February 21, 2012

Lent for the Rest of Us

Having just eaten my second paczki before 10:00am, I realized it is time for me to start thinking about Lent.  Today is Shrove Tuesday, or Fat Tuesday — the day before the season of Lent.  (Also known as Mardi Gras).  This day is generally a day of indulgence before turning to repentance. This historically has been a time when you would clear out the flour and sugar and all the things that would be forbidden to eat during Lent by making paczkis, pancakes and other yummies.  It is a day to indulge in food and drink because one wouldn’t during the next 40 or so days during the Lenten season.

Various Christian traditions put more (or less) emphasis on this season – some worry it feels too ‘religious’ — but I think it can be a meaningful time on the spiritual calendar.  Perhaps you’ve felt this also, but are wondering what that means in actuality.  Me too.

So my thoughts naturally turned to the most spiritual people around — monks.  What do they do in monasteries?  They of all people must know how to keep Lent in a way that is meaningful, full of tradition, and so on.

Rule 49 of St. Benedict’s Rule is about Lent.

It goes as follows:

CHAPTER XLIX
   On the Keeping of Lent

The life of a monk ought always to be a Lenten observance. However, since such virtue is that of few, we advise that during these days of Lent he guard his life with all purity and at the same time wash away during these holy days all the shortcomings of other times. This will then be worthily done, if we restrain ourselves from all vices. Let us devote ourselves to tearful prayers, to reading and compunction of heart, and to abstinence.

During these days, therefore, let us add something to the usual amount of our service, special prayers, abstinence from food and drink, that each one offer to God “with the joy of the Holy Ghost” (1 Thes 1:6), of his own accord, something above his prescribed measure; namely, let him withdraw from his body somewhat of food, drink, sleep, speech, merriment, and with the gladness of spiritual desire await holy Easter.

Let each one, however, make known to his Abbot what he offers and let it be done with his approval and blessing; because what is done without permission of the spiritual father will be imputed to presumption and vain glory, and not to merit. Therefore, let all be done with the approval of the Abbot.

–

The 5 Lenten practices and principles in St. Benedicts Rule can be seen as a way to get into a rhythm during this time of year.  They impact not only our personal faith and spirituality in this season, but also give us lenses to see the rest of the year in a different light.  Further, as spiritual practices affect us inwardly, they will inevitably flow outward from us, helping us breathe the Spirit of life into those around us.  As communities of people begin to incorporate these practices, the broader spiritual impact only increases.   (The following are adapted from Word Made Flesh).

1. Refraining from sin – “Lent should be a time for us to do battle, a time to fight not only the great temptations but, perhaps more importantly, our subtle faults, the seemingly small habitual sins we consent to every day…[Lent is a propitious time to take inventory and a close look at our bare selves,] to see the obstacles on our journey to God, things which should be eliminated from our lives.”

The challenge presented is to look at sin as not only having a personal dimension but as systemic and structural evil as well. What is it that we consent to every day that implicates us, directly or indirectly, in actions and attitudes that destroy community, solidarity, compassion and resurrection hope? As we examine our bare selves may we pray to refrain from those things that veer us off the path of following the One who was deeply concerned for and drew near to the vulnerable, the excluded, and the forgotten.

2. Prayer with tears – “Our Lenten prayer, like the publican’s, ought to be a humble and tearful prayer of compunction, a prayer of simplicity and trust, not in ourselves, but in the loving-kindness and tenderness of God.”

Our tears should flow over our own brokenness, our own need, our own attempts at making the world conform to our wants and desires.  Our tearful prayers should also flow from our how often we lack of compassion and solidarity with those who suffer because of our individual and collective brokenness.  Our weeping may draw us closer to the heartbreak of God over the suffering we induce (or neglect) in our world.

3. Holy reading – “for through the Scriptures the Holy Spirit never ceases to speak and educate us…Lent is this wonderful, particularly well-suited time for reading and listening to the voice of God in His word.”

