veritas regnum

sinking ships

2010-06-07T15:24:00.000-05:00

I am genuinely concerned that, in order for our global civilization to survive, the "elites" of the world will be forced to cut the tether that holds up the poor. If it does not, or cannot, I am even more concerned that the civilization, in all of its parts, will collapse entirely. When the choice is between "ethics" and survival, the former is almost always abandoned for the latter.

So the question I want to ask is this: if you had to choose between the downfall of our entire civilization (and a return to a global "Dark Ages") or the abandonment of the poor, needy, sick, dying and uneducated, what would you choose?

the fallacy of "one"...

2010-04-20T00:57:00.001-05:00

The Western tradition has a long and complicated history with the number "one". Western, post-Latin/post-Roman cultures in Europe and the Mediterranean were so dependent on the primacy of the number "one" that "zero" (or "zed" if you're un-American... I jest) wasn't even fully incorporated as a number until after the twelfth century! As Americans, we are philosophically indebted to this Western dependence on both the number and the concept of "one", but what you may never have thought of was how much this conceptual dependency has shaped our culture, our values, and our way of life. I hope to explore this concept a little. Some will surely read this and accuse me of far too much leisure time. Others may peer deeper and, in seeing a legitimate critique of Western values, accuse me of sinister machinations. (I should be so lucky as to become a banned writer that some might take me so seriously!) Yet others still may see what I've written and understand that my attack on "one" is a valid attack on a cancerous falsehood, eating away at our cultural integrity. Allow me to be more direct.

- One has become a symbol of rootedness. For so many of us, we have one home town. One home. Sometimes this is a matter of fact. Some people will die within a hundred yards of where they were born (figuratively and, in some rare cases still, literally). Their narrow geographical experience is not to be judged, perhaps admired in some respects or pitied in another. But, indeed, many of us have lived in more than one home in our lives. Even more than one city. Some in more than one country. Yet we still limit ourselves to a belief that we have but one home! This can cause us to remain loyal to provincial particularisms that limit who we are able to be. By abandoning the "one" of "home", we abandon our "rootedness" to a single place... we can allow ourselves to be more open to the rest of the world (anywhere from new and unknown neighbors, to distant and foreign cultures).

- One has also limited our sense of family. True, a human being can only have one pair of biological parents - but they are still a pair. No human has been spontaneously or - as the phrase goes - "immaculately" conceived. Even in biology, nature shows us the fallacy of "one". But we think of ourselves as having one family, usually that of blood-relation. But how deceptively conventional this kind of thinking is! How often have we said, "He is like a father to me" or, more colloquially, "My brother from another mother"? We have families of our own choosing, all as important as the families not of our choosing, and even here this is no one family. The limitation of family that "one" creates is similar to that of the home: it lends our frame of mind to artificially constructed loyalties: a father abuses his children and, as the saying goes, "But what are you going to do? We're a family." We might be better served to think of our family as much larger than our kinship, but to see a mother and a sister in every woman, a father and a brother in every man. We must be broader than our narrow loyalties!

- One has affected our sense of self, especially in relation to the "other". We say, "I am an individual" or, more appropriately, "I am just one man." But this, too, is an artificial convention. Do we know - truly know - that we are simply one? Might we be closer to being "zero" or anything other than "one"? And in such a non-"one"-ness, might we be more than ourselves? Perhaps closer to something more infinite? Of course we are! But we must abandon, first, the fallacy of "one"! Easier said than done.

- We cannot lie to ourselves and say that this concept of the "one" has not destroyed other relationships as well. Let us not forget what it has done to marriages in the modern (or "first") world! What am I talking about? Divorce! Our growing innate skepticism with "one" has destroyed conventional marriage! But it is good that it be destroyed. Conventional marriage is predicated on "one"! One husband, for one wife. Indeed, "two shall become one flesh" - if ever there was a wrong-headed denial of reality! It is a shame that Paul never learned proper arithmetic, that he should not have been so deluded as to repeat the falsehood that two are made one - or worse yet, that three may be one! No, the weight of responsibility that is placed on the spouse - to be the primary (if not the sole!) provider or satisfaction, comfort, fulfillment for the other - is a crushing weight, one deserving of the discard is has so richly earned, as evidenced by the present divorce rates... and even more by the drop in registered marriages! There is no healthy relationship which is predicated on "one". This is true for non-married couples and, yes, homosexual couples as well. The "one" is a relationship cancer, even among our "best" friends - as though any of us had but one of those.

- But what of the so-called "Ideal Marriage", this laughably ill-conceived marriage to an eternal God? Can this relationship be the refutation of my criticism? Is this where the "one" retreats to, but not one step further? Hardly! One god can no more satisfy the insatiable human being than can one parent raise her, one lover fulfill her, or one home hold her. Let there be many gods, or none at all! But what of this "One God"? No, he does not exist - even to his followers. The reverent Jewish adherent holds fast to a "burning bush", but does she not also deify her Torah? Is not the Pentateuch an immanent extension of her unnamed and unthinkably transcendent YHVH? And in between, was there not a Temple of stone and cedar, and also a Talmud to mediate? But the Christian is no better. What Christian is a monotheist? He is a tri-theist as he has not one god, but three (and a poorly understood third god at that!). The Catholic is the only half-honest Christian, since she admits - even if not admitting - that she is still a polytheist! The dutifully literal Muslim, he may come closest of all to the non-existent monotheist, but his Prophet smells too much like a Christ for me.

- But we should not give our philosophers a pass either. The "first principle"? The "unmoved first mover"? An "absolute" or an "essence"? "The meaning of life? "The truth?" What are these claims, questions and systems if not products of the great artificial convention called "one"? We cannot fix a single moment in time or a single point in space. There are many meanings and no truths. "Facts" are constructed, agreed upon. We have moved, thankfully, beyond the narrow dogmatism of "foundationalism". What more might we be able to achieve once we have moved beyond the "one"!

a dogmatist's rules of engagement

2010-04-02T16:39:00.001-05:00

A Dogmatist's Guide for Engaging a Critical Thinker:

A. The first rule for any dogmatic believer, whether your belief(s) be religious, political, economic, social, racial or cultural is this: you are right! But because you are right, you - and people like you - are a target for evil people in the world that are jealous of your clarity and wisdom. These jealous people, we'll call them "critics", want nothing more than to steal your peace and joy from life. But they can only do that if you allow them to make you doubt that you are right... so never doubt it.

B. You have every right to whatever beliefs, opinions, or values that seem best to you. But because your beliefs are the right ones to have, you have a special right to tell everyone you come into contact about these beliefs - in fact, it is your duty to spread the truth to them! In the course of sharing your beliefs, you will run into a lot of people that already believe like you do. Make sure that you surround yourself with those people - they're the key to your strength and convictions.

C. Sometimes, however, you'll run into people that have different beliefs. They believe just as much in what they think is true, but - of course - it isn't true because it isn't what you believe. If you're feeling generous, you can tell them how much you respect their beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, and they will probably tell you the same thing. But never forget, you are right - not them.

D. Every once in a while, though, you will run into someone that asks a lot of questions. People like this are very dangerous. When you try to tell them about your beliefs and how they are the right thing to believe, they will ask you all kinds of questions that you don't necessarily have the answers to. Don't panic! You're dealing with a "critical thinker", or a "critic" for short. Here's how you deal with a critic.

1. A critic will ask you, "How do you know what you believe is the absolute truth?" Remind them that you know it because you believe it (duh!). Remember, if it wasn't true you wouldn't believe it because you only believe things that are true.

2. The critic might then ask you, "But what if you're wrong?" You see what (s)he's doing? (S)he's trying to steal your soul by suggesting that you could be wrong! Refer to point "A": you are right. Simply remind the critic that a lot of people believe what you believe. You couldn't all be wrong! It is more likely that these critics, as an extreme minority, are the ones that have something wrong with them that, they can't simply accept the truth that is so obvious to most people.

3. The critic may then ask you, "Ok. Well, where did you personally get these beliefs from?" Here are the acceptable answers to this question: your parents or family members, your place of worship or religious leader, your local congressman, one of your favorite television talk-show hosts or news pundits, one of your favorite musicians, an author or a radio show host.

4. (S)he will ask you, "Where did that person get their information from?" This answer is much easier: a really old book, collection of writings, or a single document. This can be anything from Paul's Epistle to the Church at Rome, to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, to Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence", to Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto. The best answers are always the oldest writings, though, so use those first to discourage any further questions by the critic.

5. The pestering critic, not knowing that it is rude to continue asking questions and disturbing you, might point out information in other books - sometimes even older than the one(s) you cited - that seems to make your belief seem unoriginal or even wrong. They might use statistical data, facts, or research. This can be very intimidating since you don't have anything like this to support your beliefs - not that you need them, because you don't! (S)he might then ask you what you think about that information and if that makes you wonder if you're as convinced as you were when you first started talking, pointing out contradictions or things that don't seem like they can be real. Remember, you cannot be wrong: you are right! But, you cannot win this fight. The sinister critic has baited you and is about to spring the trap! Whatever you do, do not try to answer his/her questions anymore but simply try to end the conversation. Here are the best ways to get rid of the critic.

6. Appeal to his/her sense of reason and propriety: tell the critic that "this isn't the right time or place to have this conversation." If you can use the word "venue", do so - it will make you sound really smart to anyone else that may be listening. Also, it doesn't matter if your excuse is true or not - you're not trying to engage the critic anymore, you're simply trying to evade and get away. You now know that you're in a fight you can't win, which means that there are no rules for how you behave anymore.

7. If that doesn't work, accuse the critic of being a bad person. Tell the critic that (s)he is "being a douchebag" or "a bitch". Oh, sure, they'll respond by saying that they're only trying to have a civil conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but don't let their hurt feelings stop you. Keep going on the offensive!

8. Tell the critic that you never wanted to have a conversation anyway. All you wanted to do was tell them what the true beliefs were. What the critic doesn't understand is that it is stupid for this process to be a two-way road. There is only one way: the truth! And you, not (s)he, that knows what the truth is so you should only be the one that can talk and make claims. But they went and ruined that chance! Not to mention that you don't care what they think anyway, because if it isn't what you think then it isn't true!

9. The critic will be offended or bewildered by your responses. Now's your chance to turn up the heat! Tell the critic that (s)he is a "traitor", a "heretic", and/or a "Communist". Remind them that they are what is wrong with your life and the country you live in. Tell them that they are probably going to "Hell", especially if they don't believe in it. That will teach them to question your beliefs!

10. If it doesn't, threaten physical violence. Tell him/her that you are going to "kick their ass!" Most critics are physically puny people that can't defend themselves anyway, so this is the best way to shut them down completely. Even if they're not, most critics don't believe in "fighting" or "physical confrontation" which makes them losers. This is how you know they don't live in the "real world" like you do. Almost every critic will leave the conversation at this point. You've done your job - what needed to be done to defend your beliefs.

11. If you feel that you have to get one last word in, make sure you tell the critic that you will pray for him/her so that they'll find the truth that you have.

With these steps, you will finish every fight over opinions, beliefs and values that a critic starts - even if you don't "win" it. There is, however, one very serious danger in arguing with a critic: critical thinking is like a disease. When you come into contact with a critical thinker, there is a chance that they may get some of their disease in you without you noticing at first. We know this because almost every single critical thinker was - in the beginning - a very dedicated dogmatist that was infected with critical thinking while arguing with a critic. This is why, if you feel like you may be getting affected by a critic, you should just jump to step 10 and threaten violence. This limits your exposure and the chances that you'll ever become one of them.

I hope you use this information wisely and always remember: you are right, they are wrong.

a few things recently on my mind...

2010-02-22T16:02:00.000-06:00

I just wanted to take a moment to post a few of the ideas/questions that have been floating around in my head for a few months. Some of them are ideas that hit me randomly while others were provoked by readings or classes.

- Hospitality is responsibility without the "should". In other words, hospitality is what happens when "responsible" behavior is performed without any sense of obligation. In this sense, hospitality is superior to responsibility.

- Why is it that, in the so-called "Abrahamic" monotheistic traditions that God can control (and does control) everything in nature, but cannot seem to control you and me? In the scriptures, God controls the rain and the produce of the Earth. He can make "she bears" come out of the woods and maul blasphemers. He can "number our days". We even see that he can make entire nations behave in ways that he desires. But yet he cannot force us to conform to his standards? I know that in my more devout days I would have found it preferable that God would override my will and force me to do whatever it was he wanted. As it turns out, however, he either cannot or does not. Why are the proverbial "you" and "I" so different from anything else?

- It seems to me that Jesus, during his ministry, was tapping into a mass cultural fear of deus absconditus among Jews in the first century CE - having not produced a prophet of note in 400 years. His "yoke", and the advent of his "kingdom" on the coat-tails of John the Baptist, were a powerful response to this collective cultural fear.

- The continued cultural significance (and I hesitate to call it "popularity") of Jesus - even two thousand years after his death - speaks not simply to his uniqueness in history, but to how insecure and "homeless" we humans feel here on Earth. Our need for him is not so much soteriological, but psychological - we continue to feel a deep-seated, primal need to be rescued from ourselves and healed from our self-inflicted wounds. The kind of "saving" that Jesus can provide will never be achieved, but always longed for. The messianic expectancy is a hope for healing, but never a fulfillment. In this sense the telos is forever without an eschaton. The justice of the messiah, too, is kairotic (based in kairos time) and not in chronos time. In this sense it cannot ever "be".

interview with a seminarian

2010-01-21T23:10:00.000-06:00

My wife works with a lady that is enrolled at Dallas Theological Seminary and, as part of her coursework, she is interviewing a number of individuals with various worldviews and religious values to write a paper on the findings. This person asked my wife if she or I would be willing to answer a few interview questions and help contribute to her research. After reading over the questions, I thought it would be a fun exercise in reflection and contemplation and wrote down my answers for her. I also thought it would be interesting to post those questions and answers here.

As a note of disclosure, I would like to say - up front - that the some of the statements expressed here are facts, some of them are my own inferences from the facts, while others still are simply opinions.

---------------------

1. How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

I would describe my religious/church background as both long and complicated. From a very early age I was exposed to the Christian tradition from a variety of different denominational perspectives - mostly Protestant in orientation - ranging from Four Square to Baptist, Methodist and Non-Denominational, Charismatic, Word of Faith and Reformed (Calvinist). I have some firsthand experience with Catholic liturgy but my experience
with the more traditional or orthodox (i.e. Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox) is very limited beyond that. My involvement in those churches has also ranged dramatically from one-time visitor to full covenant membership.

2. To you, what is God like? Describe God. (and if you do not believe in a [god], what is important in life?)

I imagine that this is difficult for anyone to answer outside of a traditionally dogmatic worldview, but I have to confess an ambiguous and ill-defined relationship to the divine. In other words, I'm still answering this question for myself and would suggest, perhaps at some level, that we all are regardless of the level of comfort we have achieved with our
conceptualization of God. In my own conceptualization, I might be most comfortable coming to an understanding of the divine that does not exist wholly outside of the natural Universe. I am not only comfortable with this idea of the divine because of my skepticism about the existence of the purely metaphysical (i.e. the realm of the supernatural), but also because of the implications of seeing the divine as removed from the physical
world. Perhaps too often our appreciation of "heaven" and "hell" have led us to neglect the "here and now". Moreover, the fundamental Christian fascination with the "hereafter" seems altogether incompatible with both the narrative of the Gospels as well as the apocalyptic visions formulated in the aftermath of the - alleged - Ascension. Simply put, every time I read the Bible Jesus seems to be talking about the Kingdom of the Heavens being established here on earth. Furthermore, outside of a few vague and ambiguous
references made by Paul in his letters, I see very little evidence of this "rapture" and "going to heaven" when one dies. I see a Resurrection that happens on earth (presumably on earth because it happens after his "return"), talk of "thy Kingdom come" (again, presumably here), a "New Jerusalem" descending from the heavens to earth, etc.

In my days of heterodox Christianity (and some might say "heretical") I visualized an idea of the divine as more akin to how the Hindus understand the Brahman, or akin to how Spinoza described the ocean of the divine and our individual selves being absorbed back into it after death. I am also comfortable with a thoroughly non-metaphysical understanding of the divine with respect to the Universe. Perhaps our eternal life is evident in the cyclical and recycling nature of the Universe with regard to matter. The atoms that make up our bodies assemble and disperse, never being "created" anew nor destroyed... simply changing form and phase forever. It seems more likely to me that the God so many of us were raised to believe does not exist - or exists in such a way that is so radically different from our traditional understanding that we - were we to ever meet "him" - would wish that he did not exist at all.

3. What do you think is important or unimportant to God?
This question relies, perhaps unjustly, on the suggestion that the divine has any kind of will at all. A will implies a need - or, at best, a want - and it seems to be that the God of the Christian tradition is so perfect and so satisfied that he has no needs or wants, thus no will either. I had considered, for a moment, that perhaps what was important to God is what
is important to all living beings: to continue existing. But, again, this is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God since God is incapable of losing his existence. What I imagine is unimportant to the divine is less contingent on what/who God is since I believe it would be true in any case. Whether God is the Christian God or a natural phenomena or non-existent, I do not believe that the divine concerns itself at all with our social convention: language, custom, law, morality or religion. To suggest that the
divine has "a dog in the hunt" among human customs is - at best - superstitious and - at worst - dangerously narcissistic.

Let us, for a moment, imagine that the "glory of God" is reflected in his creation, as so many texts in the Tanakh suggest. I would ask, then, where one might find evidence of God's premium on morality and obedience to "his law" in the behavior of his creation? Does any natural behavior suggest that there is a moral imperative inherent to us? Does Hurricane Katrina apologize for murdering so many people, destroying so many homes? Indeed, do we even call it murder when nature steals life from humans, animals or plants?
Indeed, do we even suggest a theft of life as though nature has no superseding ownership of it? The natural world acts without regard to Christian morals and, in the aftermath of breaking those morals, it continues to act with impunity! We call these things tragedy, but we do ourselves a disservice: nature's behavior is just. Yet it is not just because it does what it *should* do (as though it is ordained by the divine), but it is just simply because it does what it does. The world builds up energy, stores it and releases it as it requires. This, too, is how humans are. We build up energy, store it and release it. Whatever conventions we decide upon about an equitable or "ethical" way to go about this business is ours alone. To interject the trump card of divine imposition onto these ethics and conventions is inappropriate and counterproductive.

4. What do you think it takes to be straightened out with God?

This, again, suggests a Christian supposition that "we" are not already "straight"; that there is some kind of a "should", a metaphysical ideal, to which we do not adhere to. This may be the case, but it also may not be the case. The tension built up in the dialectic between determinism and free agency is not a settled one, but even if it were, we cannot suggest that God "is in control" and yet free him of his responsibility for our "sinful" state. In other words, God cannot receive all of the credit and none of the blame. He must be blameless of our sin - and yet admit to limited or no control over the world we live in - or claim control and be blamed for it! Or, at least, this is what the non-contradiction of Aristotelian logic insists on. Heraclitus might suggest differently.

