Blasphemy or Hilarity?

I think God has a pretty good sense of humor; however, where does one draw the line? I am not saying this clip at all crosses it... in fact, I think it is cool that they actually talk about 'paying debts' and the sacrifice of it. Also, the ending where people forget so quickly is so true... at least of me.

Anyway... I thought this was hilarious so I thought I'd share it.

Case of the Mondays

So today is a little stressful. Kristy came back in town... which is great. Unfortunately, I have a huge paper due tomorrow. Now, I have been working on this thing for quite sometime, but I have also changed my mind on its structure and content several times. It is now crunch time. I have to have this thing done by 6am so that I can proofread it, print it, turn it in, and get to work on time in the morning.

The good part is that it is actually not due for the class until April 21st, but I am turning it in for the History competition and the entries are due tomorrow by noon.

Pretty much I am going to be up all night.

Again, I have not procrastinated at all. This is a completely new experience for me in that I have been working on it incessantly for weeks and am so consumed with it being perfect that I have revised and rewritten numerous times. I think I have it the way I want it but then I find a different angle.

Ugh.

Real

I saw this Calvin on another blog and just had to re-post it. The final frame really hit me. It reminded me of The Velveteen Rabbit. My favorite character in the story is the Skin Horse and I thought I would share his story today....

The Skin Horse had lived longer in the nursery than any of the others. He was so old that his brown coat was bald in patches and showed the seams underneath, and most of the hairs in his tail had been pulled out to string bead necklaces. He was wise, for he had seen a long succession of mechanical toys arrive to boast and swagger, and by-and-by break their mainsprings and pass away, and he knew that they were only toys, and would never turn into anything else. For nursery magic is very strange and wonderful, and only those playthings that are old and wise and experienced like the Skin Horse understand all about it.

"What is REAL?" asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room. "Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?"

"Real isn't how you are made," said the Skin Horse. "It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real."

"Does it hurt?" asked the Rabbit.

"Sometimes," said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. "When you are Real you don't mind being hurt."

"Does it happen all at once, like being wound up," he asked, "or bit by bit?"

"It doesn't happen all at once," said the Skin Horse. "You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand."

"I suppose you are real?" said the Rabbit. And then he wished he had not said it, for he thought the Skin Horse might be sensitive. But the Skin Horse only smiled.

"The Boy's Uncle made me Real," he said. "That was a great many years ago; but once you are Real you can't become unreal again. It lasts for always."

The Rabbit sighed. He thought it would be a long time before this magic called Real happened to him. He longed to become Real, to know what it felt like; and yet the idea of growing shabby and losing his eyes and whiskers was rather sad. He wished that he could become it without these uncomfortable things happening to him.

...Don't we all.

'Sola Pastora'

For those down with Missional lingo, sola pastora isn't a new term. However, for those of us just learning, it is the label used for the propensity of many churches to employ (or worse... build themselves upon) a single, charismatic - as in attractive, eloquent, and exciting... not necessarily 'slain in the Spirit' - pastor, usually male.

It is dangerous for one person to have that much responsibility... for the church in general AND for that person specifically. No one can keep all of those plates spinning on their own. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it is absolutely necessary to have more than one paid staff at a church. In fact, I am not saying it is even necessary to have any paid staff at a church. What I am saying is that the church - local and universal - needs to utilize the concept of the priesthood of all believers. We are each uniquely gifted, and we are each uniquely necessary to accomplish the work of the Kingdom of God.

For too long we have exalted the image of the 'Lone Ranger'. However, we forget that even Mr. Reid (the LR's real name... in the original he had no first name) had Tonto. Well, most actually do remember that. But did you know that the LR's nephew - the son of his brother who was killed by the bandits who also left LR for dead - Dan, and his trusty steed Victor (son of Silver), also helped LR? Also, there was a man who knew LR's secret. It was he who provided LR with all of the silver for his silver bullets.

Okay, now that you know I am an incredible dork... let me reiterate that churches need to move beyond their dependence on a single pastor... heck, beyond their dependence on the professional ministers... and begin to empower the laity for ministry. This is the true function of the pastor, and then to get out of the way... or better yet, join in.

Defining Success

Okay, so I don't know how to define success in the via positiva, but I like to think I know what isn't a good definition. Of course, a definition is based upon the perspective of the person. So, if someone's end goal is to have a lot of money, then they have achieved success when they get a large bank account. However, I am trying to figure out what it means to be successful from a "Kingdom of God" frame of mind. That forces another caveat... who the heck am I to determine what a "Godly point of view" is? I guess I am someone who is attempting to humbly (as much as that is possible) work this question out in the context of my own wrestling with God. A "Kingdom of God" perspective is therefore MY perspective based on MY understanding of scripture, tradition, history, eschatology, soteriology, christology, and probably a little bit of astrology (basically, everything I know about life I learned from a fortune cookie anyway). I am in no way trying to say that this is the only interpretation consistent with Christianity... just the one that makes sense to me.

I belong to a leadership organization (not gonna lie, mostly for the member perks and value it adds to a grad school application and/or résumé). Each month, they bring in (or participate via satellite) a speaker on leadership, motivation, success, etc. Too be blunt, I have not been impressed. Last month's speaker in particular made me consider quitting. To sum up his speech, you are successful if you determine your purpose and live out of that. Anything that is not 100% a part of your purpose should be abandoned. To find your purpose you need to figure out what you enjoy doing, the key quality will be that it brings little-to-no stress in your life, and do it... that is your purpose. Basically, he said to find what makes you happy, do that, and damn the consequences to everyone else.

He also spoke a lot about God (which was sort of strange since this is a secular organization on a state university campus... but his references seemed genuine and not contrived so they were very easy to overlook if you were not religious), but his version of God seemed to be a deity who desires for all of us to be happy. In fact, I think he said that exact phrase, "God wants you to be happy." Purpose brings happiness. All in all, it sounded very health and wealth gospel to me.