Holy reading during Lent can take on a certain newness as we attempt to apply God’s Word to today’s challenges and opportunities.  Perhaps you’ll decide to reading through a Psalm each morning.  Maybe you’ll contemplate on Jesus or the Israelites’ experience in the desert.  Memorize a passage.  How is God speaking into my life?  How am I responding to it?  As the Spirit of God challenges us to read Scripture with fresh eyes and hearts, we may well be open to a new working of God in our lives. May our holy reading lead us to contemplate and discover in Scripture God’s special and deep love for us, and for the most broken around us, including the orphan, the widow, and the immigrant.

4. Repentance – “Repentance, the work of the Holy Spirit in the innermost part of our hearts…It is true that conversion and repentance are lifelong tasks, but Lent provides us with an exclusive period to work in it intensely. Lent is indeed a ‘school of repentance’.”

During Lent let us allow the Spirit of God to lead us to repent not only of our personal sins but also for the ways in which our collective history may have been complicit in the suffering of others. In repentance, let us seek to believe in the Gospel that is good news to all who need it – including ourselves!  It is also good news to the poor, sight to the blind, freedom for the oppressed.  May we actively seek justice, hope and joy in the Spirit, which is what the Kingdom of God is all about.

5. Abstinence from food –“Christ used fasting and encouraged his followers to practice fasting…when carried out under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it becomes life-giving and a source of powerful grace in our individual lives.”

Abstinence from food during Lent becomes life giving to us as we reflect and realize that God is our source of life and all that is good in our lives. Yet abstinence from food during Lent can also bring us in closer in solidarity with so many of God’s children that abstain from food, not voluntarily, but who are forced to by extreme poverty and vulnerability. This fasting can become an opportunity to practice compassion and solidarity with the suffering and vulnerable. It can become a catalyst in creatively exploring how to live simply so that others can simply live.  Maybe you’ll give up sweets, or coffee, or beer, or something else during this season.  Maybe skipping lunch as a daily fast, or doing it once a week.  I am still considering my options…  Might be hard for a pub theologian to give up beer…  Shane Claiborne had some delightful thoughts today about how sometimes less is more.

Looking at these 5 Lenten practices not only through a lens of personal faith and spirituality but also with a posture of solidarity, identification and compassion towards the suffering and vulnerable, we can continue to discover our real selves on our faith journey.

And in this journey Lent provides a focused season to follow and align our life-choices and options in relation to a God who is concerned for each one of us – and each person we encounter every day.  May we experience and be the presence of Christ in each place he has us, and open ourselves to his work in our lives!  (For more Lenten resources, check out Godspace)

Doing something special this year for Lent?  Feel free to share your journey below!

1 Comment

Filed under Practices, Relationships, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

February 16, 2012

Is God a Person?

Post by Richard Rohr

To get a proper divine conversation started and going, we all have to think of God as a “person” somehow. Otherwise there is no reciprocity, mutuality, give and take, no ONE to love, no “I and Thou”. Humans only know how to relate to other persons initially. But if you stay there too long, you pay a big price, because God ends up being on the other end of YOUR conversation, which keeps God SEPARATE and somehow in need of daily “appeasement”. True intimacy is pretty hard to experience at this level, at least for long. The whole point of prayer is to lead you to experience and say what Jesus finally says “I and the Father are one!” (John 10:30). Then you do not pray to God as much as you pray THROUGH and WITH God. (Note how the official liturgical prayers end “THROUGH Christ our Lord. Amen.”)

Eventually you must stop looking AT reality, and you will learn to look OUT FROM reality! This a major and heart stopping change, and admittedly most people never go to this mystical level–because they were not taught very well, frankly. It is not because they are not worthy or incapable, but they usually feel unworthy and feel incapable. They are not.