It may very well be that our existence alone is what is required to be "straight" with God. Perhaps he has ordained our condition and confined us to a physical world to quarantine us from the rest of the supernatural realm? Perhaps you and I are those rebellious spirits that the Revelation speaks of and we have been cast to the earth - as though the earth was
God's washing machine - to be laundered and made wearable again by the divine? Perhaps you and I are the "devil". If we are to believe the Bible, we must already consider that we are the "Satan", since - as Paul reminds us - we are the enemies of God and, even in this condition, God saw fit to leave his place in "heaven" and inject within us the cure for our sinfulness in the form of Jesus. These ideas might seem outlandish and heretical, but they
must be considered and explored as diligently as the apostles explored the heresy of a transcendent YHVH made immanent in human form. To suggest that God does not want the mind to ask questions is laughably absurd! If God is who the Christians say he is, then he is undaunted by ontological investigation. If he is threatened by it, then he is not God and you needn't fear him.

5. Describe what the term "Jesus Christ" means to you.

Jesus Christ or, more appropriately, Y'shua HaMashiach conjures up a number of images, ideas and emotions in my imagination. Because of the cultural context in which I was raised, the personage and the narrative of Y'shua is - at some level - inescapable. I think that this must be true of most people that share our culture insofar as we all are forced to come to some kind of comfortable understanding of him. I have two distinct modes of reference to him: 1. The devout and reverent child and, 2. The classically skeptical historian. The first mode of reference should be fairly obvious to understand. The second may require some explanation. As a historian, I get no mileage out of the traditionally reverent attitude that used to define my relationship to Jesus so acutely. I am unable to look past the blatantly obvious holes in the narrative that forms the synoptic gospel tradition, nor lay down the methodological and disciplinary perspectives that challenge (for me, successfully) the Gospels' credibility.

It would be a cliche to refer to Jesus as a "good teacher", and I hate cliches as much as I hate platitudes (which are related but different). In the historical perspective, Jesus was a teacher - obviously. He taught... that's what he did. I do not, like some, believe that I see any kind of morality in the teachings attributed to him in the gospels. He gave almost no direction on questions of either absolute or relative morality. What I do see in his teachings is a particular emphasis on the creation, maintenance and reparation of ethical relations between people. One needs look no further than Matthew 5, 6 and 7 for a robust synthesis of these ethics. I believe that he also provided the oppressed peoples under his ministry a
path to assert their dignity and value without resorting to violent behavior (which, he rightly understood, would only worsen their situation both in the short and long term). His, mostly misunderstood, directives on "turning the other cheek", "giving the coat as well as the shirt" and "walking the extra mile" are historically specific teachings on how to endure the Roman occupation in a Jewish cultural context. Treating these teachings as ahistorical and removing them to the realm of universally divine truths only obscures his intentions in teaching them - while also opening them up to grave misinterpretation.

I respect and admire Jesus and he stands out in my historical imagination as a paragon of human ideals - whether real or fabricated by tradition. To the best of my abilities I try to remember that he was a historical figure that was wrestling with a complicated social situation on the ground. To the extent possible, I try to remove the mythological aura that surrounds him, an aura that - I believe - cheapens him and his contributions to human
development. His beauty, to me, derives from his humanity and the brilliance that is attributed to him, not the suggested divine narrative that is superimposed over his collection of teachings. To this perspective, many Christians have answered that - as C.S. Lewis once brilliantly summarized - "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." What I mean to say about this argument is that it is a brilliant syllogism: the truth of this claim relies totally on the assumption that Jesus *actually said* that he was/is the Son of God, which cannot be verified (independently or otherwise). The credibility of the passages that suggest he claimed this, within the oldest copies of the
Gospels, is also suspect with respect to literary device, epistemological analysis and historiotextual evidence brought to light by the discovery of the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls. In other words, we can't be totally certain that Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God", no matter how much we want to believe it. And because we can't be certain, the possibility of
who/what/how Jesus is/was is as open-ended as any other question of significance.

6. From your perspective, what are the major problems of churches
today?

Where to start?! I might say that the largest problem of "the Church" and individual churches is the unwillingness to entertain, sanction or explore heterodoxical interpretations of Jesus and the divine. Many of the ideas I've expressed in the previous questions would be - at best - unwelcome at church and - at worst - would be treated with hostility (and, in some extreme cases, with violence). Churches, from my experience, rely too much on dogmatism, assumption, indoctrination and hierarchical reverence for authority and the authoritative treatment of source material. Partly because
of the nature of church leadership - and partly due to the rich abundance of churches in America - there is no avenue for respectful dissent within a church. If you have a doctrinal difference with the leadership, you are expected to either change your beliefs to match those of the leadership (and the church's statement of beliefs) or encouraged to leave fellowship. For most churches, it would be wholly unacceptable to challenge the
interpretation and doctrine provided by the pastor and the elders (if elders exist). Most programs funded by the church are intended to reinforce the doctrine of the church - none funded to engage the doctrine in scholarly criticism. This, also, I believe comes from an epidemic of insecure pastors, many of whom treat their churches as capitalistic markets and fear having any shadow cast over them that might insinuate a lack of divine
discernment. Simply put, if anyone successfully challenges a pastor's interpretation of scripture the people may think that he doesn't have the Holy Spirit leading him and may leave the church and take their tithes with him. Furthermore, the superstitiously false belief that one can have no education, no understanding of Hebrew/Greek (and not seminary Greek, which teaches a bastardized form of Greek that intentionally dismisses any pre-Christian meanings to the vocabulary and relies too heavily on ultimately
insufficient Latinisms to provide directional quality to definitions), no highly
rigorous historical/literary training, or a broader knowledge of anthropological and sociological research, and can interpret the texts of the Bible without any error via the "Holy Spirit" is both ridiculous and, to me, disgustingly outrageous. In other words, interpretation by revelation is no interpretation at all... it is ignorant opinion masquerading as exegetical discipline and has produced some of the most mind-numbing and repugnant doctrine ever conceived.

Moreover, American churches have become too invested in the socio-political framework of American culture. Advocacy on social issues, translated to political activism, has become the modus operandi of more churches than not, particularly evangelical churches in the so-called "Bible Belt". The perpetual harping from the pulpit on "issues" such as abortion,
homosexuality, immigration, healthcare and the laughably alleged "moral decline" of America is a major problem for the church-at-large. While individuals such as Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell may immediately come to mind in the imagination, they are simply caricatures of a much more pervasive and entrenched attitude among evangelical ministers and their congregants. The credibility (say nothing of its relevance) of Christianity
is in a crisis phase, whether Christians want to acknowledge it or not. In generations and centuries past, the institutional quality of churches (particularly among denominations) was large enough to steer Christianity in one direction or another and navigate it into evolving cultural relevance. Now, in the aftermath of a democratization process in America, churches are so isolated, fragmented and generally unaccountable that the cultural compass is no longer in the hands of capable, august and deliberate leaders but the vulgar mob. Doctrine is not judged on the merits of the scholastic rigor that produced it, but by its popularity and exposure on Fox News. This is another degenerative issue for the church to address.

--------------------------

Feel free to ask questions or comment as you see fit.

now taking requests

2009-11-12T01:09:00.001-06:00

In a recent online conversation, my friend Terry told me that he was "troubled" by my opinions on Saint Paul of Tarsus. He asked me to specifically cover three things in a new blog post: my stances on the "divinity of Christ", the "Apostleship of Paul", and my thoughts on "New Birth" so that we could discuss this in greater detail. Without further ado.

1. Addressing the "divinity of Christ" is not as simple as it seems. For the overly-pedantic mind like mine, this question is much more difficult than it would be for most. I want to try to deconstruct this question into two sections and then attempt to reassemble it into a coherent form.

In order to determine whether someone/something is "divine", one has to come to an understanding (or agree someone else's understanding) of what "divine" actually is. For most people, "divine" means "supernatural" or "metaphysical". This idea is predicated on the assumption (because it is currently an unproven hypothesis) that there is anything that exists outside of nature or the physical Universe. Cutting straight to the point: no one knows that the divine is actually real at all. Many believe it is, but none of us knows with any degree of certainty. In the strict linguistic sense of the word, we are all agnostic (Greek for a-gnosis, meaning "without knowledge") to the potentiality or actuality of the divine. Because I admit to a current state of metaphysical agnosticism (a state that all humans share whether we like it or not), I cannot therefore admit to knowing whether or not anyone in history had any connection to - or shared any kind of relationship with - the supernatural. It would be hypocritical and contradictory for me to admit otherwise. There is, however, a concept of the "divine" that exists within the framework of our own physical and natural universe. This concept of physis was explored by many of the ancient Greek philosophers and came to approximate a meaning of "that which comes of its own power" or, crudely, "nature." There are a number of modern philosophers and poets (such as Friedrich Holderlin and Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as - in my opinion - Baruch Spinoza) that came to understand physis as the divine. Crudely stated (again), this worldview allows for no genuine possibility of a metaphysics or a "supernatural" as the natural is sufficiently "super" on its own. I cannot attest to the divinity of nature, but I can say that my experience with the natural universe lends me to a profound sense of humility, reverence and awe. As I heard a pastor say once, "Who can stand at the shore of the Pacific Ocean and feel anything but humility?"

Another problematic element I have with a question of the "divinity of Christ" is the fact that there isn't really any one consensus on who/what "Christ" is. The Greek word "Christos" simply means "anointed." The word "anointed" means "to smear" (presumably with oil). The etymologies of these words are, as one can see, unhelpful. The conventional meaning of "anointed" is "chosen, consecrated, set apart" (again, presumably by YHVH, the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" and, subsequently, the Israelite, Hebrew-speaking peoples of the Jewish/Yahvist tradition). Terry's question also relies on a Christian belief that Jesus of Nazareth "is" christos. Not only that he is christos, but that he is "the Christos", meaning that he is the one and only "anointed" one. The idea of anyone being a "christ" or the "Christ" is tied directly to the concept of the divine. What one believes about the former has an ipso facto relationship on the latter. As I said of divinity, humans exist in a current state of agnosticism with regard to divinity and, therefore, we must also exist in a current state of agnosticism with regard to the "Christhood" of Jesus. Again, that doesn't necessarily dictate what one believes - by way of assumption - about the Christhood of Jesus, but only what someone knows. I fully expect people, particularly believers in Jesus, to argue with my definition of knowledge or challenge my claim that no one can know with any degree of certainty that Jesus is divine. While respecting the claims that many Christians "know" what they "believe", I wholeheartedly disagree and make the counter-claim, respectfully, that confusing knowledge and belief diminishes the inherent value of both.

At the end of the day, I have to say that I am unable to make any claims to knowing that Jesus is christos, the Christos or that he had any particularly unique relationship to the "supernatural". What I can say is this: Jesus is unique in history and the human imagination. As I've said before, I cannot imagine that there is one person in the Western tradition since Jesus that has not been forced to come to an understanding of him. We've all had to "come to grips" with Jesus in one way or another without any regard to religion, creed or culture. All great thinkers since him have been forced to comment on his teachings and the narrative of his life, including founders of other religions. The teachings attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospel tradition are, bluntly, inescapable. In a philosophical sense, they reach back to the most ancient of Judaic principles of justice as an ethical relationship of how "the other" makes a claim upon and appropriates "the self", while not being strictly decalogical. In this way, Jesus has earned the epoch-dividing status that we have given him.

My personal appreciation of Jesus is to give him the title of hypso-anthropos - highest among all humankind.

2. Terry's second request was for me to explain my opinions on the "Apostleship of Paul". This, too, requires some preliminary explanation.

The word "apostle" comes from the Greek apostolos, meaning "one who is sent out", with the context of Christian missionary work to a particular region or country. In this sense I can only answer: of course Paul is an apostle. In terms of numbers and metrics, Paul was the most successful missionary of the Early Church period. Some have also argued, I think successfully, that Paul single-handedly built the Christian religion as we know it.
Terry's question of "Paul's Apostleship" as I understand it, however, comes with an underlying stigma of Paul's exceptionalism, his preeminence in Christian thought, and the authoritative quality of his writings and commentary on the overall meaning of Jesus as "the Christos". The number of churches that he founded are, alone, enough to indicate that he is both a brilliant writer and a powerful rhetorician. However, to speak of his "Apostleship" in the aforementioned way - I believe - is inappropriate.
Unlike most Christians, I do not regard the teachings of Paul as "inerrant" or "authoritative". In a purely Christian context, I would say that "Paul is not Jesus." I do not agree that Paul's writings were "dictated by the Holy Spirit" or that Paul was so devout and close to God - or the Resurrected Jesus - that he was incapable of interpreting the divine incorrectly or erroneously. Without a doubt, there are passages in Paul's writings that can hardly be argued with; they appear to be "self-evident" insofar as they have come to define an entire school of human thought that goes, mostly, without question. His teachings on "love" in 1 Corinthians 13 come immediately to mind as an example of this. But I, like Friedrich Nietzche, find that much of how Paul interprets Jesus is "hopelessly wrongheaded". His claims that Jesus was "sacrificed" on the cross for the "sins" of humanity (or, worse, for the "sins" of only the "elect") and that the power of human regeneration is found in the mystical power of Jesus' blood, transformed the paradigm-shifting message of Jesus into a new religion of mystically metaphysical phantasmagoria. I see Jesus' "gospel" as a counter-culture revolution against the violently oppressive dominion of human ego-centrism. Jesus' teachings (regardless of his ontology), crudely stated, free men from the thralldom of the "self." This revolution of the self - against the self - empowers a kind of reconciliation with - and a "rebirth" into - the "divine". I see Paul's "gospel" as one that pits the human and the divine against one another, relies on an over-emphasized concept of human "sinfulness", and requires a slate-clearing sacrifice in order to appease a "just", yet vengeful and bloodthirsty god. The fact that this sacrificial appeasement, in Paul's theology, was the "plan" or "idea" of the god is certainly unique, but I believe it is more a mechanism born from the limitations of monotheism than anything else. In the polytheistic mythologies, the god of vengeance and the god that helps orchestrate the "redemption" work against one another. Paul's monotheistic belief in YHVH does not allow for this narrative, so the One True God must be both the unintentional antagonist and the determined protagonist at the same time.
The Christos of Paul's writings is a Greek hero: the superhuman, yet tragically-fated, figure whose divine parentage empowers an endurance and personal sacrifice that will save his people from impending doom. Perhaps the most unique Pauline twist to this classical Greek tragedy is, of course, his adaptation of the Jesus' alleged resurrection, which transforms the classical tragedy of Jesus into the classical "comedy" (from the Greek komos-oidos, meaning "song of happiness") of the Christos. Crudely stated, Paul brilliantly adapted the traditional narrative of Jesus of Nazareth into the Christian religion. And, as if that wasn't enough, Paul further alienates the "Jesushood" of his Christos by absolving his Greek converts from having to adhere to any of the cultural traditions that Jesus, himself, observed: circumcision, kosher dietary customs, the Jewish calendar and holidays and, yes, even the Tanakh.
By the time the apocalyptic Revelation of Jesus Christ was composed, the transformation from Jesus-as-Jewish-Rabbi/Mashiah to Christos-as-Greek-demigod was practically complete in the Greco-Christian tradition, as evidenced by the description of the Christos in chapter 1:

"[I saw] one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength." - Revelation 1:13-16 (for comparison with ancient Greek gods, refer to images of Apollo, Zeus, Helios, etc.)

The very fact that the Christos is introduced by the author of The Revelation as the "alpha and omega" is indicative of the deliberate identification of Christos as a Greek personality. Some may claim that I'm "reaching" for this next point (a criticism I would accept), but identifying Christos with the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet (rather than, say, the Hebrew equivalent of aleph and tav), places the figure of the Christos as the "beginning and the end" of Greek language, linking the figure of the Christos with the critical element of Greek cultural tradition.
Moreover, Paul, in his writings, seems particularly concerned with "his gospel" - and his position as the preeminent apostle to the "Gentiles" - being maintained in the churches he established. This is highly suggestive that there were rival interpretations of Jesus that were common and spreading at the same time as he was preaching to the "Gentiles" (see Romans 2:15, Romans 11:27-28, Romans 15:17-21, Romans 16:25, 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6-9, Galatians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 1 Timothy 1:11, 2 Timothy 2:8).

I expect, at this point, that some might be ready to accuse me of all kinds of apostasy, blasphemy and heresy. I think that would be unfortunate, albeit understandable. What readers should take away from my opinions about the "Apostleship of Paul" is: that I think Paul sincerely believed he had figured out the "mystery" of Jesus; I believe that he correctly adapts Jesus' ethics into his system of theology; I believe that he offers some brilliant and poetic adaptations of Jesus' narrative into a systematic theology of the Christos; I believe that he is mostly mistaken and that he - whether intentional or not - transformed Jesus the Jewish Rabbi into Christos the Greek demigod, and the paradigm-shifting message of Jesus into a re-imagined pagan mystery religion.

3. Terry also asked me to explain my thoughts on "New Birth". This appears to be much more straightforward than the previous two topics. In John 3, Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus about his "ontology".

During this conversation, Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be gennao anothen in order to perceive the "kingdom of God". Nicodemus, making the same conceptual mistake as every Christian theologian I've ever known, thinks that Jesus is saying "born again" or "rebirthed". He asks, wrongheadedly, "How can one climb into his mother's womb when he is already old?" Jesus' response is not particularly kind. Yet every theologian, biblical translator, pastor and Christian layperson I've ever known has made the same mistake in translation! Jesus is not saying "new birth" or "born again" but "regenerated" as indicated by the root words themselves: gennao, meaning "generate" and anothen, meaning "another" or "anew".
My reading of this passage is that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that, unless he radically reorients his life, he will be unable to perceive or participate in the "kingdom of God" that Jesus represents. As is thematic throughout the synoptic gospel narratives, Jesus is showing people how to "repent" (Greek metanoeite, meaning to "change the direction of one's thinking" or "reorient one's mind") from their self-oriented existence and be "regenerated" into a new kind of human that is able to dwell (from the Greek ethos, meaning "habit, character, nature, disposition, custom, way of dwelling") ethically (also from the Greek ethos, meaning "habit, character, nature, disposition, custom, way of dwelling"). It is on this point that I can provide an example of how Paul interprets Jesus correctly. In his letter to the Romans (12:2) he instructs the members of the church to "not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..."
This regenerated human being, according to Jesus, looks very different from how we are used to behaving. It doesn't intentionally insult others, it harbors no anger against others, it regards interpersonal relationships and tranquility as more important than ritual or religious conventions, it does not "resist evil" people, it is detrimentally charitable, it is non-violent, it recognizes no person as an enemy, it is not publicly religious or pious, it is not materialistic, it is not judgmental, it does not insist on its own way. It is a difficult path that relatively few will ever be able to take up. Paul correctly reinforces this message when he writes to the Philippians (2:3), "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility consider others as more significant than yourselves."

So, to summarize my opinions in response to Terry's questions:

1. Is Christ divine? It depends on what you mean by Christ and what you mean by divine. I can't claim that I know whether or not Jesus was divine, but I consider him to be hypso-anthropos, highest in humankind.
2. Was Paul an apostle? Yes, but that does not mean he was always correct about Jesus. In fact, his metaphysics of Jesus were dead wrong. I believe he correctly interpreted the ethics and metanoeite of Jesus, but I believe his interpretation of Jesus' metaphysical ontology resulted in a mystical pagan mystery religion based on sin, atonement and blood sacrifice, coupled with an marriage of the Jesus narrative and pagan Greek mythology.
3. What does it mean to be "born again" or to have experienced a "new birth"? In the context of John 3, it means nothing because Jesus isn't saying that. He's talking about regeneration and "repentance" (in the form of reorienting one's mind and worldview) from a self-oriented life to a new "ethical dwelling" that values the "Other" over the "Self".

