid it meant at certain things I tried harder.  Like basketball, I was a short kid who was told that I probably shouldn't go out for the team next year.  And with true Michael Jordan flair (sometimes I overstate things) I came back the next year as the starting point guard of an undefeated team.  Basketball became my obsession because I was told I was bad at it.  I knew my weaknesses on the court and always did my best to work on them.  That didn't really get me anywhere, but it is a way my personality flaw worked to my advantage.  (Some would say that was more of a pride/proving people wrong issue, but whatever)

So as I look at myself in the mirror and reflect on what could change in my life, I always dwell on the negative.  Then, my self-esteem goes down.  Because over time, my determination and resolve have gotten weaker while self nit-picking has gotten stronger.  I've nearly defeated myself.  Then, I just start to feel bad about myself, and this whole New Year's thing starts to smell like my childhood home on liver and onion day, absolutely gag-worthy! (Sorry, Mom.)

So this year, while I will be trying to work to improve on some things, I am going to start thinking more about my strengths.  I've beaten myself up for my weaknesses enough.  It is time to concentrate on what I do well, and reflect on those things, so that while I'll occasionally give in to dwelling on my weaknesses, I won't forget that I'm actually do some things quite well.  This is the year that I will focus on the positive in my life instead of worrying about the negative.

What are your resolutions or goals for this coming year?  Upon what are you going to improve this year?  Of what are going to rid?  (I'm working on the don't-end-sentences-with-a-preposition syndrome this year, but it makes questions seem awkward.)

Assertion #4: Most Christians are not Christian

I think about this a lot.  I mean, this is the kind of thing that will keep me up at night.  I think what does that word actually mean.  How has its meaning changed overtime?  The word Christian often is a word I think about.  Well, I finally looked it up!

First, here is my own weird misconception on what that word means.  To me, for years, I have thought that Christian means "little Christ."  So that made sense to me.  We are to be little anointed people called to do God's work in the world.  We are all anointed, set apart, and called to continue Christ's ministry.  Of course, we all disagree on what that is.  Most evangelicals have made it a political party platform.  Whereas others have made it a list of rules to follow, or beliefs to verbally agree with.  Others have made it all about caring for the poor and suffering.  Or just a way to escape eternal torment in hell (because that's the God I want to follow, one which will torture you until you love him).

What I discovered is that the word Christian (Christianos) is only found 3 times in the Bible.  And like all good names for movements, it was originally meant as an insult.  It was a way to degrade those who follow and continue Jesus's ministry.  This word means a slave of Christ.  In the Greek speaking Roman Empire, this ending was used to denote whose slave you were.  It was a dishonoring title.  So if you were a slave of Peter's then you would be called Peterianos, as a title denoting your status.  You are not free and you belong to Peter.

So I assert that most Christians (including myself) are not Christian in that we are not truly slaves of Christ.  Our titles tends to be whatever our jobs are.  And I would find it weird if someone said their title was Christian.  I would assume it is ploy to sell me something.

By the way, Christ is an Eschatological title.  It is a title that points to a future that is being ushered in by this person.  It is an anticipation of the full realization of the coming Kingdom of God, which has no death and dying (a.k.a. sin). So being a slave to this person means that you are participating in the coming of this Kingdom.  You are participating in making this partially realized Kingdom a full reality. It is not an honorable position.  It is a servants position in which you lose your identity as whatever you are in this current age and you are fully identified in this future.  It is a position with a foot in two eras being split in half by participating in both at the same time.  Bringing eternity to right now while staring in the face of death and despair.  Speaking hope in the place of despair.

I am not a slave of Christ the way I should be.  I fall in and out of bondage to the gospel and bondage to sin and death.  I would venture that most people who call themselves Christian would not like being called slaves. We prefer follower or occasional church attender.  Slave is such a harsh term with a lot of baggage. It was originally meant as an insult, but the early church decided to make the normative title. So normative that today it means almost nothing.

Assertion #3: Moving to another country due to an election is just a silly threat

I hear people say things like I'm moving to Canada, or Australia, or umm...Uzbekistan (I've never hear this one, but still) because whomever has been elected to whichever office.  The absolute worst thing in the world is that they elected some communist, fascist, elitist, backwoods, Muslim, Christian, baby killer man or woman to this important political office (that list of adjectives was kind of fun to make).

After every election cycle we should lose about a quarter of our eligible voters to some other country that may or may not follow whatever principle that they are looking for.  I don't think people actually do the research on these countries.  I mean Uzbekistan, really?  Strangely, this quarter of the eligible registered voters and their families are still here to make this empty threat again.  Until people follow through with this threat, I condemn it as stupid.  When someone from Australia says to me, oh I met this guy who moved here because Obama was re-elected, I'll have to reconsider my thoughts somewhat.