 

When prayer naturally matures, God is not so much “A Person” out there, that I must cajole, adore, and obey, but God has become the VERY GROUND OF ALL BEING, which is in dialogue with you, loving you, receiving your praise, calling you forth, forgiving you, and revealing a gracious divine will in all things as they are. Prayer is now all the time and everywhere, as long as you are conscious and awake!

 

At this point it is still OK to think and talk of God as a person–as long as you know it is not really true–in the way you ordinarily use that phrase! God is no longer a mere person, but ALL of reality itself has become PERSONAL, relational, dialogical, giving and receiving, loving and lovable. God cannot be localized here or there any more (Luke 17:20), but as the old catechism said “God is everywhere”. This is a major and important maturing in one’s relationship with God, yet so few spiritual guides know how to lead us across when we think we are losing our initial faith. You indeed are! But you are finding a much deeper faith, and you must go through this necessary trial and darkness to grow up spiritually and experience true and full intimacy with God (Read St. John of the Cross, if you doubt me.)

 

For Christians, the paradox is resolved in the Trinity. They can continue to relate to Jesus PERSONALLY, but when their prayer becomes fully Trinitarian, as we see in the Christian mystics, God is not just A person that they have a relationship with, but God is RELATIONSHIP ITSELF (internally in God) and draws everything into that ONE DIVINE DANCE (externally in the universe). More and more people, I am finding, are ready for such adult Christianity and such mature spirituality (See Hebrews 5:12-13). Only then does “everything belong”, and only then do we get off the childish teeter-totter and fall onto a solid ground of joy. But it will surely feel like falling! Don’t be afraid.

–
What do you think of Rohr’s contemplative/mystical approach?  Would love to get your comments! 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Philosophy, Relationships, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 6, 2012

Pub Theology Recap January 5

 

Great night at the pub last night.  Nine of us grabbed a pint and settled in for a good discussion, huddled around the table as if seeking respite from the snow drifts just outside.

Jesus and Mohammed

A. showed up, who promptly styled himself ‘kinda the local guru.’ Then quickly thought better of it and shifted to ‘kinda the local guy.’ He’d been reading up on the history of Islam and noted to us that “Mohammed had to work hard.  He fought with people, he had enemies, he bled.  He worked to establish a religion.  Unlike Jesus.  Jesus didn’t have much opposition.  He had it easy, just healing people and floating on the water.  Mohammed though, man… that guy…”

I asked him if he had converted to Islam, with this newfound admiration of the prophet (PBUH).  He said no.

After that little soliloquy we hit the sheet. First question, “Do you have any New Year’s resolutions?”  Most people admitted that they did not.  R. said that she often takes the New Year as a time to take stock of where things are in her life and seek to continue to grow both personally and professionally.  I noted that I sort of do the same.  N. (who brought the pretzels) noted that her son always resolves to give up crack cocaine.  That way he never fails to live up to his resolution.

We spent some time discussing why resolutions tend to be individual (we can’t make anyone else do something), but also noted the benefits of making resolutions with someone else or with a community of some sort (accountability, mutuality).  We wondered about a couple in a relationship making resolutions.  S. noted that she sort of does that with her husband, but that then they tend to pursue the resolutions individually, or each in their own way.  Yet there is something about a communal effort that can create energy and certainly can hold one to what one has said.  The other S. noted that companies and organizations often do the same thing but call them ‘goals’ or ‘plans.’

Then the question (contributed by C., who was down in Kzoo doing PT South) was: “Should Pub Theology have a 2012 resolution?”  At this point the question of location came up, with RBB’s upcoming move to 16th Street.  We had heard that the pub portion of the new location was not going to be as big a priority, so it is unclear whether there will be adequate space.  There is talk of something new coming into the Warehouse district to take RB’s place, perhaps Short’s or someone else.  It would be tempting to stay.  Another possibility is the new Filling Station brewery coming in by the library.  In any case, Pub Theology resolves to keep meeting (wherever we end up) and being the place in Northern Michigan for beer, conversation, and God.