I imagine that this post has either given you, the patient reader, incredible "tired head", angered you terribly, or has - in a miracle of miracles - provoked you to thoughtful contemplation. Whatever the case may be, I am interested in your thoughts, comments and responses.

As always, leave the light on.

should i be surprised?

2009-11-07T23:14:00.000-06:00

Yes, this is actually "for real". Click here for the link.

Should any of us be surprised by this? I am absolutely dying to hear some responses to this.

martin luther on "faith"

2009-11-03T12:24:00.000-06:00

Martin Luther is quoted as having once said the following on "faith":

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."

There is an obvious linkage between Lutheran attempts to reform the Catholic Church and modern American Protestantism. His ideas, writings and values - whether understood or not - cast a large shadow over the various Christian sects (or "denominations", if you prefer) in existence and this opinion is certainly no different.

There is a strong undercurrent of belief among those "religious" and "spiritual" men and women that insist that all knowledge, reason, sensory perception and even science must conform to what has been revealed by God via his holy "Word." I am curious to know whether or not people of faith believe that Luther is correct in this statement. Must faith be pre-eminent or dominate over all other forms of knowledge? Can knowledge derived from a separate source ever successfully challenge or contradict "faith"?

I look forward to your responses.

on the supposed inerrancy of holy scripture

2009-10-25T22:51:00.000-05:00

I've been doing a lot of writing recently on empirical criticism as applied to all variety of texts, including religious texts. I got a number of excellent replies and comments (both on Facebook and here at Blogger) with regard to criticism as well as a few private notes on the "dangers" and "intentionally hurtful" implications of trying to apply empirical disciplines to texts like the Bible. I have no shortage of friends, family and colleagues that are frustrated with my critical exegesis of a collection of texts that they consider to be the "Living Word of God." At the end of the day, each person is responsible for what (s)he takes to be true about the world they live in. The important element of critically studying a text is not in reinforcing or undermining a belief(-system), but in "rightly dividing the word of truth" between a tradition of belief and allowing a text to speak for itself.

What I hope to explore in this post is not whether the Bible is truly "dictated by God" but whether it actually claims to be. I will be discussing a particular concept in order to set up the question: Does Paul claim (in 2 Timothy 3:16) that the Bible is inerrant?

In his second recorded letter to Timothy, Bishop of the Christian Church in Ephesus, Paul writes the following passage:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." - 2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)

For purposes of transparency and for the reader to be able to read the text on his/her own, here is what the verse says in the original Greek:

"πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ"

I would like to break each word down and render a translation from the Greek to the English:

πᾶσα (pas) - All, every one of such a thing
γραφὴ (graphyin) - Any written thing [where we get the English words "graph" or "graphic" from]
θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) - from two words theos (meaning "god" or "divinity") and pnuema (meaning "breath" or, loosely, "spirit")*
καὶ (kahee) - and, also, indeed, even, but [Greek conjunction]
ὠφέλιμος (ophelimos) - profitable
πρὸς (pros) - to the advantage of
διδασκαλίαν (didaokalian) - teaching or instruction [where we get the English word "didactic" from)
ἐλεγμόν (elegmon) - reproach
ἐπανόρθωσιν (epanorthosis) - correction, return to a state of uprightness
παιδείαν (paideian) - the training and education of children
τὴν (hon) - the, these [Greek article]
ἐν (en) - in [Greek preposition]
δικαιοσύνῃ (dikaiosune) - rightness

Paul, in my reading of this passage, is saying to Timothy:

"All writings are influenced [blown by god] and profitable in advantage of teaching, reproach, correction and training the youth in rightness."

I'm certain that there are those that will disagree with my translation of this passage, this is one of the largest problems with translating anything from the Greek language into English: it's nearly impossible to come away from a Greek translation and say "this is precisely what it says," as there are any number of ways to translate/interpret any number of words within a text. In light of this rendering of Paul's encouraging words to Timothy, I would like to make a number of points that, I feel, go very often unsaid when studying the writings of Paul:

This writing of Paul to Timothy is a letter, written from one very experienced and well-trained teacher to another relatively inexperienced teacher. In the most modern analog to this kind of letter, we might think of Paul's epistles as "memorandums" or, in political terms, "policy statements".
Scholars know that Paul had extensive, two-way, correspondence with all bishops and pastors that he established in Anatolia, Thrace and Greece. In these letters - most of whom only Paul's end was kept for posterity due to its subsequent canonization - any number of problems, questions, concerns, requests for clarification and reports of church activity were transferred to Paul and Paul sent his responses to either the pastor/bishop in a private letter (as in Timothy) or to the church-at-large (as in his letter to "the Ephesians"). We should always be conscious that there is a whole narrative happening around these letters that we have limited-to-no information regarding.
What we do know about the context of this letter is that there was a considerable row between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians over the following "church policies": circumcision, keeping the kosher laws, keeping, teaching and application of the Hebrew scriptures (for more information see Galatians 2:12, Galatians 6:13, Acts 21:15-26, Titus 1:10, 1 Corinthians 7:18, Romans 3:27-28 vs. James 2:17, 26, etc.). This controversy, as evidenced by Paul's extensive discussion of circumcision and "the law" to churches in traditionally non-Jewish cities (like Rome, Corinth, etc.). We know that "men from James" (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, most of which were Jews) went to a number of Greek churches to encourage them to adopt the Jewish traditions that Jesus himself observed (i.e. circumcision, the law and the Hebrew scriptures).
What can be interpreted from this "policy statement" by Paul to Timothy, in my reading, is this: amid the controversy of what to do with all of the Jewish traditions still observed by the Jerusalem church and the Apostles, Timothy (a very young half-Jewish, half-Greek bishop of a large cosmopolitan church in traditionally Greek city) asks Paul how he should settle this highly charged question for his own congregation.
Paul's response "splits the baby" with regard to the Hebrew scriptures. He does not encourage Timothy to do as the Jerusalem church and the Jewish-Christian congregations did: which is make the Hebrew scriptures a centerpiece of the Jewish-Christian experience. He tells Timothy that these writings are "blown on by God" (an idea which was well understood by anyone exposed to Greek religious and philosophical culture as "inspired" or "blown upon by the gods") and, as such, they are useful for teaching Christians how to be righteous before God and Christ.
What is noteworthy here is that Paul does not say that the scriptures are directly dictated by God and, thus, "inerrant". There is a phrase in Greek that would have directly conveyed this idea. Here it is in the original Greek: "υπαγορεύεται από τον Θεό και δεν σφάλμα [upagopeuetai apo hos theos kai den ophalma]." Paul does not say this. Instead he, essentially, creates a whole new vocabulary word with an ambiguous meaning.
The last point that should be made is possibly the "touchiest" of all. In the twenty-first century, we are very comfortable using the words "the Bible", "the Word" or "scripture". It is very important, when making claims about the "the Bible", that we understand the following: what we call "the Bible" is a compilation of various different texts, penned (if not actually authored) by a number of different writers, written across centuries of history, in at least two entirely different languages. Modern American readers read the Bible as one contiguous book, in one language as though it was penned by one person sometime in history and chosen by a god-ordained authority/apostle. The books of the Bible were selected in 393 AD at the Synod of Hippo, and chosen by this council of bishops to represent "sacred scripture." In the time of Paul and Jesus, "scripture" only referred to the Hebrew Tanakh (or the "Old Testament"). None of the Gospel narratives or apostolic letters were considered by any first-century Christian to be "canon."
In light of this, it is important to understand that if we insist that "the Bible" is "inerrant" we have to answer these questions: Which version of the Bible is inerrant? What texts are included in this version? Are all of the texts "inerrant" or just a select few? If Paul is saying that scripture is "without error", do we take that to mean only the "Old Testament" like he said? Or do we apply that error-less-ness to the decisions made by the Synod of Hippo almost four hundred years later?

In the end, the question still remains for each of us to decide thoughtfully, not capriciously or based on a potentially unfounded tradition: does Paul claim (in 2 Timothy 3:16) that the Bible is inerrant?

Perhaps the even more important question is this: does it need to be "error free" in order to be "profitable for teaching, reproach, correction and education of the youth in righteousness"?

I certainly look forward to everyone's comments and criticisms on the subject and hope to hear from you all soon.

you can('t) believe everything you read

2009-10-22T10:57:00.000-05:00

In order to keep this post short and sweet, I just want to ask an open-ended question and see where the conversation leads us:

Is it appropriate to read any text as authoritative, or to read texts in an uncritical fashion?

In order to clear any confusion on what I mean by this let me provide some examples of what I mean:

- Reading news articles without stopping to question the sources or the biases (intentional or unintentional) of the author/journalist. This includes news from conservative, liberal and "non-partisan" sources.
- Reading history books without questioning their interpretation of the events, their significance and what they may have left out by virtue of space or limitations.
- Interpretations of law and political theory. Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, wrote that "we hold these truths to be self evident..." But are any "truths" genuinely self-evident? This question applies to "strict interpretation" of political documents/laws and interpreting thse same documents as "living" and "dynamic."
- Perhaps most controversial of all: spiritual traditions, religious scripture and subsequent commentary. While this absolutely does not only apply to Christian texts and traditions, but to all religious and philosophical traditions.

I'm interested to hear comments from everyone on this.

Thoreau on Democracy as a Theory of Government

2009-10-13T21:00:00.005-05:00

"Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen." - Civil Disobedience, 1849

Here are the questions that this quotation poses to me:
- Is democracy the best possible form of government?
- If democracy is not the best possible form of government, do we have an inkling of what is?
- Moreover, can government "work" at all?

Feel free to leave your answer via the comments section. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Influential Quotes and Ideas

2009-10-13T20:56:00.000-05:00

In addition to my own musings, I wanted to add - from time to time - some quotes and ideas that I find both thought-provoking and influential. I hope that they will spark some critical discussion with our own selves and with each other.

thoughts on objective reality

2009-10-03T11:52:00.008-05:00

In my last post, I attempted to explore and contrast the differences between assumption, fact, belief and knowledge and apply them to the standard of "objective reality." I recently received this comment from a reader:

I'd like to hear more on objective reality. Your "the world is round" comment made me think...is Earth round? Obviously, we know it is round from a extraterrestrial yet intra solar system perspective. But what about from another galaxy? Our solar system is not spherical. It is a flat disc. And our Earth is a non-dimensional speck. Without rambling, I'm just curious as to how objective is reality? And similarly, how universal can truth be?

I want to: a) thank the reader for his question and, b) attempt to answer this question to the best of my ability.

One of the prevalent definitions that I have been working off of for the purposes of this blog has been that of "objective and factual reality." Let me begin by making a clear admission: all three key words in that phrase are highly debatable in terms of conception. Allow me to explain further:

Objective - the dictionary defines "objective" as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." The definition, however, can be deceptively straightforward. The problem is not necessarily the act of defining objectivity but achieving objectivity. It is my opinion that humans, because of their inherent first-person perspective, are not able to achieve complete objectivity. We all have limited perspectives as individuals and, as a species, our perspective is also currently limited. Whether that will change any time in the future remains to be seen. I do believe that there is a "reality" that is completely objective and free from personal bias and limited perspective, even if humans cannot perceive it. It appears to me that φύσις (physis or, crudely, "nature") is objective outside of νόμος (nomos or "human convention"). In this light one might say that nature, itself, is both objective and real because it does not conform to the biases, feelings or interpretations of human convention.
Factual - this idea, too, is difficult to wrestle with. In modern, English-speaking traditions we understand the word fact to have the meaning of "holding a mirror to reality." From an empirical, and scientific, perspective this makes plenty of sense. There is a conflict, however, when one reads the idea of a fact in an ancient sense. The Latin word for fact - facere - means, roughly, to do or make with one's hands. It is the same Latin root that provides English words like "factory" and "manufacture". The ancient Greek analog of facere is poeio or poesis - the root word for poetry. Tying this with the previous definition, a fact is also a product of human convention because it requires a medium of communication in order for it to be shared between peoples and because it also, generally, requires an agreement between peoples to be accepted. Thus, in order to get to a place where your knowledge of the world is informed by facts, you must first come to terms with the idea of factuality and decide how you intend to deploy the word with language.
Reality - this may be the most troubling idea of all. Every time I use the word "reality" I can feel my professors cringe. I use this word a lot, but I also try to use this word advisedly or, on occasion, by framing it in quotation marks. The English word "reality" has a Latin root in res - meaning "thinghood" or "thingness" - and in the Greek word onto - meaning "being". If that sounds confusing or pedantic to you, you're definitely not alone. How can anyone begin to define something like "being" or "thinghood"? This, of course, is the problem associated with using a word like "reality" without prefacing it with a specific definition.

Even with these logological difficulties with understanding "objective factual reality", I still think it is possible to employ the concept. If we refrain from framing our exploration of reality in a human-centered (anthropocentric) view and allow for a broader Being-centered (ontocentric) view, the idea of "reality" begins to take sharper focus. All of that is a ridiculously philosophical way of saying the following: "reality", as I understand it, is considerably larger than the human being's perspective and experience: unlimited, unaltered and indifferent to our attempts - successful or not - to understand it.

With regard to "how universal can truth be", I can only fall back to a simple answer: truth is only as universal as reality is; which is to say that it is only universal, since truth and reality are the same. How people understand, interpret or communicate truth may be prone to mistake or manipulation, but - again - reality (and truth) is unbiased and not influenced by human convention.

thoughts on the christian spiritual tradition

2009-10-02T18:22:00.004-05:00

In a recent post on this blog, I stated two opinions about the nature of belief in general and the Christian religion in particular. A friend of mine sent me a message asking me to explain what I meant by them. His message read:

Can you explain [these ones] to me:
- "Belief, especially religious belief, is one of the only conventions in the human repertoire that will blatantly defy 'reality.' And no, that's not a good thing."
- "I'm not entirely sure that the Jesus talked about in Christian religious traditions is broadly-enough defined. In other words: Jesus is interpreted too narrowly for my tastes within most expressions of Christianity."

I will attempt to tackle these explanations as best as I can and I hope to satisfy the spirit of the request if not the actual request itself.

The first statement that I want to address is the one concerning belief. I've set out to explore - via this blog - the difference between beliefs, values, ideologies and their relationship to objective reality. Beliefs, as I've come to understand them, are based almost solely on assumptions. This is different from my understanding of knowledge insofar as knowledge is informed by commonly agreed-upon empirical facts. (At this point I could digress into a lengthy bit about the theory of knowledge, the Latin etymology for "facts" and classical skepticism, but I won't. Anyone wanting to understand more about how those three items relate to my previous statements can look those up for his/herself.) Let me explain, crudely, the difference between a belief and knowledge. "God created the Universe." This is a belief. "The world is round." This is knowledge.

Because I feel certain that I'll be interpreted this way, let me say very clearly: there is nothing wrong with having a belief. We all have them both despite and because of our expanding knowledge-base as a species. The problem that I have is when people take a belief, which is fine to have in its own right, and elevate it to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth." It is my opinion that beliefs enrich our lives most when they are kept in their place: as beliefs. Beliefs, however, because they are often elevated to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth" often cause believers to blatantly deny "reality" - the existence which can actually be confirmed and verified via empirically-derived factual knowledge.

I've gone round-and-round on this point almost two dozen times with friends, relatives and colleagues so pardon me as I return to it. The Book of Genesis is a beautiful collection of texts, narratives and traditions. It was (and continues to be) the basis for a number of traditions - when read literally - that blatantly defy what humans know about the Earth. The "heavens and the Earth" were not created in six, twenty-four hour periods. Humans know this. It isn't a guess. It isn't a belief. It is backed up by consistently validated, confirmed and verified facts. What's more is: these facts were originally discovered by committed and devout Christians whom, after having discovered them, did not become atheists or turn their back on Christianity but allowed this new information to expand and enrich their understanding of both the mundane and the divine. Holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis is every Christian, Jew and Muslim's right. It is, however, a profound example of how a belief leads people to blatantly defy reality. And no, I do not think that it is good for a person to deny a factually-informed "reality" for an assumption-informed belief. Especially when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of one at the zero-sum expense of the other.

Turning, now, to the question of the Jesus and his relation to mainstream American Christianity, I would like to first say that I, personally, believe there is something special about Jesus in human history. This belief is informed by several assumptions: a) he actually existed as a historical figure of which there is almost no extra-Biblical empirical verification that I am aware of, b) his life had any relationship to the narratives and texts which became the canonized New Testament of the Christian Bible and, c) that the authors of the previously mentioned New Testament texts are trustworthy hagiographers and worth giving the proverbial "benefit of the doubt." I feel that it is incumbent on me to state, very clearly, that I do not treat the New Testament as "authoritative", nor do I approach the texts uncritically. In my own exegetical endeavors, I have come to a number of conclusions that would - and have - angered a number of devoutly orthodox Christians. Most Christians I know believe that, while the original texts of the New Testament were penned by men, the words are actually the direct dictation of God. My research on this question has led me to conclude that at no point in the New Testament do any of the authors claim to have been directly dictated to, outside of the Book of Revelation, which has significant - and currently irresolvable - authenticity issues of its own. (Again, there is a temptation to digress into an explanation of Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3:16, but that will have to wait for another post if anyone is interested in hearing why it is not a claim of biblical divine dictatorship.)

What can be easily agreed upon by both the most devout and obstinate Christian and the most obstinate atheist is this: Jesus occupies an unprecedented place in human history. Major religious movements and traditions - as well as anti-religious movements and traditions - are devoted to him. Nearly everyone in Western society since him (or, at least, the birth of his movement) has been forced to think about him and come to some kind of understanding about him. Very few men, if anyone, have ever occupied this level of importance in human history: with all due respect given to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and any individual whose religious patron I have not referenced. The claim that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus" set off a firestorm of controversy for a reason! In Western tradition - perhaps in all human tradition - no one is, or has been, bigger than Jesus. As Saul Silver might claim: Jesus is "the apex of the vortex" of Western spirituality.

It is both because of this and despite this understanding that I believe that Jesus is "too narrowly interpreted" for my tastes within most expressions of the Christian tradition. In my personal research into primitive Christianity, I have found that the earliest Christians were deeply divided over the nature of Jesus. Was he only human? Was he human at all? Was he to be understood only as a Jewish rabbi? Was he to be understood as the last of the Greek demigods? Despite the revisionist history that comes with the canonized New Testament, there was no monolithic movement which embodied a set orthodoxy of Christianity before - in the very least - the third century AD/CE. There were Ebionites, Paulines, Alexandrians, Romans, Nestorians and Donatists, just to name a few! The name "Christian" was given to anyone that followed the teachings of Jesus, according to the tradition they were exposed to.

"Orthodox Christianity" in a very real sense - despite the beliefs of many American protestants - is still not a settled question and, in my historical opinion, never has been. Deep-seated divides over what is "legitimate" within Christianity have not, to this day, been settled by anyone. From the earliest disputes between James and Paul to the Ebionites versus the Paulines, to the Pelagians versus the Augustinians, to the Roman Catholics versus the Eastern Orthodox, to the Roman Catholics versus the Protestants, to the Calvinists versus the Arminians... the divides continue, mostly because each side believes that they have an exclusive claim to the truth about Jesus. It is partly because of these exclusive claims - which are deterministically closed-minded about other interpretations about Jesus - that I claim that most expressions of Christianity interpret Jesus too narrowly.