Side note: I think conservatives wouldn't like Australia or Canada.  I hear Uzbekistan is nice (I haven't really heard that) or maybe Germany or Portugal or Saudi Arabia or Mexico, why doesn't anyone say they are leaving for Mexico when their politician loses?

Anyway, what makes people think that another country is going to be any better.  I mean our political system was designed to be slow and it is intentional that everything always grinds to a halt.  Our system is working because it is still really hard to pass a law.  Of course, stupid laws get passed all the time. And yes, the political game is totally annoying and entertaining and stupid (I'm a fan of this work today). Although things change as new people become in charge in this republic, nothing changes super fast.  So stick it out, fight for the changes you think are most important, and fight to preserve things that you think need to be preserved.  In the end, if things get really bad you can always go to a place where nationalize healthcare is in place like Canada or Australia and then everything will be better for you.

Assertion #2: Money is an Evil I'd Like to Try

There are so many cliches about money.  Things like, money doesn't buy happiness, money is the root of all evil (which is a misquote of a bible verse). I totally agree that money does not bring about happiness. As the late rapper will attest to "Mo Money, Mo Problems."  Greed can be the cause of all kinds of horrible things in this world.  The pursuit of money above all else creates sweat shops where poor kids work 12 hour days for little money in horrible working environments.  It causes wealth at the expense of others.  It causes unnecessary competition between people.  Greed creates a lot of problems, that's why it's a deadly sin.

Money itself is neutral.  It doesn't create anything.  The correction to the misquote above is something like, "the love of money in the root of all kinds of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10).  Not that money is evil.  Money is a tool. Greed is evil.  I disagree with our late rapper friend, Biggie Smalls, I believe mo money, different problems,  which doesn't flow as well in a song.  Not being able to pay the rent, feed your child, feed yourself are all real problems.  Not knowing where your next meal comes from is a problem.  Deciding between whether you are going to eat or child will have diapers is a problem.  There are a lot of problems that go along with little or no money.

I can talk about the problems associated with not having much money.  Student loans helps me understand some of those problems, but not the extremes that I mentioned above.  I don't know what the problems are with having "mo money".  I would like to experience those problems.  I would like to know the problems, but only for research, of course.  This isn't greed, right?

Here is the song I referenced several times:

Assertion #1-Manliness is not selfishness

I have decided to change my format on this blog a little.  It has been called meaningless assertions the whole time, but I have not been very assertive in my assertions (see what I did there, that was fun).  So, from here on out, I'll be making assertions and number said assertions.  They may be social, political, theological, or just random assertions, but above all they will be meaningless and mine.

Assertion #1-Manliness is not selfishness.

Do you remember that Dodge Charger commercial from 2010?  It was a Super Bowl commercial I believe, and I can say honestly it really irritated me.  If you don't remember here it is:

It's called "Man's Last Stand."  Here is my problem.  It basically says, "I will be considerate of you as a person implying that being considerate is emasculating as long as I can drive this powerful 'manly' car."  I will be considerate of you, only if it will get me what I want.  I can understand the office things.  I mean let's face it two hour meeting are horrible, but putting the seat down, cleaning the sink after shaving, these things are just being considerate.

Increasingly, in my view of the world, being a man means being selfish.  Look at most Vince Vaughn movies.  He plays a petty selfish man perpetually stuck as a 12 year old boy.  There is nothing wrong with 12 year old boys, but a 40 year old needs to act differently.  It cannot be all about self and satisfying your own desires. Side note: that shouldn't be what 12 year old boys should do either.

Being manly in my view has nothing to do with selfishness.  In fact, I believe the best thing you can do as a man is to be selfless.  Obviously, there are times that you have to take care of yourself, but you cannot always do that.  Being a man or being mature means caring for others and being considerate of others regardless of your reward for it.  Being a man should be defined by how you put your abilities to work to make this world a better place.  Having a penis doesn't mean that you have the right to be selfish, instead it means that you need to understand that everyone has personhood and needs to be respected.  Manliness is being considerate and caring, not self seeking and overly aggressive.

How would you define being a man?  Does the way being a man is portrayed in the media ever make you angry?

There is No Cosmic Why!

Tragedy is everywhere.  We all face some pretty horrific things in our lives and we all hear about even worse things.  From war, to rape, to other acts of senseless violence there is a normal question asked into the universe..."Why?"  God gets this question in response to tragedy all the time.  Why did so and so have to die?  Why did that happen? Why is there war, famine, drought, pain, suffering, sorrow?  Why is there so much bad?