Topic 2: “Individualism is a poor container for the Gospel.”

This was generally agreed, as S. (with the glasses) noted that “We can’t all play a solo at the same time.”  The other S. (reading glasses) noted that individualism tends to cause people to apprehend what they believe is true about the world and why, rather than take someone else’s word for it, or simply buying into the community’s agreed upon take, and tends to cause people to move away from faith, so yes, it is a poor container for the gospel.  B. highlighted the fact that Christianity is not meant to be an individualistic faith.  It is not simply ‘my spirituality’ or ‘me and Jesus.’  Rather, it is meant to be experienced in community, lived out in community, and that when a group of people together take following Jesus seriously, and live into the Gospel, and live out the Gospel, that it is a powerful statement to those looking on.  R. worried that such a focus on community would drown out people’s ability to be individuals.  That there would be space for the ‘other’, whether that is someone divorced, or gay, or recovering, or whatever.  B. noted that ideally the Gospel is inclusive and calls for a community that is open. Such a community ought to reflect the diversity of individuals who all come together because of who God is and because he has made and called each of them.  It was concluded that there is such a thing as good individualism, and good communalism, but that both can go awry if we are not careful.

Topic 3: “In light of the 2012 end of time idea, do you think the redemption of Christ will come in this world — or does it require a new world?”

S. noted that there were 3 billion people on the planet when he was born, and there are now over 7 billion.  R. (who refuses resolutions) noted that “The world will end.”  B. asked, “Who here thinks they will live to see the end?”  Most people said no.   But then N. (who was back at long last! and brought the chips) blurted out, “What are y’all talking about?”

As the rest of the table continued to debate the end of the world, I got up to get another pint.  This time a Dark Squirrel Lager.

The last three questions all sort of related:

4. What would have to happen for the believer not to believe?

5. What would have to happen for the unbeliever to believe?

6. Is theology (or what kind of theology is) compatible with belief in the constancy of nature?

I don’t have time (or the recall) to give you the rest of the conversation.

But a few highlights:

R. asked, “Why does it say unbeliever?  Shouldn’t it be nonbeliever?  What does unbeliever mean?”

N. (chips) pleaded, “Damn it!  Call it Spirit, energy, essence, whatever!  We all believe in it.”

N. (pretzels) noted, “It’s time to start preaching the stuff we’ve known for 200 years.” (referring to biblical scholarship that is often known about by seminaries and preachers but kept from the congregation because ‘they’re not ready for it’.)

And a couple more from the ‘local guru’:

“I think about time differently than most people.”

“Are any of you communists?” (This out of nowhere, in the middle of a completely unrelated discussion)

“Do you think it’s better to show weakness, or to hide weakness?”

And that’s a wrap!  If you were there and care to fill us in on more of what happened, feel free.  If you weren’t there, but have any thoughts on the above topics – post them below!

2 Comments

Filed under Philosophy, Pub Theology, Relationships, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 5, 2012

Pub Theology 2012!

Our first gathering of the year is tonight!

Here’s a sneak-peak at what’s on the sheet:


1.    Do you have any New Year’s resolutions?
Why is it that they tend to be individual?
What would a communal resolution look like?
Should PT have a 2012 resolution?

2.  “Individualism is a poor container for the Gospel.”

3.  In light of the 2012 end of time idea, do you think the redemption of Christ will come in this world — or does it require a new world?

4.  What would have to happen for the believer *not* to believe?

5.  What would have to happen for the unbeliever *to* believe?

6.  Is theology (or what kind of theology is) compatible with belief in the constancy of nature?

Can’t make it out?  Post your thoughts below.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Pub Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

December 25, 2011

Emmanuel | Christmas Day

by Frederick Buechner:

 

Christmas is not just Mr. Pickwick dancing a reel with the old lady at Dingley Dell or Scrooge waking up the next morning a changed man. It is not just the spirit of giving abroad in the land with a white beard and reindeer. It is not just the most famous birthday of them all and not just the annual reaffirmation of Peace on Earth that it is often reduced to so that people of many faiths or no faith can exchange Christmas cards without a qualm.