Another reason that Christian interpretations of Jesus, in general, "turn me off" is that even with all of the intra-Christian dissent about Jesus, Christianity as a whole applies the same attitude about interpreting Jesus against "non-Christians." In short: Christians believe that you have to be a card-carrying Christian in order to contribute to a faithful understanding of Jesus. This, to me, is both odious and senseless. I feel that Jesus, according to my belief in his special-ness, is far too large of a personality in human history to be closed-minded about. Let me clarify further: the more solid and inflexible your beliefs become about Jesus, the more narrowly you interpret him - the smaller he becomes. I speak from vast personal experience on this matter. It is my opinion that the more you try to define something like Jesus (whether as a person, an ideal, or simply an idea), the more you attempt to contain him... the more you attempt to limit his being and inspiration. Despite his obviously central role within Christianity, most expressions of that tradition - to me - do far too much defining, limiting and containing for my tastes. I prefer to believe that if Jesus is "the apex of the vortex", then he won't mind any of my attempts to find his inspiration, example and the wonder he represents in "unlikely" places.

Feel free to leave any comments that you feel are appropriate. As always, please leave the light on.

addendum to "it's all greek to me"

2009-10-01T11:37:00.002-05:00

The following anonymous comment was left on the post "it's all greek to me":

"Your greek translation is wrong. The greek actually states: 'OutOs gaup egapesen o Theos ton kosmon Oste ton uion ton monogenE edoken, ina pas o pisteuon eis auton mE apoletai alla eche zoen aionion'."

The poster is correct. I did not use a conjugated translation of the John 3:16 passage but rather provided the key words of the passage for the purposes of readers being able to look up the vocabulary on their own.

I appreciate this comment and his/her attempt to hold my translation to a higher scholarly level. I want to go ahead and provide the un-transliterated Greek text so that readers have this for their purposes.

"Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον."

This translation was provided by the online source Greek Bible.

new functionality!

2009-10-01T09:59:00.001-05:00

Hey everyone, I just wanted to point out that there is new functionality here at veritas regnum! A friend of mine clued me into a quick "Reaction" section at the bottom of each post. Just click on the one that best fits your reaction to what I've written. Thanks to my buddy for helping me figure it out.

it's all greek to me

2009-09-29T10:06:00.006-05:00

I've danced around the idea that there is a greater need for anyone reading the Bible (believers and non-believers alike) to develop a robust familiarity with classical Greek and ancient Hebrew in several posts over the "history" of the blog. I want to be clear: what I'm suggesting is both bold and unpopular. It goes against quite a bit of tradition, especially in England and America, of faithfully reading and interpreting the Bible in the vernacular English. I decided to post this entry to explain what I mean by my claim and, hopefully, to back it up. As always, I have no intention for anyone to simply take my word for it but, rather, to approach this question with an open mind, study it for the him/herself and incorporate it into their understanding of the sacred.

I plan on using a specific example to explain my position, but the main point I want to make is this: whether you're using the Bible to justify your belief or criticizing the Bible from a place of unbelief, it's much better to know Greek and Hebrew language, culture, history and literature. The more you know about ancient Hebrew, Greek and - to an extent - Latin, the better you will be able to come away with an interpretation of the texts that is both fair to the text itself and to the individuals that transcribed them.

Example - The Gospel of Jesus Christ According to John, chapter three, verse sixteen (John 3:16)

I think that nearly any Christian - or even some non-Christians that have been to church before - will be familiar with this text. In many ways this passage is the passage which acts as the common thread for all of the various different denominations and confessions within the Christian tradition. During a private conversation that Jesus is having with a member of the religious/political elite, John records that Jesus explains his "ontology". The passage - in the English Standard Version of the Bible - reads: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." For most Christians, this passage is very straightforward. To them it outlines the following basic truths (if I miss something, or get something wrong in this list, please feel free to tell me):

- God loves the human race
- He sent his son to the Earth in the form of Jesus
- If you put your trust in the divine power of Jesus as the son of God, then you will be enter the church of redeemed saints and allowed into Heaven when you die

In order to understand this incredibly deep text I'm going to provide the original key words in the Greek from this passage and then break down the passage itself.

"Theos houto agapao kosmos didomi monogenes huios pas pisteuo [negative article] apollumi echo aionios zoe."

There should be no doubt as to why this verse is so popular in Christian traditions: it's absolutely beautiful! Pure poetry. What little bit that comes through in the English translation is eclipsed by its stunning Greek origins. Allow me to offer an alternative translation of the Greek text to English:

"God had such a perfect compassion on the entire Universe, that he generated a singly unique being for it. Everything that is entrusted to this singularity will not decay into uselessness and futility, but continue to exist without boundries."

When looking at the actual Greek vocabulary that John used in this text, the whole passage begins to take an entirely different shape. Here are a few key points to illustrate what I mean:

- The word for "the world" that John uses is kosmos, which carries a unique Aristotelian concept along with it. In a nutshell, John is saying that God loves not just the people on the Earth (which would have been the word anthropos) but everything in the Universe and the Universe itself.

In other words: The God that John is describing in this text is not only concerned with people, but with the order of the entire Universe. From a scientific point of view, one could argue that God's concern with the Universe is at a subatomic level.

- Traditional interpretations of monogenes huios as "only Son" or "only begotten Son" are problematic, not because it is "incorrect" but because it is a very narrow interpretation for a pair of terms that have very wide interpretive meanings. A fair interpretation of the Greek word monogenes huios would be "a singularity that was generated from one's own being." To simply say that John is calling Jesus "the son of God" actually limits and subtracts from the text since the phrase he uses is much larger and broader.

In other words: the Jesus that John is describing is actually bigger than "the son of God."

- Probably the most interesting and potentially troublesome translation in the English versions of the passage are for the words pas pisteuo. The trouble here is almost entirely linguistic in nature. Most European languages that are derived from or influenced by Latin have a complete lack of a "middle voice" that Greek has between the active and passive. Moreover, the Greek word pisteuo can be read in all three voices, making it difficult to understand outside of a context. Finally, the original Latin translations of the Bible (from which English versions later came) do not have middle or passive connotations for their analogous versions of pisteuo (both credo and fidelus).

In other words: pas pisteuo could mean "all who believe" or (perhaps more likely given the context of Jesus' statement) "all whom have been entrusted to." This, obviously, poses serious questions to orthodox Christian theology because it implies that the belief of the sinner is not a requirement for the soteria (complete healing) of God.

- The final two ideas that benefit from a more objective interpretation are those of "die" and "eternal life." The word used here for "death" and "die" is rooted in the Greek word apollumi. Death is a faithful translation of this word, but it also has a broader understanding. It is not only "die" but it means "decay" and "descend into futility." John is not only talking about physical death, but he's also referencing a qualitative lack of "life." It is this idea that perfectly contrasts the following image presented in the words aionios zoe. This is traditionally interpreted (via the Latin) as "eternal life" or "everlasting life." This translation is incomplete because it focuses only on the quantitative aspect (like duration and time) rather than incorporating the qualitative aspects. More than just "life that goes on forever," the Greek says "life without limitations or boundaries."

As I said at the beginning of this post, I hope that the information I've presented explains my opinion that literacy in Greek and Hebrew is important for Biblical research and readings. Of course it is possible to "get something" out of reading the Bible in English. Christians in the English-speaking world have been inspired by English vernacular passages of the Bible for centuries. My argument is that those that would use the Bible to make claims about truth or reality (both believers and atheists) should do so from an informed and educated point of view and not to rely on shoddy interpretations based on incomplete vernacular translations.

Feel free to comment as you see fit.

what i've learned since my 'vacation'

2009-09-28T23:29:00.004-05:00

I know it's been a while since last I posted. I know I've spent a lot of time away and I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this (I'm talking to you Willie Chuck!). Needless to say, I've done a lot of thinking since my last post(s), spent a lot of time in study, reflection, meditation and active interpersonal exchanges (is that redundant?). I'd like to think that I've learned a couple of things since last we all met in cyberspace... but I've decided to let you all be the judge of that. It's not a complete list just yet: I may add to it from time-to-time. No formal format this time... just off the proverbial cuff. Everything I've listed below is something that I've had to learn myself the hard way because I was, at one time, the worst offender I knew. Anyone that's known me for more than a year will laugh at how true this is.

What I've learned about politics, government and economics and would like to share:
- The republican form of government is a particularly clever way of continuing the feudal aristocracies of the Middle Ages. To entertain the notion that the United States is an actual democracy is to be mistaken.

- Capitalism was not the founding economic model of America... open up a history book sometime. There was a significant movement in the 19th century to adopt Marxism by the emerging "middle class". This movement was effectively shut down by the efforts of the robber-baron industrialists of the period. If you support capitalism, that's fine - but you should do so from an informed and factually accurate point-of-view.

- Glen Beck is a grade "A", irresponsible, first-rate and ideologically-charged demagogue... and a jack ass.

- Socialism isn't the devil, it isn't un-American and it isn't un-Christian. Claiming otherwise only proves two things: a) you apparently don't understand what socialism is and, b) you don't understand traditional American values or traditional Christian values.

- If you think that having no military experience disqualifies you from being the President of the United States, I'd like for you to look up the military records for the following men: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Quincy Adams. Four out of the first five presidents of the United States did not serve in the military and the one that did (George Washington) claimed that the greatest threat to liberty and democracy was a standing army.

What I've learned about religion and would like to share:
- A lot of evangelical Christians in America balk at the word "religion", so I want to make sure people understand what I mean when I use that word: a religion is a framework of beliefs concentrated around an idea of the sacred or divine. Technically the word religion means, in the original Latin re-ligio, "that which binds together." As I've said before in other posts, this definition is the equivalent to what I call "ideology". It not only includes theology and worldviews but traditions as well.

- I get the accusation of sounding smug and elitist when I say this to people. I realize how it comes across but I still think it is worth saying and I apologize ahead of time if you take offense to this: if your primary understanding/interpretation of the Christian Bible comes from an English translation - then it is highly likely that you don't understand what you're reading. Unfortunately for Americans without fluency in Greek and Hebrew (myself included), the Bible was not written in the English language or with an Anglo-Saxon cultural context. In other words: if you want to understand the source-text for the Christian religion, then you cannot approach the text with a modern American Christian mindset. Period.

- The God talked about in most religious (or sacro-ideological) communities and traditions is impossibly small and shallow to me. There are ways to approach an idea of the sacred and the divine that exist outside of institutional religious communities that are worth exploring without condemnation.

- I'm not entirely sure that the Jesus talked about in Christian religious traditions is broadly-enough defined. In other words: Jesus is interpreted too narrowly for my tastes within most expressions of Christianity.

- The Bible is not a historical text, despite the presence of historical events described in it. It is a work of hagiography. The sooner you read the Bible with that understanding, the sooner a lot of the information in it will begin to make an incredible amount of sense.

- I've read the Bible and quoted it as much as anyone else I know, but beginning a claim about truth with "the Bible says..." immediately undercuts one's credibility.

- Belief, especially religious belief, is one of the only conventions in the human repertoire that will blatantly defy "reality." And no, that's not a good thing.

- Superstition is the most offensive kind of ignorance I've ever encountered - in both its "charmed" and "cursed" forms.

What I've learned about education and would like to share:
- Education is the process by which you take an empty mind and replace it with an open one.

- Too much of what passes for education is really just indoctrination. To educate someone is not to teach them what to think, but how to think.

- Students are the only demographic in America that want to get less-and-less for the money they pay.

- What you put into your education, you will get back with dividends.

- A Master's Degree is just that. Think about it for a second. It is a degree that confers on you the title of master. If you think it's ok to just "get by" in a Master's program, you have completely missed the point and don't deserve to have the title. As a graduate student, you should be shooting for a hard-earned "A" in every class. Period.

- Open-mindedness isn't a cure-all for what ails us intellectually... but it's a good start and the foundation for a truly educated person.

That's all I've got for right now. I'm sure to add more to it later. Feel free to comment as you see fit.

a brief hiatus... and humanity 2.0

2008-09-17T12:35:00.003-05:00

Hey everybody, I just wanted to send a quick message letting everyone know that I'm going to take a brief hiatus from blogging during the Fall semester. As my friend Terry said: "I have to remind myself that as soon as the semester starts you go AWOL for three months." It's so true... I feel like I haven't left my "study" for a month now - I spend all my time in front of books and writing papers.

While I'm away from the blog I will be continuing my research into ideological frameworks and the anatomy of objective reality. In addition to those core topics, I've also been researching a developing worldview within the arts known as "Humanity 2.0". I've begun to see it show up in music, philosophy, spirituality, and literature and I think it warrants some contemplation and reflection. So when I come back I hope to offer up some thoughts and questions on these topics.

See you soon and, as always, leave the light on...

ok, but do they really?

2008-08-20T01:00:00.006-05:00

The Preamble: I was having a chat with a friend of mine the other day about the recent Saddleback Presidential Forum that was aired on CNN when he brought up the mind-numbingly complex, hot-button-of-all-hot-button issues: abortion. During the forum Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, asked both Senators Obama and McCain about their particular impressions of Roe v. Wade and the current debate between the so-called "pro-life" crowd and the so-called "pro-choice" crowd. Now - I'm not going to get into too much about the actual debate on the social/political/moral issue of abortion, but I mention this conversation because it rekindled the desire in me to write about the single most important ethical question of human history. I don't think that many people would argue - regardless of whether you're "pro-life" or "pro-choice" - that the fewer abortions the better. I mean, even every "pro-choice" advocate I've met has been adamant that they would like to see less abortions (even no abortions) if at all possible. So I think I'm on somewhat solid ground when I say that it would take a very inhumane personality to enjoy the fact that we've had over 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. But the ethical question that came up was not really about abortion or any specific "hot-button" issue, but rather this one: do the ends justify the means?

The Case: This, to me, really is the most important question we can ask of ourselves as individuals, as social groups, as a country, and as a race. This question is as central to our worldview as a question can be and if you truly ask yourself this question when debating an ethical problem - I can nearly guarantee that you will find yourself unsatisfied with much of the commonly accepted answers. While this post is truly about asking the question, I do have some thoughts on it that I would like to, briefly, share.

During the course of the conversation (mentioned above) over abortion, my friend referred to the current situation as a "holocaust" and likened it to the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis. He is certainly entitled to his opinion and, depending on your point of view, the death of 40 million unborn babies (or "fetuses" if you prefer) could be perceived, legitimately, as a holocaust of sorts. I, personally, hope to refrain from that kind of potentially inflammatory rhetoric simply because of the fact that the rhetoric is inflammatory. More to the point, however, he made the point that it is incumbent upon the morally upright in this country (i.e. a "conservative" or "evangelical" Christian) to fight the "holocaust" of abortion via the political, legislative, and judicial avenues in this country in the same way that it was the responsibility of the morally upright to fight the Nazi regime and "kill Hitler." This is where the question turned from morality to ethics.

He was, I'm sure, assuming that I would never disagree with the commonly held assumption that it was the right thing for the U.S. to jump into WWII and fight the Nazis back to Berlin. He was very shocked to find out that I do not agree with that commonly held assumption. I suppose I could be more clear about it: I do not believe that the prosecution of World War II by any of the so-called "Allied" nations was an appropriate response to the atrocities and crimes propagated by the Nazi regime in Germany. I am not particularly fond of U.S. military campaigns in World War II, despite the "good" it achieved by ridding the world of one of history's most notoriously evil dictators and ending a very unquestionable Holocaust. That might make me "unpatriotic" or even a "traitor", I suppose you'll have to decide that for yourself. I cannot support the actions of the U.S. government in World War II (or any other war for that matter) because I do not believe the ends justify the means.

Allow me to explain. Let's take the war out of the context for a moment and just go to, arguably, the central goal of the war: killing Hitler. Let's say it was a matter of just killing Hitler to end the war: kill one evil man to save millions of lives (innocent, guilty, or otherwise). Would saving 100 million lives (a good "end") be justified by the means of killing one man? I have no doubt that most people would respond with an enthusiastic "YES!" Ok, that's understandable. But let's up the number to 100. What then? Yes? How about 1,000? Still feeling good? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? How about letting 75,000,000 men, women, and children die in order to save the lives of, potentially, 1.925 billion others? Is that still a fair trade? Do the ends still justify the means? There were over 51 countries on Earth that we directly affected by World War II and they represented nearly 2 billion people in 1939. By the end of the war nearly 73 million people had died. That was almost 4% of the world's population in 1939! As individuals, as a country, and as a race we answered "yes" in 1939 and four people out of every hundred died because of it.

World War II represents one of the most catastrophic and multi-faceted failures in all of human history, but it certainly isn't the only one. This fundamental ethical evaluation does not only apply to war, either. It applies to every response and every approach to solving problems that we must deal with as responsible stewards of the human race and our planet. The way that I see it, the ends cannot justify the means because the means and the ends are the same. Waging the horrors and evils of war (and many soldiers and veterans will readily concur with my descriptions), even for a "good" or "just" cause is still evil and taints the cause with evil as well. Dr. Greg Boyd reminds us that all too often we have sacrificed the long, slow, patient path of (what he calls) "holiness" for the short, quick, and (relatively) immediate road to "good". In other words, Greg is saying that the "holy" (or ideal) path to which all of humanity appeals is going to achieve acceptable long-term means, ends, and will have acceptable long-term repercussions.

The Question: Do the ends really justify the means? What is the criteria for taking someone's life? The quality of character for the person whose life is being taken? The cost-benefit analysis of that person's life in exchange for another's life? Who should decide these questions? Government officials? Religious leaders? You? What is the ratio of acceptable deaths to "lives-saved" when saying a war is justified? 4:96? 10:90? 49:51? What kinds of wars, if any, are truly justified? Are the means and the ends the same? If they are the same, how broadly does this get applied? Legislation? Crime management? Interpersonal conflicts? Personal ambitions and personal gains? So many questions...

Leave the light on.

and justice for all...

2008-08-06T19:37:00.004-05:00

The Preamble: My wife and I love to watch Law & Order. It's a highly predictable crime drama that wraps itself up neatly at the end of every episode. While it uses many current events and values debates as a backdrop for episode plots, the show allows us to put our minds on autopilot for an hour. Very rarely does it provide any kind of intellectual stimulation for either of us. But it's good entertainment. A lot of times I wish the world could be as simple as a network TV drama - especially when it comes to our justice system. Bad guys are bad guys, good guys are good guys, the world always comes back together in the end, everyone goes home happy and gets what's fair. That's the Law & Order way (more or less) but it is not, at all, a fair representation of reality.

When I look at the commonly shared concept of justice in western culture, what I see is a system that it has become so focused on crime and punishment (and law and order) that any real presence of justice is hidden by layers of vengeance and retribution. I once said that not all ideologies are words that end in "ism", and the American system of "justice" is one of them. As an ideology, it stands as another obstacle on the path to finding objective reality.