I believe, along with others I hope, that God does not cause these things to happen.  Therefore, there is no why.  There is no cosmic reason for pain and sorrow.  The only reason is people are stupid or there is a scientific reason for most natural disasters.  There is natural cause and effect, but there is no cosmic reason for the bad that happens.

If I truly believe this line of thinking then it has to apply to everything.  Thus, I have to ask did God really caused the pain and suffering of Good Friday, or did humanity?  It's often thought of as part of God's master plan, but why would God cause so much pain if God doesn't still cause it today.  Is this the one exception to my belief?  I was told as a kid and teenager that God orchestrated the whole cross thing because it was God's way and plan for redemption.  But what if just like God doesn't cause the hurricane that rips through a major coastal city, or doesn't cause the car crash that killed that teenager, God didn't cause the crucifixion?  Would it change anything?

Here is my assertion: I believe that God didn't cause Christ's crucifixion, but instead knew it was coming.  All of those times when Jesus is predicting his own death had less to do with God's causation and more to do with humanity's own patterns and causation.  Jesus knew that things he was saying and doing was in direct contrast to the ruling authorities of the day.  It was especially an affront to the Roman way of life.  Therefore, he knew he was going to be crucified, but he also knew that he couldn't live any differently than he was.  He knew that there was a better way to live and a just kingdom to look forward to.  He knew that he has the start of the that just kingdom, so he had to live in it now realizing the consequences of his actions.  Therefore, God did not cause the crucifixion to happen, but instead it was caused by our own systems.  The crucifixion exposes our systems of domination and violence for what they are.  And they are not of God!

There is a second half to my belief that God doesn't cause the bad things to happen in our lives.  And it is but God brings the good in the bad situation.  What I mean is that in the face of tragedy, people will throw aside differences to become one for the greater good.  They will rebuild cities.  Cry with a friend who lost a loved one.  Decide to dedicate her life to the research and cure of a disease.  Educate people on the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse.  In the face of tragedy when everything is looking absolutely horrible there is always a little good that God is working into the problem.  Just like how on the third day, God raised Jesus from the dead, ushering in and validating the kingdom that Jesus had started to build.  In the face of death there is always resurrection.  So in the face of tragedy, we should absolutely mourn, but also have hope that in the face of violence, pain, suffering and sorrow there is the crucified Christ reminding us that there is always resurrection.

Amen?

Misunderstood Words

So, I've been reading and thinking a lot about misunderstanding words.  Or more accurately, the way words change in meaning over time.  Since, I'm a big geek and mostly ready theology books (especially Biblical Theology books) I've been mostly thinking about the way a 1st Century Palestinian would understand a word versus how we understand it today.  Appropriate for the season maybe we should look at what the word resurrection means.  The first thought that come to my head is zombies.  We have the popularity of "The Walking Dead" to help us all think about zombies.  Doesn't resurrection sound just a little like zombies? Jesus got up out of the grave after being dead for a while and on top of that we eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood...zombies.

That's definitely not what first century folks were thinking about when they heard the word resurrection, and probably not most of you.  Sometimes as N.T. Wright writes about in "Surprised by Hope" we confuse resurrection with a great soul migration.  We dismiss the material and make it a move to the spiritual.  This is an easy move to make.  This world sucks so we are going to leave it behind as we transition through death to a purely spiritual life.  This is what Plato was apparently all about (I'm excited because I'm going to read some Plato soon).  It's what the Gnostics were all about.  If you don't know they were a heretical sect of Christianity that considered the material world to be evil and the spiritual was good.  The only thing that mattered was the non-corrupted soul because your body was evil.  It's an easy thing to slip into because we can look around and see how much evil there is.  But God did call the world good in Genesis and the end of that story called everything very good so maybe the material is rebellious and incomplete rather than evil. 

So what does resurrection mean?  Jesus' resurrection was the first resurrection of many to come.  The resurrection was so surprising to the first century because they thought it was going to happen all at once.  All of the faithful who died was going to be resurrected all at once into a new life in which God dwells among the people.  It's an end times vision, not end of the material world, but rather the renewal and completion of the material world. Christ's resurrection means that this renewed age has begun and was a sign that this world is being transformed into the complete vision of God.  Resurrection is a symbol, which participates in and points to God's coming transformation of this world into heaven.  And we are called to continue showing glimpses of this resurrection to the world that is continually being transformed into something better than we can ever imagine. 

What do you think about when we talk about resurrection? Zombies? Going to Heaven? Something else?