 

On the contrary, if you do not hear in the message of Christmas something that must strike some as blasphemy and others as sheer fantasy, the chances are you have not heard the message for what it is. Emmanuel is the message in a nutshell. Emmanuel, which is Hebrew for “God with us.” That’s where the problem lies.

 

The claim that Christianity makes for Christmas is that at a particular time and place “the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity” came to be with us himself. When Quirinius was governor of Syria, in a town called Bethlehem, a child was born who, beyond the power of anyone to account for, was the high and lofty One made low and helpless. The One whom none can look upon and live is delivered in a stable under the soft, indifferent gaze of cattle. The Father of all mercies puts himself at our mercy. Year after year the ancient tale of what happened is told raw, preposterous, and holy — and year after year the world in some measure stops to listen.

 

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. A dream as old as time. If it is true, it is the chief of all truths. If it is not true, it is of all truths the one that people would most have be true if they could make it so.

 

Maybe it is that longing to have it be true that is at the bottom even of the whole vast Christmas industry the tons of cards and presents and fancy food, the plastic figures kneeling on the floodlit lawns of poorly attended churches. The world speaks of holy things in the only language it knows, which is a worldly language.

 

Emmanuel. We all must decide for ourselves whether it is true. Certainly the grounds on which to dismiss it are not hard to find. Christmas is commercialism. It is a pain in the neck. It is sentimentality.

 

It is wishful thinking. The shepherds. The star. The three wise men. Make believe.

 

Yet it is never as easy to get rid of as all this makes it sound. To dismiss Christmas is for most of us to dismiss part of ourselves. It is to dismiss one of the most fragile yet enduring visions of our own childhood and of the child that continues to exist in all of us. The sense of mystery and wonderment. The sense that on this one day each year two plus two adds up not to four but to a million.

 

What keeps the wild hope of Christmas alive year after year in a world notorious for dashing all hopes is the haunting dream that the child who was born that day may yet be born again even in us.

 

Emmanuel. Emmanuel.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Poetry, Readings, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , , , ,

December 24, 2011

Three Cheers | A Christmas Eve Reflection

From Robert Farrar Capon:

Advent is the church’s annual celebration of the silliness (from selig, which is German for “blessed”) of salvation. The whole thing really is a divine lark. God has fudged everything in our favour: without shame or fear we rejoice to behold his appearing. Yes, there is dirt under the divine Deliverer’s fingernails. But no, it isn’t any different from all the other dirt of history. The main thing is, he’s got the package and we’ve got the trust: Lo, he comes with clouds descending. Alleluia, and three cheers.

What we are watching for is a party. And that party is not just down the street making up its mind when to come to us. It is already hiding in our basement, banging on our steam pipes, and laughing its way up our cellar stairs. The unknown day and hour of its finally bursting into the kitchen and roistering its way through the whole house is not dreadful; it is all part of the divine lark of grace.

God is not our mother-in-law, coming to see whether her wedding-present china has been chipped. He is funny Old Uncle with a salami under one arm and a bottle of wine under the other. We do indeed need to watch for him; but only because it would be such a pity to miss all the fun.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Poetry, Readings, Theology

Tagged as , , , , ,

December 16, 2011

Afterwards | An Advent Poem

Mystery. Paraclete. God’s particular dance with the ordinary.

Usually, in the great 15th century paintings, shown as the dove.

You have to look up to see it, above the angel. Mary, sees only

the angel, holds fast the gaze of the extraordinary. It’s love,

 

the lover that hovers high. Waiting. Does it know the answer

she will give to the angel? Can it read already the intricacies

of the human heart? Or does it have to wait to hear from her?