The Case: It was once said that "there is a way that seems right to mankind, but in the end that path only leads to death."* There should be no doubt that this much could be said of our entire social fabric and especially of our concept of "justice". The foundation of our entire society is completely incompatible with a real environment of justice. From start to finish the American system is overrun by the protection of self-interests, even at the expense and exploitation of others. And in a social environment where self-interests are the penultimate reality to be chased, we encourage people to get the best that they can, even if it means doing their worst. The evolution of this kind of a society - which is seen in every corner of the world, but celebrated so much in America - has created two opposing groups: the "haves" and the "have-nots", with anyone still in-between slowly being pushed into one of the two camps. By elevating the protection of the privacy of person, private ownership of property, and personal rights to the level of "sacred", we've ultimately forced the "have-nots" to fend for themselves by way of some kind of merciless experiment in "Social Darwinism". So many of us have no substantial qualms with the reality that there are those in our own cities and neighborhoods that have become so weighed down by this system that they are a mere step or two away from choosing between crime and utter poverty and improvision. And this is nothing new to us either - it's as old as life itself. Yet in all of our advancement, all of our sophistication, all of our technology, all of our collective global wealth, we - all of us - prefer to spend our time and resources terminating on our selves.

So I hear you say to me: "Hey! Thanks for proving you're a clone of Karl Marx, but what does this have to do with the injustice of human justice?" You'll be surprised to know that in all of my historical studies, all of my reading, all of my free time I've never read anything written by Marx - not even the Communist Manifesto. But what I'm talking about has everything do with human justice. William Boothe, founder of the Salvation Army, wrote a brilliant work called In Darkest England and the Way Out that detailed the horrible living conditions of the poor in London and the connection between poverty and crime. Booth's main argument is that a man's soul (and his "eternal salvation") is completely unattainable in the midst of extreme poverty and squalor. In order to attain the salvation of the soul the missionary must also provide for the "salvation of the body."** But, of course, proselytizing and "salvation" is not the aim of this current discussion. Where Booth's argument and my own converge is when Booth acknowledges that many of the rich London residents were not willing to give up their money to fund the Salvation Army in order to achieve something as practically worthless as salvation of the soul. He presents a case that suits their needs when makes the claim that as the rich are able to help the poor meet their own needs and as they begin to help the "inner man as well as the outer man", the amount of crime in London would be sure to decrease. To Booth the choice was a very clear one: those Englishmen with resources (i.e. money and time) could use them to improve the condition of the impoverished and, in the long run, help prevent crime against all Englishmen (especially the wealthy and middle-class) or they could continue to horde their money, live in luxury, and ignore the plight of the poor - and then pay the government in tax money to execute a robust and expensive "criminal justice" and prison system to house those same people after they've violated someone.

It should be said that not all crime is derived from being oppressed and desperation. Even crime for those reasons is not based, ultimately, on just that. Crime happens whenever anyone elevates the self interest above or ahead of the good of those affected by one's circle of influence. But that is only criminality. Let's move on to justice. Let me say first that there are two different ideas about justice in our world: social justice and criminal justice. What Booth was trying to encourage his audience and neighbors was that there was a very ancient belief that the more generously a society invested in social justice, the more insulation that society is providing for itself against the need for a robust and expensive criminal justice system. What should also be mentioned is that the ancient world considered - in large part - the practice of elevating the private (or "self") interests before the public good as a complete lack of virtue.*** What's more is that even the definition of "justice" seems to have very little (if anything at all) to do with the concepts of crime and punishment. In nearly 84% of the passages in the Bible where the word "justice" is given a contextual meaning there is a very explicit definition: to tend to the needs of the poor the orphan and the widow, to be fair to the foreigner ("alien"), and to restore those that have been victimized (by man or by nature).****

And that is the truth of justice. Justice is not punishing the "violator of rights", it is reclaiming our responsibility to the poor, the foreigner in our land, and the victim of loss. In fairness to the reality we live in - financial poverty isn't the only criteria for a "victim of loss". A wealthy woman that is violated feels the same pain as the homeless women suffering the same violation. The reason I make such an argument for the poor is because too often they lack the resources to bring about the restoration necessary to completely heal. And that is the business of justice: healing and restoration. Anything less than this is simply reaction, revenge, and retribution. And this, of course, presents a problem for all of us. If any of us come to embrace this reality and reclaim this ancient axiom of justice, how can we ever hope to convert the substantial investment we've made over the millennia of emotion, money, laws, careers, and infrastructure in "crime and punishment" to a new system of justice? Do we stand up and fight a government that is legitimized by this current system? Do we overthrow it? No. Do we ignore the laws? No. Do we quit our jobs as police, corrections officers, wardens and judges? Not until they are made unnecessary, no. In the wise counsel of Dallas Willard: no need to fight it, just don't feed it.+

But how, then, do we create a new system? The answer is both comforting and terrifying at the same time: there is no need for any of us to build it, rather what is required of us is simply to be it. Like all movements that generate a lasting legacy, it starts with one or a few and spreads - like a virus - from one to the next until it grows so vast and powerful that it replaces and suffocates the original organism, rendering a new manifestation of the body. All that is required to create the change we desperately need is simply to be the change, and let that change influence (just like the influenza virus) everyone you come into contact with. There is no need to dominate with new laws or systems. There is no need to force a new way of thinking on those who aren't ready to see it - or those that have built a brick wall of dogmatic immunity to it.

If we, together as a community, can begin to sacrifice our self-centered needs for luxury in order to give to the poor, to sacrifice our selfish alienation of "foreigners" (as if any of us live in the exact place of our own births?) in order to practice generosity and hospitality to the immigrant, and to sacrifice our self-righteous need for retribution against the "offender" and the "criminal" in order to restore to wholeness the ones that suffer from loss, then we can transform our dark and miserable immitation of justice for true justice - a justice that is far less susceptible to perversion and corruption. A justice based on truth, responsibility (for ourselves and to others), and compassion instead a mockery of justice based on ideology, rights, and selfishness. It may look like donating blood, volunteering time at homeless shelters and food pantries, giving money, organizing benefits... take your pick or think of your own. But, in the end, the beginning of all justice is to care. Simply allow yourself to care about injustice and the plight of those losing hope around you. Let that compassion - and, yes, even grief - motivate you to act. Someone you know is hoping and praying for a miracle... a sign. We can be that sign. We can be that miracle. We can become justice for someone. Let the law judge the lawless and the lawful. Let the judges debate crime and punishment. But let the just be the justice that reality demands of all of us.

The Question: Are you, the reader, able to see the distinction between our system of "crime and punishment" (which we may call "crime management") and the ancient concept of justice? Are you willing to trade your personal vested interest in the current system for a new one? If there was a reason that would hold you back from being the change in order to create the change, which would you say is the primary one: the personal cost of change, being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the challenge, or rejecting the validity of the concept outlined in this post? And, lastly, with the absolute failure of the human "crime management system" to prevent or rehabilitate criminal activity++... what more do you have to lose?

Leave the light on.

-------------------
* - Proverbs 14:12, Proverbs 16:25
** - James 2:16
*** - Reference Plato and Socrates
**** - Examples: Deuteronomy 16:20, Deuteronomy 27:19, Proverbs 21:3, Ecclesiastes 5:8, Isaiah 1:16-17, Isaiah 10:2, Isaiah 59:15, Ezekiel 22:23-31, Ezekiel 49:5, Micah 6:8, Zechariah 7:9, Matthew 23:23
+ - The Great Omission, Dallas Willard
++ - Based on felony recidivism statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Justice

from emptiness to everything

2008-08-01T23:02:00.008-05:00

The Preamble: Coryn told me that she really likes running errands with me. She said it reminds her of when we were dating and we did everything together. And today we were running errands together while listening to John Mayer's Continuum album. I know John Mayer is a musically polarizing artist - you either like him or you think he sucks. I hope you readers can appreciate the kind of risk I took alienating you all by telling you that I was listening to his music!

In any case, we were driving around and a song of his called "Belief" spun up and, through the course of listening to his lyrics, Coryn and I began to realize that John was kind of singing about one of the major themes I've been trying to talk about with this blog: everyone believes something, at some level they're trying to fight for that belief, and the dogmatic division this willingness to fight for our beliefs is causing a pretty substantial amount of the conflict we have in this world... from little conflicts between two people and large conflicts between two nations.

Just so we're all on the same page, I'm going to post the lyrics of this song so you can follow along:

Is there anyone who
Ever remembers changing their mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time

Everyone believes
In how they think it ought to be
Everyone believes
And they're not going easily

Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water
You never can hit who you're trying for

Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside

Everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes
And no ones going quietly

We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for

What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can

The Case: Whether you like John's music or not, agree with his political ideologies or not, or find him credible in commenting on "the human condition" or not, it can scarcely be argued that everyone believes in something. As Dallas Willard said once at a conference:

"Whether someone is a Christian or not, they are going to live according to certain assumptions about what is real. They are very likely to accept the popular notion that they live in a world where there really is no God, and that right and wrong are determined by what you want, as long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's freedom.

We have to start by helping people see that they cannot escape the fact that, no matter what they do, they are in fact choosing one version of what is real, true, and good. In that choice they need to be responsible. Not believing in something has exactly the same consequences as believing.

I'm saying that [we all have] a belief. This is absolutely crucial for [us] to understand. Otherwise [we are] under the illusion that [we are] in a safe place simply because [we haven't] explicitly committed [ourselves] to something."

On the question of "God" - everyone believes in something. By saying they don't believe in "God", most people mean that they don't accept a Christian's interpretation of reality. But the so-called "atheist" is a theoretical impossibility. There is, to everyone, an assumption or belief about the cosmic reality that exists outside of ourselves. To the Hindus it is called "the Brahman", to the Jews that cosmic reality is called "Yahveh" or "Elohim", to the Christian it is called "Y'shua HaMasshiach" or "Jesus Christ" and so on. Some will tell you that a Zen Buddhist has no "divinity" to emulate or achieve, but their cosmic reality is the attainment of "enlightenment" which stops the cycle of life. I don't mean to equate these perceptions of reality as though they are somehow really the same... they're not. Each of these perceptions of reality is an ideology of its own. They all have very intrinsically different and unequal "ideas" that they are trying to convey and, as I said before, to try to say they are the same thing is to diminish all of them.

What I mean to say is that there is no truly "neutral" position when it comes to reality. And, like Dallas explained, being non-committal about reality is still the same as choosing. Like the song says, "everyone believes, from emptiness to everything." When you say that you believe in something or stand for something you are intrinsically saying at the same time that you believe against something else and stand against something else... even if that "something else" seems senseless and obvious. But it is important to examine your values and your assumptions about reality in order to see just where and what those assumptions place you in regards to the opposite. Performing that kind of a "values inventory" may lead you to learn quite a bit about yourself, how you see the world, and - most importantly - why!

The asking of "why" is also a critical element of learning anything. Surely none of us are so educated and full of truth that there's no need to continue asking questions and continue learning. It may surprise you to learn that, in one way or another, we've all gotten to a place where we believe that there is nothing more to be learned - we've "figured it out". Think about it. There is something in your mind or heart that you have such a conviction about that you do not believe you could ever actually be wrong about it. I know that I've had to confront my own on many occasions and continue to find more every time I go to look. I've come to believe that this is simply an element of "experience". Through the course of events all of us begin to detect patterns about our existence in reality, those patterns lead us to assumptions, those assumptions lead us to convictions. Those convictions lead us to construct dogmatic brick-wall "beliefs" and "values" which, eventually, come together in the form of an ideology that dominates our worldview and keeps us insulated from the (sometimes frighteningly) dynamic nature of reality. Asking "why", like an infuriatingly curious two-year-old, helps keep those assumptions to a minimum, undermining the "mortar effect" that hardens those assumptions into rigid worldviews.

The Question: What do you call the cosmic, universal, objective reality? Do you remember how you originally came to this understanding? What are the most significant assumptions that you have about reality? Have you allowed those assumptions to crystalize into a rigid belief system or worldview? If you have any kind of rigid belief system or worldview, have you experimented with "why"? If so, how far down the rabbit hole did it take you? Blow up the comments section - I can't wait to see what you all were able to get from this.

Leave the light on.

building brick walls

2008-07-31T12:11:00.015-05:00

The Preamble: I've gotten lots of questions about the nature of Jesus recently in a response to the posts I've written. I guess I should say that this blog was never intended to be a theological blog in nature, nor was it intended to illuminate the mysteries of Christianity (as if I were an expert on them). Rather this blog was intended to talk about how to see the objective, universal, and empirically substantiated reality we all share and how to remove the obstacles of ideology that make it difficult for all of us to see its full scope. In my posts I often reference Jesus as an informant of my own research and worldview so I suppose it was inevitable that my audience (being in a part of the world that is particularly influenced by Christianized traditions and worldviews) would ask questions as to who Jesus is to me. I am also not as surprised by the full range of questions I've gotten because of the recent post "the gods must be angry". As Walt said - I expected to raise some "dander" with the idea I put forward.

The Case: It seems to me that at least some of my readers (through a lack of clarity on my part) took away from my original post that I was passing a theological judgment on the Christian church. I take responsibility for that mis-communication. In fact the argument and point I was trying to bring up in the original post was not theological at all, but historical, social, and analytical. Now, in all fairness to the reader, it is nearly impossible to discuss the historical, social, and analytical aspects of religious/moral history without touching on the theology that has become so dominant in our culture or without addressing the mindset or individuals that share in that theology. There were times in that original post where I did address "New Testament disciples of Jesus" in a modern context and confront - head-on - a concept of theological and moral tradition in America and the west. But, still, my intention was only to illuminate and enumerate the historically critical questions to both the "believer" and "non-believer" alike.

The comments and responses that followed required me to draw deeper into the "theological" and further from the "historical" as the line between "ideology" and "reality" got blurrier. As those separate conversations went on, readers began to raise questions about my "beliefs" on the nature of Jesus which I tried to answer in an objective, universal, and empirically substantiated fashion. As I've tried to make the point since the beginning of this blog - that is like trying to speak in two different languages. Eventually the two participants in a conversation begin to talk past one another instead of having dialogue because one or both are unable or unwilling to bridge the gap that causes the breakdown in communication.

If you've been reading the comments section of this blog you've been a first-hand witness to, what I believe, is the primary obstacle in communication between the "non-believer" and the "believer". My experience with the modern and western (i.e. American) manifestation of Christianity - especially the "evangelical" community - is that when it comes to "finding the Truth" the non-believer must start dancing to the music of the believer. In other words: if a non-believer or seeker wants to access the mystery of Christ, he has to start reading the church's talking points and adopt the church's worldview regardless of unresolved questions about reality. I say again, this is my experience but it is an experience I've been forming over the last dozen or so years from both sides of the fence (as a "preacher" and a "seeker"). If you believe that I've reached this conclusion erroneously then I encourage you to find someone that is "unchurched" (and there are some that read this blog that would be willing to tell you about their own experiences and perceptions, I'm sure) and ask them if what I'm saying is true. By all means, I encourage you to research this in your own environment and come to your own conclusions.

Rob Bell talks about a pattern that he has perceived in the evangelical church of building rigid theological walls (which he calls "Brickitanity") that require the seeker to "get it right" in order to "get right". In other words, these wall-building practices say to the non-believer and the seeker alike that they "have to accept truth on our terms or suffer damnation for all time." I have spent many many years of my life studying Jesus' teachings in the New Testament texts and, from my own analytical point of view, this kind of attitude runs contrary to the message and character of the Biblical Jesus. I have encountered many people in life that share a more rigid and traditional view of Christian doctrine and I'm sure that there's little, if anything, that I can say to change their minds. What I'm hoping to convey to the believer, the seeker, the non-believer, and the militant non-believer is that there are some people that are not interested in building more brick walls, or asking "outsiders" to jump through more hoops in order to get the benefits of Jesus' teachings and character. What I hope to convey is that everyone, regardless of what they "believe", is worth the time, energy, and investment of being on the recieving end of the "Divine Character": love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control (or "discipline" - thanks Jon!).

This blog will always attempt to approach the cosmic, universal, objective, and empirically substantiated reality by bridging the "language gap" and breaking down the rigid brick walls of dogma, because dialogue between the believer and non-believer is too important not to. If I believe I am supposed to approach that great reality of truth by pushing "further up and farther in", I must also follow my conviction to bring others with me regardless of the assumptions they've already come to in the course of living life. In that process I feel compelled to cast as wide an invitation as I can, to speak the language of those hoping to travel with me (whether "religious" or "secular"), and to remain open to questions of all kinds and on all topics... regardless of how uncomfortable the answers and conclusions may be. The needs of others to have their questions, unresolved frustrations, and painful life experiences heard, listened to, talked about, and worked through is more important than my "need" to recluse myself to a life of no questions, where all of my beliefs are handed to me in a neatly packaged, but critically immune, doctrine.

And I hope to always leave the light on.

of comments and criticisms... and disgruntled deities

2008-07-31T01:39:00.003-05:00

A friend of mine told me that I seem to really have angered the gods with my last post or two! I want to take a minute to post, briefly, on the state of the comments recently so I hope you'll indulge me.

1. Thank you to absolutely everyone that has emailed, called, chatted, and posted comments in response to my blog posts.

2. If you haven't checked out the Comments sections of the latest posts - you're missing out! There's been a lot of really good dialogue going on in there. I encourage you to stop by, read a few, and even leave one - or five - of your own at the "muse's descent". ;-)

3. As I've said before, I hope - many years from now when I'm all growed up - that I can take these writings and make them into a book. Whether or not this book will be solely academic (for use in my masters' thesis or dissertation), I haven't been able to decide on. What I know is that every time someone leaves a comment that challenges what I've written, it is incredibly helpful to me. You, the reader, are not just an audience to me - but you're sharing in the experience, journey, and expression. When someone posts a comment and tells me that they disagree with one point or another, think I'm wrong in something, tell me my argument is "soft" at here or there... it's like free editing!

Several commenters have offered up criticisms and challenges that have shown me where I need to be more clear, where I need to rethink my thinking, where I need to improve my delivery, etc. I am listening to your comments - even when I'm responding to them.

I want you to know that I am personally invested in responding to every comment posted to my blog. I read them very carefully. I think about them and meditate on them. And then I respond to them. But all of them affect me and directly affect future posts and the future finished work I hope these writings will become.

I will say - for the sake of saying it - that some of the comments have had a "mocking" or (what I took to be) a "snarky" tone. It's hard not to be discouraged by that. But I would rather have a snarky and anonymous criticism in full view of everyone than a "behind-the-back" criticism that I don't even get to learn from or respond to.

My father-in-law, in trying (successfully) to encourage me when I came home from work tonight, reminded me that it's ok if "the gods must be angry" is a failed post (either in its accuracy or delivery on my part or its reception on the part of the reader). As a writer and historian, I should expect to have some of what I write fall flat. As a teacher, my wife doesn't always succeed with her students. As a programmer, my father-in-law doesn't always write code that works. As a professional in any field there is bound to be failure. What makes us decent, reasonable, and compassionate as humans is that we can be all of those things to others in spite of their failure - and as a determination not to fail in our own responsibilities to be decent, reasonable, and compassionate people.

So let that be a challenge to any reader: if what I've written sounds arrogant or haughty, or doesn't seem factual, or doesn't jibe, or doesn't make sense, or whatever... don't tune out! Help me! I promise to listen and learn from you because - if you're speaking the truth - it's my truth too and that truth has my utmost loyalty.