I disagree that God wants us to be happy or that happiness is in any way associated with success. Joy is a different matter. I believe that 'happy' is an emotion while 'joy' is a state of mind. I can choose to be joyful (in all circumstances even... 1Thess. 5:16), but I will NOT always be happy. It is dangerous to tell people that success is dependent upon feeling happy and without stress. It is deceitful to say that if you are doing what God wants you to do then you will always be happy and carefree. It is simply not true.

I have not found what success (on a grand scale) means, but I am positive it is not what that speaker espoused.

Family Influence

So I am a total NPR junkie. One of my favorite shows is "Wait, wait... don't tell me!" but my 2nd is "Fresh Air." Terry Gross hosts a two hour interview show, but it is not one consecutive interview. One hour is devoted to an important world or national or religious or... well, important... issue. The other is usually a fun person or issue. The other day she was interviewing Demetri Martin, one of my favorite stand-up comedians. If you haven't heard him, here is a sample.

In the interview, he was asked about where his comedy came from and the subject ended up on his family. His dad is a Greek Orthodox priest and his mom ran the family diner. I absolutely loved when he was talking about his father. Basically, he equated his father's sermons with a 20 minute performance. But, it was never performing. He said that his dad would get up with a few notes and through his storytelling he would share things that he genuinely believed were true in a humorous yet meaningful way.

He then began to talk about the power of being genuine.

Obviously his family had enormous influence on him. Great interview.

Christianities

Bart Ehrman is the head of the Religious Studies department at the University of North Carolina. In his book Lost Christianities (read my review), he talks about the many different forms early Christianity assumed. Ultimately, he argues, one form (not without its own sub-sects and theological disagreements) emerged as the dominant form. He refers to it as the "proto-orthodox," and rightly states that all forms of Christianity today are its descendants.

I know that many, many protestants would reject this notion. They would claim that they are simply a resurgence of first century Christianity, but their declaration is shot out of the water when they have to answer: which first century Christianity are they manifesting?

Now, while I firmly agree that what became known as the Roman Catholic Church is the common ancestor of all modern forms of Christianity (even those who display many characteristics of earlier heresies), I also maintain that the RCC's contention that they have never changed doctrine is not true (I am NOT calling anyone a liar. I am merely stating that this particular claim is not true and has been promoted by well-meaning but misinformed people, not dishonest, or those who choose to ignore certain evidence).

What was orthodox at one time became heretical in another, and vice-versa. I have come to see that all forms of Christianity today (not the magazine... specifically) have elements that would have been considered heresy in an earlier age... even the RCC.

I was asked about the two most glaring examples of this last night. First, most Christians adhere to a form of gnosticism (the belief that it is special knowledge that brings salvation). If we are saved by grace, and we avail ourselves to that grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9), and the only faith we are capable of having must be given to us from God (Rom 12:3, 1 John 5:4, 2 Peter 1:1) then we require a special, supernatural, not available to all, knowledge to achieve salvation. Plus, the belief that only those who have been specifically empowered by the Holy Spirit can properly interpret scripture is another form of this idea of necessary γνωσις (Greek for knowledge) to be a full Christian. Unfortunately, there are over 2 billion Christians in the world today, each claiming their faith, thus claiming the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, yet biblical interpretation is far from uniform among them.

The second was the early heresy of dualism (Manichaeism... later associated with the supposed Cathars) and its resurgence in modern protestantism. Dualism espouses the belief in two distinct "powers" at work in the world: an ultimate good versus an ultimate evil. Here, good and evil exist in and of themselves. Usually they are personified in God as the supreme good and Satan (or perhaps Osama bin Laden) as the supreme evil, but they are dealt with as if they exist apart from these personifications. Dualism would state that these are equally and opposing forces at work. Now, most Christians would deny that aspect and say that God is more powerful than Satan... good is more powerful than evil. But to assert that these are actual forces at work is to call into question the ultimate good itself. If it is more powerful, why hasn't evil been eradicated? Furthermore, if everything originated from God, how did evil come into existence? Did the entirely benevolent God create evil, and, if so, could God have created a world without evil, and, if so, why didn't He/She? The most glaring illustration of this pervasive, semi-dualistic thinking occurred during the presidential candidate forum at Saddleback. Both candidates were asked if evils exists and what was the proper way to deal with it. Notice the second half of the question already assumes an affirmative to the first part.

How to avoid these? We need to stop claiming a direct line to God. No matter how "sure" we are of our relationship to God and the separation of those we classify as not belonging to our group, we must not assume that communication with God is a dispensation to speak FOR God. God and God alone will do the eternal dividing (I certainly hope there is not one in the line for separation but all are destined for eternity with God and each other). God is the author of all truth and we are simply guessing (I will grant that there is a strong element of educated guessing, but we must never claim to have a divinely revealed truth imparted only to us... what if we're wrong?).

As I've said before, to avoid dualism we MUST stop speaking of evil as a noun! If God is sovereign, completely good, all-loving, all-powerful, then He/She (yes, there appears to be female imagery in the bible for God) would not have created an entity diametrically opposed to God's own nature. Evil is an adjective used to describe actions born from humanity's separation from the ultimate good. In a sense, just like cold does not exist but is the absence of heat, evil is the adjective used to describe people, places, and events that choose to exist outside of relationship with the creator God.

The things to remember about heresy are: that heretics always thought (and still think) they are the orthodox, orthodox beliefs and statements are born through confrontations with heresy, and we are all subject to accusations of heresy in some parts of our theologies. I would go so far as to say there has never been someone (other than Jesus) who was not guilty of holding a heretical belief or engaging in a heretical practice at some point.