Each wing beat a forever until she said “Let it be.” Afterwards

 

the world resumed its normal orbit – there, for a hearts beat,

it had tilted closer to the sun – the moon had wavered. All of

the old loyalties had felt the shudder, felt the blow in the feet

and up to the belly. No one divined the nature of the disturbance

 

but her. The one whose belly now housed the Word, a universe.

This world, now different , the Spirit, taken, made utterly human.

Word translated in a womb to the language we would dismiss or

read as truly fantastic, thrum of miracle in the blood of a woman.

Richard Osler

Advent | 2007

 

1 Comment

Filed under Poetry, Readings, Theology

Tagged as , , , ,

November 28, 2011

Confessions of a Postconservative

I recently started reading Roger Olson’s book Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology.  But then, I suppose I start reading a lot of books.  Finishing is another matter.

In the introduction, he references a 1974 book by Jack Rogers, then a Fuller Theological Seminary professor.

“Conservative” is a good word.  It marks continuity with the past, preservation of enduring values, holding on to what has been proven with time.  In this sense I am still a conservative.  I want to “hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess 5:21).

There is another sense in which the word “conservative” is used.  The dictionary defines “conservative” as “tending to favor the preservation of the existing order and to regard proposals for change with distrust.”  Being conservative in that sense leads to conservatism.  That is the sense of being conservative which has marked much of my past.  That is the sense of being conservative which I want to put behind me.  That is the sense of being conservative which confuses Christianity with our culture.  Salvation is not found in the status quo.  From apostlic times Christians have challenged the existing order.”

Rogers’ book was originally supposed to be titled: Confessions of a Postconservative Evangelical.  Apparently the publishers felt that was too provocative.  It was published as: Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical.  He was just ahead of his time.

Olson notes that the original title seems more appropriate, given the content of the book.  He begins his own book, mentioned earlier, with this statement:  ”The thesis of this book is simple but controversial:  it is possible to be more evangelical by being less conservative.“

I just picked the book up, so I’m not far into it, but the beginnings prove promising.

What do you think?  

Do you resonate with either Olson’s or Rogers’ statements?

There are certainly ways in which I am conservative, in some of the ways Rogers suggests.  I think it is impossible to be a parent and be otherwise.  But there are also deep and profound ways in which the conservatism in which I was raised has had to give way to a more progressive outlook on theology, politics, and society.  How did this happen?  One of the biggest influences has been simply reading the Bible and studying the text.  As a recent Christianity Today poll noted:  ”Frequent Bible reading can turn you  liberal.”  Who would have thought?

2 Comments

Filed under Politics, Theology, Culture, Relationships, The Text, Books

Tagged as , , , , , ,

November 2, 2011

What are those rich 99%ers complaining about?

Those wealthy protesters

The above picture, and many variations of it, have been floating around the internet.  It is both helpful and unhelpful.

Yes, many (or even most) of the protestors are in good position relative to many others in our world.  But it must be asked – why are people in developing nations in the position they are in?

Many poor farmers around the world have been doomed to poverty by the trade policies of the US and other Western nations.  Four West African countries–Burkina Faso, Mall, Chad, and Benin–have called on the United States to cut the $1-3 billion it spends each year subsidizing American cotton growers, which then allows them to undercut the market for the rest of the world’s cotton farmers.

The World Policy Journal notes:

The protectionist policies of rich countries are indeed a serious issue for Africa, where farming accounts for about 70 percent of total employment and is the main source of income for the vast majority of those living in or near poverty. The 30 member countries of the OECD spend a combined $235 billion per year to support their agricultural producers, but only about $60 billion on foreign aid (about one-fifth of which goes to Africa). Subsidies, tariffs, and nontariff barriers distort global prices and restrict access to rich-country markets.