Leave the light on.

the gods must be angry

2008-07-28T16:57:00.007-05:00

The Preamble: So I've been reading a book called "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna and I have to recommend it to anyone searching for a very authentic and original examination of the Christian church. Reading the book and examining the evidence provided has also rekindled my own thoughts about the pagan nature of what most people call "Christianity". (*Disclaimer: None of the information I address in this post has anything to do with what is discussed in the previously mentioned book and I do not represent the authors or their viewpoints.*) Some of the more difficult questions I've had to work through revolve around the roots of morality as a cultural bonding agent and its preoccupation with the ancient pagan fertility gods.

The Case: Let me start by saying that I did not come to any of these questions or conclusions lightly. The sensibilities put in me from my childhood were just as offended in my initial discovery of what I plan to share with all of you as yours are certain to be. What can be certain, however, is that when you start to examine the stability of your foundations and when you begin to perceive that the foundations and structure you've inherited are inherently flawed it can be a frightening experience. I want to approach this topic as sensitively and gingerly as possible without mincing words or watering down my case. I encourage you to continue to respond in the form of comments (for dialogue and discussion), emails, and phone calls because this topic is (in my opinion) too important to walk away from without engaging.

All of that being said, let me dive right into it. There are certain facts about how ancient paganism has infiltrated the modern "Christian" community that are readily obvious to even the most casual question-asker. Some of the easiest examples to digest are found in Christian sacred holidays like Christmas and Easter.

In regards to Christmas, celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25 is a holdover from the old Roman pagan holiday dedicated to Sol Invictus ("the Invincible Sun" god). There is no solid archaeological, Biblical, or empirical evidence to suggest that Jesus was born on December 25 (or even in the winter). One of the main reasons that this has never been challenged by church leaders or theologians is that there is very little evidence to suggest what time of year Jesus was born at all, so no alternative date has ever been offered. Generally for most Christians the date makes little difference because there's no harm and no foul in the current tradition. Let me be clear: I'm not anti-Christmas or trying to argue against the holiday. I'm simply trying to cast some light onto how our traditions started and allow you, the reader, to come to some sound conclusions on what it means for you. The question that should come to mind, however, is this: if Christmas is in the top two most sacred holidays for Christians, why would the Gospel writers not give us a relative timetable for his birth? (All we're given is clues as to the year it happened.) The answer is in the history. The original Christians (including the Apostles and the Apostlic church fathers) didn't celebrate Christmas. There is no teaching in the New Testament or by the Apostlic church leaders of the first 300 years of Christianity suggesting they ever celebrated Christmas. In fact, the only truly Christian holiday they celebrated was the Resurrection (what we now call "Easter"). Most of the holidays the first Christians celebrated were the Jewish religious holidays like Passover. And that, of course, brings us to Easter.

Easter, as we've come to know it, was not celebrated by the first Christians either. The early church celebrated the Resurrection every single day. They held meetings every day (very different from our "church") to discuss the Resurrection and celebrate it, pray for one another, tend to each others' needs, and then they celebrated the Resurrection by partaking in communion every day. But even their communion was different from ours. It was not a saltless wafer and grape juice (real wine if you belong to a more liturgical congregation). The entire Christian population in a given city or town gathered together at a central meeting place (usually a large house - where all daily church meetings took place) and ate a large and hearty dinner there including whole loaves of bread and barrels of wine. It was, essentially, like a wedding banquet every day! But when it comes to setting apart one day in early-mid Spring for celebration of the Resurrection... that didn't begin until after 325 AD when the Roman govenment took over as the central power of the "church". It was then that Easter, like Christmas' from Sol Invictus, was taken from the old Roman pagan holiday dedicated to the fertility god. Easter bunnies, eggs, mandatory church attendence... all of this is a holdover from the ancient fertility god. When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the Roman government in the early fifth century the new Roman "bishops" (which were simply Roman pagan nobles given new positions of great power) decided to merge the very popular pagan holiday with the Resurrection since they both signified "new life" and, thus, Easter was born. Even the mandatory church service was a holdover from the old fertility god. Romans, under the pagan system, were strongly encouraged to visit the temples of the fertility god in order for that god to continue to give to all of Rome's empire agricultural and reproductive fertility. Since, under Christianity, the old fertility god had been replaced by one God and a very powerful symbol of life and fertility in the Resurrected Christ, the old traditions simply made way for new names and new gods.

What's important to remember about this is that the Romans lived in absolute terror of angering the fertility gods. They believed that if they did not continually satisfy the fertility gods, then those gods would cause the land to stop producing food, the rivers and lakes to dry up, and the women to stop having children. Without water, food, and new Roman boys the empire could not maintain its staus and power in the world. When the people of the Roman empire came to believe that there were not many different gods but one all-powerful God, the fear and dread of that one God became even more intense and the already-existing pagan morality became even more strict. The empire could not afford to risk angering this new God: a god - according to the Jewish scriptures - that was able to cause droughts and floods, was able to open and close the wombs of women, and was able to turn farmable lands into fields of blood. This ancient pagan devotion infiltrated the Roman "Christian" church from the very beginning and has not left since.

It is this pagan sense of morality that I intend to dive deeper into. By now you may be asking yourself, "Why does he keep saying 'pagan' and 'morality' as if they're linked?" That would be a truly excellent question to ask. One of the points I intend to show is that morality is not a creation of New Testament Christianity but, rather, pre-Christian paganism. Furthermore, this morality hasn't fundamentally changed since the first pagan society was formed and the very same pagan morality that existed in ancient Sumeria still exists today: it exists in our modern world as the foundation of western civilization, even as the backbone of the American culture and the skeleton of our modern - yet incredibly pagan - "Christianity".

It may surprise many of you to find out that morality as we know and practice is not Biblical in origin (neither Old nor New Testament... more on this in a little bit). For as long as humans have been living together in towns and cities, and as long as governments have existed, and as long as the old pagan gods have been worshipped by tribes and nations - morality has existed. The very first comprehensive morality code was created by the Sumerian/Babylonian civilization under a ruler named Hammurabi (1795-1750 BC), at least 300-500 years before the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt and the creation of the Ten Commandments. Depending on the dates of Abraham's departure from Ur (which was under the rule of what became Hammurabi's kingdom), Abraham and Hammurabi could have been contemporaries and Abraham could have taken the existing Babylonian morality code with him as he travelled to Egypt and Palestine. It is also just as likely that the Israelite culture, in keeping with the tradition of Abraham, was influenced by the existing morality code of Hammurabi when they produced (at the instruction of God, according to the texts) the Ten Commandments.

Now whether the Jewish Law was borrowed from another culture or whether it was hand-written by God himself is not really the question. It is an interesting question to get into, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm trying to point out is that what we consider "Biblical morality" actually existed in a culture that was, in no way, devoted to the God of the Bible. Hammurabi's morality code (which rivals the detailed laws in Leviticus) was developed in service to Babylonian pagan gods. And it isn't just Babylon, either. Egypt, Assyria, Neo-Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome all shared the same morality code. Surprisingly enough, four of the ten commandments are found in every single morality code in history: do not steal, do not kill, do not lie, do not commit adultery and two others were present in all pagan cultures: do not covet your neighbors possessions, and honor your parents.

All of that simply goes to show that the only thing that was unique about the standard morality code of the ancient Jews is that it was done in devotion to one God instead of many gods. But, more importantly, the ancient Jews shared the same rules, laws, customs, and taboos as their pagan neighbors when it came to issues regarding the fertility gods. Some of the most oft-repeated miracles in the Old Testament revolve around Yahveh (God) performing miracles of fertility: making barren women have children, making the crops grow, making the rain fall on drought-ridden lands... producing prosperity and ensuring the survival of the Israelite people through history. These were the very same miracles that the pagans asked of their gods and the pagans had special altars, special sacrifices, and special rituals to help get the favor of the gods just as the Jews did with Yahveh.

So, you may be asking, am I saying that the Jews were really pagans or that the Old Testament of the Bible is a copycat of the pagans? No, I'm not saying that. It should be noted that while Abraham followed the instruction of Yahveh, he still came from a pagan culture and it is never said that he rejected that culture. While the decendents of Abraham dedicated themselves to the One God, they still kept their knowledge of other gods and it was not uncommon for men in pagan cultures to devote themselves to one god over another in the group: the god of war for soldiers and warriors, the god of agriculture for farmers, the god of the sea for sailors, and the fertility god for nearly every woman on Earth whose worth was tied to the production of children. Abraham simply chose a mysterious, powerful and unknown God to dedicate his family to and that family (which would become the Jews and Arabs in later generations) knew nothing of monotheism as a religious practice until the Exodus and Moses.

But what does this have to do with our modern "Christian" morality being pagan in origin? The religious priesthood and authorities of all pagan cultures before Christianity had the same kind or moral system that we do and it was, like many other things, totally preoccupied with the fertility gods and the cultural survival that those gods represented. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans all had cultural and moral taboos against homosexuality, for instance. These moral taboos weren't always enforced (as we all know in history) because of the impact of hedonism but we know, in history, that many of the Roman emperors (before Christ and Christianity) outlawed homosexuality and cracked down on notorious locations of gay orgies because they were concerned over the morality of the empire and the impact it may have on the blessing of the gods (most especially the fertility gods).

Adultery and prostitution was also outlawed heavily from time-to-time for fear of angering the gods as a culture, but not because it was a betrayal of the sacred marriage bonds as we percieve it in a modern post-Christian culture. In the ancient world (and even parts of the world today) marriage was not done for love between two people. Marriage was a contract between families to hand over the ownership of women to men so that the man could use the woman to produce children. Women, in marriage, were not objects of love and beauty but objects of breeding. I apologize for offending any sensibilities when I say this, but it is from this built-in tradition of breeding that men - even today - continue to obsess over the hips and busts of women! And in this light our cultural and moral opposition to adultery does not come from a betrayal of love but a violation of property. It would be as if one cab driver took another cab driver's car to use for his own pleasure. The owner of the cab probably has little sentimental attachment to the car when you compare it to depriving the owner of his ability to use that car to provide for his family.

So, I'm sure you're asking, what's the point of all of this? What am I trying to say? Let me break it down as much as I can and get straight to the point.

America has a very strong moral backbone. It is built into nearly every institution we have and it is entirely inseparable from the culture and the society at large. Since the creation of the Roman Catholic Church in 325 AD (and nearly every single denomination that has followed since the Reformation in the 1500's) Christianity has become synonymous with morality. Christianity has adopted many things over the last 1700 years which Jesus, the Disciples, and the Apostlic church leaders never intended it to pick up and a systematic "morality", that ultimately seeks to gain the favor of God (or, more accurately, the gods), was one of those things. We've made hot-button issues out of adultery, abortion, and homosexuality because they offend our cultural morality and then call it Christian. But that morality was created, originally, by pagan societies, adapted for a single God by the Jews (with the best of intentions, I'm certain), abandoned by the New Testament and adopted again by pagans in Christian clothing after the early church fathers and the Twelve Apostles were long dead. The ethic of the New Testament is not one of morality but one of the Divine Character: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control (Galatians 5:22). Christians in the New Testament are instructed on how to live as Christ did, conforming themselves to His example - going to the "moral outcasts" and bringing them into a redemption that morality and "the law" could never give.

It is the time for all New Testament disciples of Jesus to see the moral code we've adopted for what it is: a pagan manifestation intended to curry favor with the gods. We can see it when Jerry Fallwell blamed 9/11 on abortion. We can see it when Pat Robertson says that Katrina happened because of homosexuality. We can see it when James Dobson warns against calamity and disaster because of adultery and the failure of the family unit. These men do not represent the Jesus of the New Testament but the old gods of paganism when they claim such things. We put ourselves under the yoke of the old gods when we live in fear of violating morality for even more fear of disaster being brought to our doorstep. God is not a vindictive old man with a thunderbolt waiting to crush you under his feet if you fail to please him. That's not what Jesus tells us about God... and if Jesus is who he said he is, he ought to know!

The mission of the New Testament church is not to fight the "moral decline" of America or western civilization. Leave that to the pagans in Christian clothing. The mission of the New Testament church is to love and support the moral outcast without any agenda or ulterior motive. It is to let their love, not their tired sermonizing, do the preaching to the "lost" and broken. Is abortion heartbreaking? Yes. But the answer isn't morality - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Is adultery heartbreaking and harmful to families? Yes. But the answer isn't morality - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Does homosexuality miss the ideal of human monogamy and family creation? Possibly - but I'm not one to say and never will be. But I do know this: morality isn't the answer - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.

"I seriously command that you may not exploit your neighbor or oppress him... You may not curse the deaf or trip the blind... You may not slander or spread rumors and gossip about your neighbor and do not treat the lives of your neighbors as worthless... You may not secretly hate your neighbor... You may not seek revenge or keep a grudge against any of your people. You will love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." - Leviticus 19:13-18

"If all you do is love those that are like you, what good is that? Even the pagans do that much. No, I am telling you this... live generously and graciously towards others in the same way that God is generous and gracious towards you." - Jesus, Matthew 5:47-48

The Question: I realize that this post, somewhat differently from other posts, works from an assumption of Christian spirituality as opposed to a more universal and generic framework that I usually work from. This was done in order to respond to a specific problem I perceive within the framework of Christianity in order to start a dialogue between Christians and non-Christians about the foreign and dangerous nature of the infiltration of pagan morality. There is no question this time... I'm just asking that we begin the dialogue.

Leave the light on.

veritas universus

2008-07-27T23:44:00.005-05:00

The Preamble: I get to have a lot of conversations with a lot of people and they're rarely about trivial or "light" topics. People who know me will laugh at that admission as something of an understatement. I've, often times, wondered seriously if that part of my personality was a flaw in my character and sometimes regret that I can't take a normal conversation to a pleasant and ultimately superficial end. But in these "heavy" or "deep" conversations I get to observe first-hand all kinds of human behavior. Because of the nature of the conversations, I get to observe the way people react to challenging ideas, new principles, or revolutionary theories. One of the most common threads I see with people in these observations is the refusal of any truth (to whatever degree of evidence) because of the messenger. If we, as people, don't like the person speaking - we're that much less likely to accept any truth from them.

The Case: Truth is universal. If it isn't universal then it can't be truth... it's something else. Something less. It applies to all people, all of the time. But there's also another aspect of the universality of truth: if your interest and sole loyalty is to the truth then all truth in the universe belongs to you. My friends have a saying: "all truth is our truth." It's a motto we have that we repeat to each other whenever we have to remind ourselves and each other that truth is truth, regardless of where it comes from. All of this is starting to sound kind of academic and "out of touch", I'm sure. Let me unpack this differently.

When a conservative pundit or politician gives statistical, accurate, and/or factual information about the medical dangers and long-term trauma associated with abortion, liberals should listen to that. Likewise, when Al Gore or some credible liberal scientist talks about the dangers associated with global warming (which are statistically proven - this planet is getting warmer) and urge that humans should make it an urgent and immediate priority to reduce carbon emissions, conservatives should listen to that. Liberals - as normal human beings with very normal human reactions - have a nasty tendency to immediately knee-jerk and refuse to hear the information that come from conservatives.This is true of conservatives as well (and we could debate for decades over who does it more, but that would be a complete waste of time.)

When Osama bin Laden says that U.S. foreign policy and our own greed as a nation (and as individuals sharing in the wealth of this nation) is responsible for the hatred we are experiencing the world over - we should listen to that. Not because we like Osama bin Laden or find him to be a credible person, but because the people that are doing the hating are all saying the same thing. If they all agree on the reason for their hate, then we should pay attention (if, of course, peace is something we would like to ever achieve).

When James Dobson says that families function best when you have a man and a woman in a stable, monogamous relationship producing children - we should listen to that. There is statistical information to corroborate that claim. We don't have to like James Dobson or what he stands for in general to accept the truth of his claim.

When Barack Obama addresses a convention of Christian ministers and says that American Christians "aren't reading their Bibles" and that their behavior and policy positions do not reflect the tenets and teaching of the New Testament - we should listen to that. Barack Obama may not be credible, he may not be a good person, he may be a "closet Muslim" (though the idea is truly ridiculous and laughable to anyone willing to see the truth)... he may not be someone we like, but we should listen to what he's saying because it's true.

All truth is our truth. A truth about the life of Jesus is just as easily spoken from the mouth of an atheist as it is from the Pope in Rome or Billy Graham. A true criticism from the outside is every bit as true (even if unwelcome) as a true criticism from within. A scientist talking about evolution is telling the truth, even when it seems to a religious person that this truth violates their traditions or sacred texts. A lesson on the cyclical nature of violence is true whether spoken by Ghandi or Christ. All truth belongs to us.

In this sense those of us that place a sole loyalty to the truth - outside of ideology or preference, or preconception - belong to a kind of fraternity. In a conversation with a friend of mine I described this idea as "the church of truth". We all belong to a corpus of individuals that are trying to approach this singular, universal, and objective reality from totally different places and viewpoints. In this way we're like kindred spirits - it's a dedication to the objective reality of truth that binds us all together. It, also, not only binds us to each other, but to every truth we can substantiate and every truth we can't - the still unseen and mysterious reality. It's a "church", in the original sense of the word, that transcends any kind of division between us. From race, to religion, political affiliation, nationality, economic background, social status, geography, education, and gender.

If truth is truly universal, and truth truly applies to everyone equally, then it is in truth (knowing it and living it) that we are bound together. It is the common foundation of all of the virtues - upon which all civil human interaction is dependent. It is the destination, the path, and the journey - both the means and the end. Truth is the reality which all humankind exists in and the light by which to see it.

"Anyone working and living in truth and reality is constantly drawing closer to the light so the work they do can be seen for what it is: divine." - Jesus (John 3:21)

"You will become increasingly intimate in your knowledge of what is true, and that intimacy with truth will liberate your entire being." - Jesus (John 8:32)

The Question: What truth are you rejecting becuase of the messenger bringing it? How do you respond to the idea of a "church or truth" that transcends all methods of division (including religion and culture)?

if it ain't broke...

2008-07-16T18:12:00.006-05:00

The Preamble: I was sitting down with a friend a couple of days ago discussing what I'd written over the theory of "rights" and I was walking through my points with him when he stopped me to ask: "Ok, so if you're saying that rights don't really exist and saying that we should stop using that system, then what are you offering in return? What other system are you saying we should be using instead?" If ever there was the "right question" to ask - that was it.

In trying to give him an acceptable answer I began to remember something I heard Dallas Willard say when I saw him speaking at a conference in Kansas City. He talked about how, in his driving all around L.A., he sees these bumper stickers that say: "Stand up for your rights!" I have no doubt that we've all seen them. Anyone born in the U.S. since the 1960's and/or has listened to Bob Marley should be familiar with that mantra. What struck Dr. Willard was that he has never recalled (and neither have I for that matter) seeing a bumper sticker that said: "Stand up for your responsibilities!" But it is the fulfillment of our responsibilities, not the protection of our rights, that holds the key of true freedom (not just "liberty") for all of mankind. Allow me to make my case.

The Case: Responsibility is a loaded concept these days. In our modern rights-driven culture "responsible" is a problematic idea - something that we shy away from throwing around at each other. To accuse someone of being irresponsible - indeed to be accused of being irresponsible - is to immediately invite conflict. In our modern and, literally, self-centered worldview the attempt to limit our own personal liability and responsibility is priority number one for many people. We see it everywhere and in nearly every aspect of our lives.

We see it in our obligation to pay taxes. We want the government to decrease our tax responsibility in order to keep more of our money. But, for many of us, we also would like to know that the government has less of our money to "waste" on entitlement projects. This, of course, reminds us of the infamous quote by the Biblical Cain: "Am I my brother's keeper?"* In other words: "I'm not responsible for anyone other than me. Don't bother me with anything that isn't in my own immediate self-interest."

We see this attitude reflected in our legal system. We speed, drink and drive, defraud our brother, commit murder... "Not guilty, your honor." In other words: "I know I did what I'm being accused of, but I should not and do not want to be held responsible by the state or society." We see it when someone sues McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on themselves. We see it whenever someone asserts their rights to free speech or free religion or free whatever. Our legal culture and society screams out: "You can't make me responsible!"

We see it in our children and when we make utterly incomprehensible excuses for their simply inexcusable behavior. We see it in ourselves whenever we offend a neighbor and immediately assert that it is they that shouldn't be offended by us instead of taking responsibility and asking for forgiveness. We see it when someone is shocked that you would admit to hitting their parked car instead of simply driving off. We see it when we come walking out of the mall and find our parked car damaged. We see it everywhere we look. "You can't put the burden on me!"

But I ask you: if the burden is not on "me" and everyone is a "me", then where shall the burden lay? Where does the responsibility lay if not on "me"? How selfish and conceited have we all become that we all stand around pointing the finger outward chanting with our actions: "I'm not my brother's keeper"? The old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Let me assure you all - this system of individual rights and limited responsibility is broken. It is so broken and so hopelessly worn out that the suggestion that we can make it work "perfectly" is laughable. So laughable that the mantra of "I'm not by brother's keeper" is accompanied directly by "Well, it's not a perfect world." As if, by rattling off that old axiom, the world's problems are somehow removed from our hands and we're clean of the consequences. If I haven't made my point yet, please allow me to make it:

You cannot fix the problems of this world until you accept your responsibility for contributing to them. And you cannot accept your responsibility for the problems of this world until you quit carrying around your "rights".

Rights and responsibilities, regardless of what you were taught in grade school (or Sunday school), do not mix. One focuses all of the productive powers inward on the self and the other focuses those powers outward on others. Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change themselves. And lest you be tempted to argue that you can - or should - balance the two, remember this other axiom: "A man cannot be loyal to two opposing 'masters'. At some point he will begin to resent one and worship the other."** In our case the choice is far too clear to ignore. You cannot retain the ultimate loyalty to yourself while also putting forth an ultimate loyalty to something that will cost your "self". You cannot be selfish while also being selfless.

The reason that this kind of responsibility sounds so crazy and implausible is not because it is impossible. It sounds crazy because no one is willing to be the first one to do it. We're like a group of school kids in the first day of class unwilling to engage the teacher or each other for fear of being wrong or looking stupid. We're too in love with ourselves and our own self-image to do the right thing.

We're too in love with our luxury and comfort or, for many of us that are barely making ends meet, whatever luxury or comfort we've got. For me it's a $10 used Xbox 360 game. For you it could be new "7" jeans or a Lexus. More square footage in your living space or a pool in the backyard. It could be the moonroof or the leather. It could be the pack of cigarettes or the bottle of Jack. It could be the new CD or iPhone. It could be a Venti Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Latte from your local Starbuck's instead of a Tall. It could be a "nice" dinner at Fogo De Chao instead of Chili's. Your "rights" tells you to increase your standard of living whereas "responsibility" demands you increase your standard of giving. (Thanks Trey! You're the shiznit.)

And it's not just money, either, though money is the easiest thing to point out. It's the way we spend our time (because time is the only true commodity any of us has). It's the way we resolve (or don't resolve) conflicts and disputes... it's the reason we even have conflicts and disputes!*** It's the way we get irritated at the person on the other side of the drive-thru speaker for not having an "American" accent or good English diction. It's the way we tip our servers (and not just restaurants, either) based on "how well they do" instead of dropping a generous tip at the very beginning and leaving it there regardless of your experience... and doing it every single place you go.**** It's the way we get road rage and employ our horns and fingers in the car. Its the way we get offended for any reason at any time.

Let me be clear to you about one thing. If you get nothing else from me please get this: a person who does not claim to have rights can never have those rights violated. If we don't assert our "right" to dignity, no one can succeed in in-dignifying us. If we don't assert our right to property, no one can succeed in stealing from us. If we don't assert our right to liberty, no government can succeed in oppressing us. If we don't assert our right to our very lives, no one can succeed in taking them. If we don't claim ownership to any right, we can live in absolute fearlessness from losing them. This is true freedom. Freedom from attachment and fear of loss.

Oh, but I hear you protest: "That's not true, Jeremy! If we don't protect our rights we can guarantee we will be violated! And not just us, but our loved ones as well. Our spouses and children and families." Under the current system and worldview, yes - you're right. If what you're interested in making a priority in life is the continued exaltation of your own self-interests (and the self-interests of those around you), then exchanging your "rights" for selflessness and responsibility is the last thing you should do. Responsibilities are a "self-killer". They will put your self-interests in the ground every time because they will always insist on making the needs and interests of others a priority.+ You will, quite literally, lose yourself to the world.++ This is, perhaps, the most difficult question and uncomfortable answer of all. This is, perhaps, the most terrifying decision you will ever have to make. The decision to choose between your rights and your responsibilities will change the course of events in your life from the moment you make it until the day you breathe your last breath. The gravity and weight of it is totally inescapable... it is capable of crushing the strongest ambition, the strongest pride, and the best-laid plans. And if that wasn't gloomy and morose enough (or make me sound more like an angst-ridden teenage "emo" spouting out lyrics from The Cure and Radiohead) for you, then let me also point out that you've been making this decision since the moment your were able to make decisions and are in the process of making it even now. Take a moment, right now, while you're reading this to stop and digest that. Let it sink in for a moment and allow yourself to meditate on that one, single, inescapable reality.

-------------------

Ok. So you ask (and I've already gotten this question), what does the kind of responsibility that you're talking about look like? I will tell you this: you have probably never witnessed it with your own two eyes. This responsibility looks like every high virtue we've ever conceived of in our myths. It is the fundamental "morality" of our religions. It is witnessed in the greatness of our heroes throughout history. It looks like Samwise Gamgee carrying Frodo up the slopes of Mout Doom. It looks like Obi-Wan Kenobi sacrificing himself for his friends on the Death Star. It looks like Sydney Carton going to the guillotine instead of Charles Darnay. It looks like Mohatma Ghandi, living in poverty and starving himself in order to bring peace and justice to India. It looks like Mother Theresa, spending a lifetime in the foulest of gutters just to tend to the needs of the most conveniently and intentionally forgotten amongst us. It looks like Dr. King, a beautifully imperfect man, suffering injustice and indignity - without retaliation or malice - in order to expose the brutality of segregation and racism. And, yes, it looks like Jesus.

Jesus, that patient and radical rabbi, teaching, healing, feeding, challenging the social norms and the selfish bigotry of our world. It looks like Jesus allowing himself to be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. He claimed no right. He defied no authority. He railed against no injustice. He suffered, prayed, and died... and did it victoriously. They did not take his dignity - he offered no claim to any. They did not take his freedom - he went willingly. They did not steal justice from him - he claimed a higher justice as his own. They did not take his life - he gave it freely. And just in case you want to feel bad for Jesus or think he got screwed: don't. The way the gospel narrative tells it, he planned the whole thing. And, as Dr. Willard reminds Christians (and, by extension, everyone else): "Jesus didn't die on a cross so that you wouldn't have to. He died on the cross to show you how to do it."

The Question: Only one question worth asking to this. Which will you choose? Your right or your responsibility?

Leave the light on.

* - Genesis 4.9
** - Matthew 6.24
*** - James 4.1-10
**** - Matthew 20.15, Luke 12.33
+ - Philippians 2.3
++ - Luke 17:33

da, comrade jesus?

2008-07-15T17:38:00.004-05:00

Let me be immediately clear on two points:

1. Jesus wasn't a "communist" in the way that we think of communism.
2. "Communism" in the way that we think of communism, isn't communism.

Some readers took immediate exception to this comment on my last post: "... the very first manifestation of the Christian church - located in Jerusalem (not Rome) - was akin to a communist society - devoid of private possession (Acts 2:43-47, Acts 3:6)..." and, while I don't really intend to back off of that statement, I would like to clarify what I mean by that. I will retrace the case for this argument in three points.

The Soviet Union, "Red" China, Vietnam, North Korea... these countries are not communist. I know that's what we've been calling them for nearly a century, but that's not what they are. These countries were/are single-party dictatorships. They are more akin to fascist states than the true definition of communist states and share more in common with Nazi Germany, Baathist Iraq, Fascist Italy, Revolutionary/Napoleonic France or even the current regime in Iran than a true communist state. All of these states and regimes were controlled by one dominant and unchallenged party and ruled by a premier that reigned with near-impunity. This is not communism in the text-book sense. In a theoretical sense, democracy is only the precursor to a more "perfectly equal" system of government: and that system is, theoretically, communism. Make of that what you will - but, rest assured, the "communist" bogeymen of yesterday and today are simply dictatorships.

Communism, in a true form, cannot ever be a government system because it requires the constant, wholehearted, and unanimous consent of its people. This, of course, will never happen. So why would I say that the first manifestation of the Christian church was "akin to a communist society"? Well - let's take a look at the cited texts:

"[The church in Jerusalem] committed themselves to the teaching of the apostles, the life together, the common meal, and the prayers. Everyone around was in awe--all those wonders and signs done through the apostles! And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person's need was met. They followed a daily discipline of worship in the Temple followed by meals at home, every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God. People in general liked what they saw. Every day their number grew as God added those who were saved." - Acts 2:42-47 (MSG)

"When [the crippled beggar] saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms. But Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze on him and said, 'Look at us!' And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, 'I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene--walk!' And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened. With a leap he stood upright and began to walk..." - Acts 3:3-8 (NASB)

These passages of ecclesiastical history show us two very pointed facts about the first church. First, the disciples of Jesus (which numbered in the thousands at this time) turned their back on their possessions, wealth accumulation, and private ownership in order to voluntarily pool all of their combined resources. Some members had very little wealth to donate and some had a lot, but what's noteworthy is that all of the members' financial and provisionary needs were met. The second fact is that Peter and John, the two most powerful men in the Jesus movement, claimed to be broke when dealing with the crippled beggar. This instance, while seeming like any one of our own false claims when we're being accosted by the homeless man at the intersection, is consistent with other passages in the chronicle and also with claims by the Apostle Paul (the other most powerful man in the Jesus movement) when he claimed to be sustained solely by the generosity of the churches he visited.

These men are a far cry from the multi-million-dollar net worths of America's most prominent preachers, though there was every reason to believe that the Apostles could have very easily gotten away with getting rich off of the generosity of so many new converts (ranging in the hundreds of thousands and, eventually, the millions). One need only look so far as the Roman papacy to prove that point.

In short: if you find the concept of the Christian church being similar, in every tangible respect, to a communist society - it seems that your ideological framework is clashing with a very objective reality.

Leave the light on.

challenging an axiom - the theory of rights

2008-07-14T23:10:00.006-05:00

The Preamble: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

It is upon this foundation - the theory of human rights - that the entire western civilization has established itself. There cannot be any value more central to a member of the West than this - above all in America. The concept of human rights is the most solid example of an axiom given the place of factual truth - a place it may actually occupy falsely. Together we will break down the concept of rights and see that it is derived from an ideology that is built around a belief that is, in turn, based on completely unsubstantiated ideas. Together we will take our first steps to seeing a world of truth and freedom that doesn't rely on rights - or acknowledge their existence.

The Case: This examination can get very heavy very quickly so let's take it step-by-step and start at the top. One of the most interesting thoughts expressed by Jefferson in his Declaration is the assertion that human rights are "self-evident". The reason this is interesting is because Jefferson is stating a belief of his as though it were completely and empirically factual. But nothing could have been further from the truth in his time - and this is still the case today. At the time of Jefferson the concept of rights under an arbitrary law derived from the citizenry was not only not self-evident, it was totally contrary to any system of government that had existed in the previous four thousand years. From ancient Sumeria to Georgian-era England the concept of human rights scarcely existed at all and, even then, it was in the minds of radicals that were not taken seriously by the majority of western society. There was nothing "self-evident" about rights and the great trick of Jefferson is to assert his position so boldly, so eloquently, and so passionately that it became the "truth". But the truth of rights and equality derives its authority not from objective reality but from the beliefs of the masses. The truth of this assessment is pointed to not only by history but by current events worldwide: there are hundreds, if not thousands, of societies and cultures around the world that do not recognize Jefferson's rights and they continue to retain what most would consider a peaceful or just society.

What the Declaration won't tell you is that Jefferson's notions of rights are heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke - most specifically Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1698) - and Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776). Locke, a career political thinker and radical, makes it clear from the outset of his argument that the concept of private property and ownership is essential to the theory of human rights. (Section 35) In fact, one of his core human rights, is the right to property (replaced, by Jefferson, with "the pursuit of happiness"). Locke's argument also asserts that a man's life and liberty are simply manifestations of human ownership and that such ownership cannot (life, liberty, and property) be infringed upon by any other or by the state (government). There is one very deep-seated and fundamental problem with Locke's argument: if the idea of property and ownership were somehow changed or was understood differently, the entire "house of cards" that is human rights collapses on its own face. Herein lies the problem: there are ever increasing philosophical questions over, and realistic challenges to, the concept of ownership, property and - by extention - rights.

In short: our entire civilzation could be based on a complete fabrication.

This is a huge jump, a jarring conclusion. The possible denial of the validity of human rights is so uncomfortable, so potentially offensive, that it will strain any remaining credibility I have left among you. I simply ask you to hear me out and keep an open mind. I do not ask this question lightly and do not come to any conclusions with a cavalier attitude.

Locke, and Jefferson after him, argues that rights must be recognized and legalized in order to protect the holders from violation. While there are many rights there is a central core among them: "life, liberty, and property". What I find interesting - what stands out so incredibly - is that Locke's predication of rights is his own weakest link. What I mean by that is this: he claims that rights have to be protected and recognized in order to be secure, but I look at this and see the complete opposite: because they must be recognized, legalized, and protected - it is obvious that they do not actually exist! Whew, ok. Let's take a break from this for a second and skip over to an analogy.

Let's say I'm walking along in a field and I find an apple tree. By my own efforts (labor) I pick an apple from the tree. According to Locke, this makes me the owner of the apple. I own the apple simply because I exerted the labor to take it for myself. But this begs the question: how can something go from being in the domain of public (on the tree) to private (in my hand) simply because I decided to take it? Is that even ethical? Is it moral? Is it practical? Back to the analogy: along comes another man and he decides he wants the apple in my hand. He decides to make an effort (labor) to take the apple from my hand. But here's where the definition of ownership breaks down: Locke doesn't call that a transfer of ownership in the academic sense, he calls it robbery in the legal sense! But that begs the question: what's the difference between me laboring to take the apple from the tree and a man's labor to take the apple from me? If I work harder to take the apple from the tree than the tree works to keep it, and the man works harder at taking the apple from me than I do at keeping it... then how does that jibe? But it doesn't end there. Locke says that a man's willingness to "rob" me of my apple (property) constitutes a willingness by this man to steal everything else (my liberty and my life) and I am - according to Locke - authorized to kill that man. Yes - that's actually what he says. Your thirteen year old can kill the bully trying to take his lunch money... no problem, it's a "protected right". I hope that the ridiculous nature of this argument is becoming increasingly obvious to all of you.

But this is where I differ from Locke - right at the beginning. It has become evident to me that the very fact that a piece of private property can be "stolen" from me proves that such an object was never actually in my possession to begin with. In short: if it can be taken from you, you don't actually own it. Ownership must rely on intrinsic security to be real, otherwise it is contrived and false. I'm certain that there are those of you that would see this statement and say: "Well that's just irresponsible and naive." If you belive that, you're certainly entitled to your belief, but the facts and the reality of the world should easily bear out the truth. What's more: if the concept of ownership is not based on reality and fact, it will eventually fail (both individually and corporately) in the same way that ideology will eventually fail.

The final point of contention I will make is theological in nature. Jefferson declares that these "inalienable rights" are endowed by God to a people He has created in a state of equality. This, again, he absorbed from Lockean philosophy. Contrary to public opinion, Jefferson was no Christian. Oh yes - he had a copy of the Bible. Oh yes - he read from it daily. Oh yes - he dropped God's name into as much documentation as he could. But what they fail to tell most people is that Jefferson does not ever refer to God in the traditional sense. He does not refer to Him by the obvious and most oft-used title of "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" or the "God of the Bible". No, he constantly refers to God as "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God" very carefully leaving any Christian dogma or kerygma out of his authoritative writings. Even more disturbing to the Christian is that Jefferson had his copy of the Bible, literally, re-written to cut out any mention of miracles, supernatural occurrences, or - most especially - the divinity of Christ. He regarded (as Benjamin Franklin did) Christ not as the Son of God but as a moral teacher on the same level with the pagan Greek philosopher Socrates. The miracles of Jesus were considered a series of superstitions and legends. The resurrection was a physical impossibility. The narrative of Jesus Christ ended at the crucifixion in the Bible of Thomas Jefferson. And, as the Apostle Paul reminds us, "if Christ has not been raised then our preaching [of Christianity] has been in vain, your faith also has been in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14.

How is any of this relevant? It only goes to this point: Christians (specifically Western Christians and American Christians in particular) have become much more loyal to the teachings of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke than the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. While modern evangelicals have become some of the strongest proponents of the theory of rights in our culture, there is a stark contrast between New Testament and Apostlic Christianity and Lockean political philosophy. Unlike Locke and Jefferson, Jesus discouraged his followers to retain private property (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 10:8, Matthew 14:16, Matthew 16:26, Mark 10:21, Luke 6:30, Luke 6:38, Luke 9:3, Luke 12:33, Luke 14:33) , the very first manifestation of the Christian church - located in Jerusalem (not Rome) - was akin to a communist society - devoid of private possession (Acts 2:43-47, Acts 3:6), and pre-Nicene or pre-Constantanian Christian teaching frowned heavily upon the notion of luxury and "comfort" (1 John 2:16, Acts 20:35, Romans 12:20, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:16). [DISCLAIMER: To double-check my exegesis, feel free to visit any online Biblical resource and read these passages for yourself. I, personally, use Studylight.org's application because it has all available translations of the Bible in one location.]

The New Testament does not give a single endorsement of human rights. It also implies a strict taboo on collaboration with state (government) entities or any institution or societal structure built on top of the concept of private, propertied, or privileged. The post-New Testament church (in the Apostlic tradition) also retained a stigma of unholiness for any system that incorporated the elevation of self-interests (which would include rights and ownership), especially with two influential second century Christian bishops: Polycarp and Hyppolitus.

In short: New Testament Christianity runs diametrically opposed to the theory of human rights, private property, and ownership. This oppositition can also be extrapolated onto a foundational incompatibility between Christianity and the economic system of capitalism (and its political benefactor of democracy).

The Question: There are many questions that one should ask in regards to the subject covered by this post: from the reasonably superficial to the potentially worldview-altering. Does Locke's definition of ownership submit to logic and reason? At what point (if at all) does it start to break down? Does ownership imply or create "rights"? Do rights actually exist in nature or reality? If rights don't exist what remains to hold up the structure of society? Does the society "deserve" to continue existing in its current form if rights are not empirically or factually derived? Does New Testament Christianity really run contrary to the foundation of Western civilization? Does the disparity between Jesus' teachings and Locke's philosophy (assuming disparity does, in fact, exist) give more credibility to either side? If a disparity does, in fact, exist which teaching would you choose to live by? So many questions to ask.

Keep the emails, questions, comments, and criticisms coming. Now, more than ever, we need dialogue. Education - not indoctrination.

Leave the light on.

an honest addendum

2008-07-13T13:51:00.003-05:00

First, I would like to thank all of you that have sent me emails and called me up in regards to the previous post (honesty - the best policy). It's been such a great experience to share with all of you and to get such great positive and constructive feedback. A lot of the questions I got were based on the structure of truth as I was trying to explain it. It became very apparent to me that I had explained this part poorly and need to clarify. While I was meditating on the subject my thoughts drifted to the scientific method and I immediately began to see the connection between the scientific process and the structure of truth that we're all looking for together.

The scientific method, for those of you who aren't very familiar with it, outlines the process by which scientists substantiate their hypotheses and create scientific laws. As the method goes, a scientists starts with a hypothesis: this hypothesis is simply an unsubstantiated idea or question. From there a scientist will take that hypothesis and use the tools of observation and experimentation to flesh out the hypothesis. If the experiment fails or the observations don't pan out then the hypothesis is either tossed out or adjusted so that the new information and facts drive the process - not the beliefs.

Once the hypothesis has been proven to a reasonable degree (i.e. in every way that it can be proven with the tools and information available to humans), then it becomes a scientific theory. A theory in science, unlike a "theory" as the word is used by a layperson, is not just an idea... it's a proven idea. It's proven to be true as far as we can tell. For instance, creationists (wanting to remain firmly in their strict and literal interpretation of Genesis' creation narrative) will attack the concept of evolutionary theory being taught in high school biology because "it's only a theory - it's not a fact." But that's a general misconception of what a theory is: a theory is a fact in every way that we can measure, but (as in the case of evolution) we can't prove as fact all of the necessary details to make it into a scientific law. But the title of "theory" means that it is as factual as we can tell and is potentially a law.

A scientific law is the equivalent of "factual truth". It is proven to be true in all circumstances and for all people all of the time. "The Sun is the center of the solar system", "humans carry two pairs of 23 chromosomes in their genetic structure", "the earth is round", "what goes up must come down". These laws were born from a hypothesis that became a theory through experimentation and observation and were declared laws when all points could be independently substantiated.

To search out truth - real, factual, empirical, objective, and universal reality - the same method is at work. The only difference is the terminology. Instead of "hypothesis" we use "belief", instead of "theory" we use "axiom" or "philosophical truth", and instead of "law" we use "factual truth".

In this sense a belief can be false. It's just an idea. It's not really proven at any real level. It is here that all ideology is born. This is why ideology is incredibly dangerous - they are all based on completely unsubstantiated ideas. If they were proven they wouldn't be ideologies or beliefs - they'd be taken for granted as truth. That doesn't mean that the core belief of an ideology is definitely false - it means it is unproven and could be false. An ideology could be having the believer base his or her entire view of reality on something that could be false.

The axioms we have in life are also equally unworthy of being called truth. "The sun will rise tomorrow", "the world will keep on spinning", "mankind is inherently evil", etc. These are a step up from an unsubstantiated belief. We've got some observation and experimentation involved in these. The Sun has never failed to rise. The world has never ceased to spin. And man's cruelty and malevolence toward one another and toward the world we live on has no shortage of examples to draw upon. But it isn't proven in a quantitative or qualitative sense. Only that which can be proven, over and over and over, should be given the coveted and elite title of "truth".

This is an uncomfortable reality for the ideologue or ideologist because it undermines their authority to speak on behalf of the ideology. It, potentially, undermines their individual or collective credibility. Typically there is only one form of combat an ideologue has against this argument: discredit and accuse. At this point the ideologue becomes dangerous to the truth because they will, on occasion, behave like demagogues - arousing the passions and prejudices of the people and flatly refusing the overwhelmingly objective reality. If anyone is curious about the factuality of my argument I simply encourage you to pick up a history book and start at the beginning.

Please - as always - continue to feel free to email me, leave comments, or give me a call. I cherish your thoughts and criticisms.

honesty - the best policy

2008-07-08T23:38:00.007-05:00

The Preamble: I've gotten some good questions recently on the ideas I've posted so far (which, granted, isn't really much) and they've led to some really good conversations. I love conversation. Anyone that knows me knows that much. I don't like "small talk" or "chit-chat". It drives me crazy - too superficial, no depth, no meaning... whatever the reason I've just never liked it. But conversation is kind of like a unique learning style for me. Some people are auditory, some visual - I'm a very conversational learner. I guess that's why I like asking questions and making potentially provocative statements: they're bound to start a conversation - a chance for me to learn something. Today I got to talk to someone about the difference between "truth" (as I've defined it out to the right of the posts) and "reliability". As always, some people will accuse me of splitting linguistic hairs or of being too pedantic or technical when I say that there's a real difference between truth and reliability. But allow me to make my case and elaborate on why I think it's important.

The Case: Let me first say that there are two different kinds of "truth" that people will identify with. There's a factual truth (which, to me, is the only real kind of truth) and then there's a "philosophical truth". Factual truth deals in the realm of what is knowable. Tonight it is partly cloudy outside and 76 degrees... it rained earlier and the power went out twice. This is factually true if you live on the east side of Allen, Texas. Philosophical truth - which isn't technically a question of truth at all - is the realm of belief and opinion. "Humans are inherently evil" or "love conquers all" or "blondes have more fun", etc. These are statements that cannot be empirically proven or factually substantiated (yet or, perhaps, ever). They are opinions, beliefs, and values. They are axioms and maxims - not facts.

Let's put the more axiomatic philosophical truth aside for a moment and talk about the difference between factual truth and general reliability for a moment. A friend of mine asked me to unpack the differences that I saw between truth and reliability so I went to a place that was very familiar to the both of us: Biblical Christianity. (Uh oh.) You may think that what I'm about to delve into will look like I'm "picking on" Christianity and you may end up having very strong feelings about what I'm about to say. All I'll ask is that you simply hear me out.

Despite the rhetorical platitude you'll hear from evangelicals calling it a "relationship", Christianity is a religion. It is a religion and has been since (roughly) the late-third-to-early-fourth century. Just like every other religion in existence today (though I will readily admit its complete uniqueness in history), Christianity is an ideological framework based around "the sacred": in its case "the sacred" is Jesus Christ. As an ideology Christianity has been, at many times, at complete odds with the objective and factual reality that we call "the truth." In a vain attempt to deny the claim I'm making about Christianity, many modern (mostly protestant evangelical) believers will try to divorce the vast history of the Christian "church" from its more modern manifestations. As an ideological framework Christianity has historically been on the wrong side of truth by tying itself to empirically improvable or empirically false beliefs and insisting on their truthfulness. Ok - that's a big, bold, and mean claim to make. A big accusation to level. So what could I be talking about?

Let's go back to my particular problem: the elevation of something that isn't empirical, factual, and objective to the elite status of true. Christians use Jesus as the reference point of truth. Jesus, according to Christians and the synoptic gospel narratives, is "the Truth." The word used for this in the gospels is "aletheia" and there is both an objective way to translate that word and a subjective translation. In an empirical sense, there is no way anyone can substantiate the claim that Jesus is the central reference point for all truth. There's no way to validate the truth of Jesus' "truthiness" (to borrow from Stephen Colbert). Until the day that we can prove - one way of the other - the factuality of this statement by Jesus, it remains firmly in the realm of philosophical truth: the realms of opinion and belief. This is the starting point for every skeptic in the world: every non-believer, every skeptic, every critic, and every cynic. What makes this unnerving to a Christian is that the notion of Jesus' factual truth-ness is unquestionable. The Christian won't even entertain the question - as my friend could not during this conversation. But in order to be intellectually honest, in order to remain objective, in order to give loyalty to the truth above all else, we must come to this conclusion - it's the only one that reality has left available to us. What should console the Christian is this quote from Dallas Willard: "Jesus is on the side of truth and if you don't believe that, you don't believe in Jesus." If Jesus is "the Truth", then our loyalty to finding the truth will ultimately lead to him. If not, then the Christian is wasting his time. Either way - there is nothing lost by evaluating the truth outside of an ideological scope while using uncomfortable questions.

The Christian, in this case, may not be interested in "the truth" or interested in intellectual honesty, or objectivity. It's understandable. The ideological framework of Christianity cannot allow a core supposition to be challenged. But let's get it out there: if we can't substantiate the truth-ness of Jesus or prove his divinity empirically, then what are we left with? That's where the vocabulary of "general reliability" comes in. We may not have empirical proof for a philosophical truth, but what information we do have - while not devoid of internal and factual "question marks" - can easily be called "generally reliable". In other words: what we do know about Jesus, on question of factuality, is reliable information. Much of it has been substantiated by archaeology, anthropology, historical studies, etc. The synoptic Jesus traditions and gospel narratives are historically reliable. Not "inerrant" as many Christians would try to elevate it, but reliable. We may not be able to prove Jesus rose from the dead or performed miracles or was born in Bethlehem to a girl named Mary... but we've got plenty of reasons to believe that this information is reliable and that's good enough to put some trust in. It's good enough to believe until or unless the information is proven one way or the other. We may never know if the Bible on the whole or the gospels is true in a factual or empirical sense - proven beyond reasonable doubt - but it can be said in the very least that it is "reliable" and potentially true.

Ok - so why would I even make this point? Why would I walk into such an unpopular and controversial minefield? And why would you, the reader, be at all interested in following along? Let me say this: I'm not naive. The statements I've made and the questions I've asked are, to many, inflammatory or even blasphemous. More to the point: what I've said is either going to turn most people off from listening to anything else I've got to say, or piss other people off. But this point has to be made.

When someone makes a claim of truth that cannot be substantiated or proven, it damages the credibility of the person(s) making the claim. One of the biggest reasons Christianity - as a religion - has slowly slipped further and further into complete irrelevance to this world is because its credibility is almost completely shot. From the absolutely corrupt institutions of the Catholic papacy in history, to the political catastrophe of the Crusades, to the shameful Copernicus/Gallileo (Sun-revolves-around-the-Earth) fiasco, to the Inquisition, to Protestant persecutions, to the Conquistadors, to the Augustinian/Calvanistic tradition of hybridizing church-state powers, to the modern embarrassment of literal creationism and the divorce of discipleship from "churchgoing" - Christianity has lost its credibility and claim of relevance because it advanced an ideology and elevated opinions and beliefs to the elite status of truth. And instead of being honest with themselves and others, Christians (like everyone else in the world) has placed a higher importance on being "right" instead of being "truthful"... on being believed instead of being honest.

The only way for anyone, in any walk of life, to regain any degree of credibility with the world-at-large is to return to a stalwart loyalty to the truth, calling things what they are, being intellectually honest about reality, and keeping an open dialogue with people who have different opinions and beliefs. And you can't regain credibility inside the framework of an ideology.

The Question: I hope that this post was very provocative. I don't have a specific set of questions to ask, but feel free to elaborate on whatever thoughts (if any) were spurred by the topic. Feel free to disagree or express whatever opinions you may have on it. Comments are not "moderated" or edited - I only ask that you be respectful to other commentors.

unstoppable forces and immovable objects

2008-06-26T23:10:00.012-05:00

The preamble: I credit Dallas Willard with giving new life to what should be one of the most obvious truths available to all mankind when he said - of truth - that, "Reality is that thing you run into when you're wrong." Dallas was trying to contrast the concept of "relative truth" and "absolute truth" as he went on to give a parable which I will paraphrase. He talked about a man driving a car and running out of gas. The man, not really comfortable with the inconvenience of his current reality decides to engage in a series of denials. But, as Dallas puts it, no matter how much our shared reality offends our sensibilities, no matter how much sympathy we garner from others about how we shouldn't be beholden to a reality that is so at odds with our own self-interests, no matter how much we protest it: that reality continues to exist. It is that objective reality that should return as the standard for our labels of "truth".

The case: As a history major I had to take a class my first semester at the university to teach me how to be a historian. In this class our professor had to lay the foundation for "historical inquiry" by training us to see the difference between fact, inference, and opinion. You might think to yourself: "wow, seems kind of obvious what the differences are." You might be right. What I noticed during that grueling process (which, at some levels, took all semester) is how unable most people - myself included - are unable to separate empirical fact from inferences and opinions stated as though they were facts. As it says on the sidebar of the blog, I've come to the conclusion that truth has three essential and core elements: it is universal, it is factual, and it is objective. Let's unpack that here for a second.

By claiming that truth is universal, I'm not insisting that it is absolute. The word "absolute" carries with it a stigma that I won't inject into our, hopefully, shared vision of reality. By attributing that it is universal I'm simply characterizing truth as something that must apply equally to all at all times. That means if something is really true for you, then it is also true for me. If it is really true, then that truth almost certainly transcends time. In this way is truth different than fact which can be tied, intrinsically, to specific points in time.

While truth and fact are different in certain aspects of their nature, truth is factual. Truth must be rooted in facts for it to be actual truth. This is where so much truth gets confused and lost for so many of us. As I mentioned in my last post on ideologies and "isms", many of us filter truth and reality through our ideological constructs and we begin to claim that things are true simply because we believe them - not because the reality supports them. I'm not saying that having a belief is wrong so please don't misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that having a belief can be dangerous because you may find, at some point, that your belief is actually at odds with the truth... and that is a life-shattering moment. This is true of all ideologies (of which religions are a considerable member). We see this confusion of truth and belief or opinion in mediums as muddled as car dealership commercials and as sacred as commentary on holy texts. But the reality of it all is that factuality determines truth, not belief. I can no more say that the Christian Bible is "inerrant" holy writ than I can say that so-and-so Ford dealership is the best place in the world to buy a car. The available and empirical facts simply do not support either statement as truth. (I promise to return to this statement in a later post because I know that it might be something of a 'bombshell'.)

Perhaps most importantly for us to remember is that truth is objective. Truth has no agenda to advance, no ax to grind, no interest to protect. Truth simply is... it just exists. As I've mentioned before, the enemy of truth is ideology which is rooted in ego-centrism and the preservation of one's own self-interests. Therefore, it stands to reason, that one will often find truth quite at odds with one's own self-interests.

It is at this starting point of truth as objective and factual reality that our individual and collective journey can begin. I'm not sure if it is a fact or if it is true, but I believe that you - the reader - are likely to be interested in finding some kind of truth in your life. If that is true of you then your first step on this path to finding truth (which will always go deeper and farther than we expect it to, feel comfortable with, and can afford) is to make a solemn pledge of allegiance to the truth. Be prepared to ask questions that make your stomach turn. Questions that are truly unthinkable. Questions that will very likely offend your morals, values, and your sensibilities. Questions that may shake the foundation of your identity and your view of reality. And then prepare yourself for the answers which will almost certainly do all of that and more.

The questions: What values are so deeply ingrained in you that you consider them "non-negotiable"? Are those values rooted in belief or in objective and factual reality? (Be honest with yourself.) In what areas of your life have you been like the man that ran out of gas? Perhaps most importantly: how far are you willing to go to find out the truth?

the "ism" - our own personal neurosis

2008-06-25T20:35:00.005-05:00

The preamble: I have this awful habit of starting books and not finishing them. I don't really read literature or fiction so this habit of mine can be pretty maddening sometimes. That's my disclaimer in saying that I will say, from time to time, that I read a particular book but I want to be clear that I may not have actually finished it. With all that being said:

The case: I read this book called "Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality" by a guy named Donald Miller. At some point in this book Don points out two very interesting ideas which provoke two very unsavory questions.

1. Human selfishness (or ego-centrism) is the root of all iniquity. It is this unchecked self-love that sits at the core of all human suffering and evil.

2. This human selfishness, the core of evil and suffering, is what produces ideologies which individuals integrate into their identities. These ideologies are indicative of the mental derangement existing in all of us.

As mentioned in the sidebar, ideologies are an "integrated belief system" that defines values, moderates behavior, and helps formulate the identity of the believer. If you thought about it for a while you might begin to consider an ideology as a pair of colored sunglasses. These glasses block certain effects of the Sun that are inconvenient and inconducive to our desires, but in turn ends up distorting the vision of reality. The shape and form of the world doesn’t much change under ideology, but it becomes tinted, shaded, and colored. Some aspects are harder to see, and are flushed out by the overwhelming tint of the ideology. Some aspects become impossible to see or distinguish. Ideology filters out those aspects of reality that are inconvenient or potentially “harmful” to the agenda of one’s self – but at the expense of truth.

An ideology can come in many forms but shows up most especially in political, social, and religious manifestations. These forms – often made taboo in sensitive environments (such as the workplace) due to the disruptive and potentially explosive nature of discussions based around them – are values-oriented and form a symbiotic-circle with one another. What I mean by that is this: a person's values will lead one to a particular ideology and will fuel the ideology until, at a particular turning point, the ideology begins to turn on the believer and takes an active role defining values, creating conformity and acting as an intrapersonal enforcement mechanism. Once an ideology begins to set the values-structure of a person, the ideology becomes part of the person’s identity and cannot become un-rooted without challenging (in the very least) or re-creating (in the most extreme and eventual cases) that person’s identity.

Most ideological systems are easily identified with the "ism". An "ism" is defined as a "system, doctrine, or theory" that is built around the joined ideology. You see it everywhere. Conservatism, communism, patriotism, Calvinism, racism, Catholicism, pacifism, terrorism, atheism, etc. Ideologies are the frameworks of beliefs and the gatekeepers of values. Of course, not all ideologies have an "ism" (such as "Christianity") and not all "isms" are ideological in nature (such as "autism"). But these ideologies and their isms are dangerous to anyone dedicated to truth.

Ideologies are dangerous because they do have a tendency to become dogmatic – allowing for no critical self-examination. In a sense they’re something of a developing neurosis where they begin to take over the mind’s ability to perceive reality objectively and, once securely in place, will begin to identify (or fabricate) deviant or enemy thought processes outside of the structure. Once the ideology has identified sufficient threats, it then spends all critical energies outward and builds a shield against any challenges to itself. Ascribing to any particular ideology makes it incredibly difficult to be intellectually honest about the reality in which we all live. Because it is inherently self-centric, ideology has a particularly misanthropic aspect to it, preferring to define and label – a divisive process creating a very “us and them” mindset. Even ideologies that have their roots in benign or philanthropic activities (such as pacifism or the abolitionism of the nineteenth century) can over time become incredibly divisive, mean-spirited, antagonistic and dogmatic.

The questions: What ideology or ism have you ascribed to? When did it happen? How have you changed since then? If provided with sufficient proof or evidence that this ideology was damaging you and hindering your search for the truth, would you feel comfortable abandoning the values structure that you've derived from your ideology? Could you cast it off easily? Or would you have to reshape your entire worldview and identity?

No easy answers... just hard questions.

let truth rule

2008-06-25T19:33:00.003-05:00

Welcome to veritas regnum - latin for "the rulership of truth". As the subtitle suggests, what I'd like to use this blog for is a medium to discuss some of the more unsavory questions facing our heads and hearts. Moreover I want to ask the tough questions that try to cut through the difference between real truth and mere ideology.