The global trading system discriminates against the world’s poorest nations, making their products less competitive and undermining opportunities for growth, employment, and, ultimately, economic and social development. Additionally, intransigence on the part of rich countries over agricultural reform also indirectly harms poor countries due to its effects on broader trade negotiations. According to one estimate, unimpeded global trade would boost developing country income by about $200 billion a year in the long term.

The New York Times, for example, argues that African farmers are “rightfully outraged that a nation [the United States] that enjoys all the benefits of open markets for its industrial products keeps putting up walls around its farmers.”

Many people say again and again the free market system is the best there is.  Perhaps.  But it is interesting that the market is actually free only when it benefits us.  If it appears otherwise, we are quick to make it a closed market, or rig the system in our favor.

Additionally, Organizations like the IMF and the World Bank conspire to get developing nations so deep in debt that they are in a hole they can never get out of, while we then condescendingly show up with charitable aid to help them, while never working to change the system which impoverished them in the first place.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, millions of people have died in brutal civil wars led by warlords who are fighting over resources they can sell to Western corporations to make our iPhones and what-have-you.  We do nothing, because it benefits us to have them fight over who gets to sell us their minerals (and other resources).

Places where we do get involved militarily are often because our access to such resources (particularly oil) are jeopardized.   (Let alone the fact that war itself is an incredible profit-making system for Western companies who lobby for rich government contracts).

We have a system which feeds off the resources and people around the world so that we can live in the society we do.  A system in which wealthy elites manipulate the laws at the expense of the majority of this country as well as the rest of the world.

In his book, Not Sure, CRC pastor John Suk notes:

Even a brief review of history makes it clear that so-called Christian nations have never had a great track record when it comes to ministering to the “least of these,” whether they were colonial subjects in Indonesia or India, or the slaves they traded in the Atlantic triangle, or the poor farmers around the world that Western nations have doomed to poverty by their protectionist agricultural trade policies.

…Western nations that have militarily occupied Haiti for generations, that have robbed Haiti of its wealth while protecting the interests of their Western corporations, that supported repressive dictators in the interest of stability while self-righteously and hypocritically declaring allegiance to human rights and democracy – these Western nations are delivering massive amounts of disaster relief to Haiti after the 2010 earthquake.  Unfortunately, it is a case of far too little, too late, to effect the lasting change that might one day help Haiti achieve even a modicum of prosperity and peace.  When it comes to the least of these, Western nations seem to have a habit of beating them to within an inch of their lives, and then shaking their heads in disbelief and disgust while binding their wounds.

The fallacy that this photo perpetuates is that protesters are out there only because of their own situation.  The protest is not primarily about any one single person’s situation!  It is about a system – the system that helps create the starving realities in many nations – the same system that perpetuates corruption in our own.  People are protesting on behalf of people like the hungry people in the above photo, as well as the people living at subsistence level (or worse) in our own.

It is absurd to suggest that we should not protest these abuses until we are as poor as the rest of the world.  In fact, speaking out might even be the Christ-like thing to do.

25 Comments

Filed under Culture, Economy, Politics, Theology

Tagged as , , , , ,

October 25, 2011

Common Sense Jesus?

Some fun in light of a recent politician’s statement about Jesus:

“For over 2,000 years the world has tried hard to erase the memory of the perfect conservative, and His principles of compassion, caring and common sense.”

What do you think?  Did Jesus have an uncommon amount of common sense?

Consider the following from the site Common Sense Jesus:

–
and finally:

What do you think?  Was Jesus all about ‘common sense’?

I tend to agree with this blogger:

I’m pretty sure Jesus’s principles were anything but common sense. In fact, in my recollection, they were the complete opposite. The story of the Gospel is Jesus openly challenging the prevailing norms, social structures, and power dynamics of his day and turning them on their heads with a radical message of humility, non-violence, selflessness and faith in the seemingly impossible.


But what do I know?  I have been accused of lacking common sense myself.

Post your thoughts below!

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, Economy, Entertainment, Politics, Pub Theology, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , , , ,