This story is a little old, but still represents some of the current evangelical feelings on Romney.
I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney, but this just makes me crazy. Romney was in Iowa where he spoke in front of some conservative, evangelical Christians. Heres a couple quotes from NPR: "Mary Doren, a stay-at-home mom, said Romney's Mormon faith was a deal breaker. "I'm a Christian," Doren said. "I don't think a Mormon is a Christian."' "Suzanne Clackey, who home schools her children, echoed similar theological concerns. "My understanding is they don't believe in the triune God, and so that would bother me," she said."
Seriously, what does believing in trinitarianism have to do with running the United States??? Based on this logic, and considering the current administration, one of the next presidential nominees better be wiccan or an atheist or I'm not voting.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
What I want to be when I grow up
So I job shadowed some social workers at Spectrum the other day. Ever since I decided upon this field, I have grown more surer that it is what I am made for. I wanted to actually experience what it was like for myself, so the care management department at my work allowed me to hang out with social work for six hours in the ER. It was everything it expected it to be. I got to see them counsel a mother whose child had been molested, and a patient who attempted suicide by ODing on some prescription drugs.
There was also some good conversation. We discussed a patient that came in recently who attempted suicide twice. The first time was by carbon monoxide poisoning. He failed because someone found him. The second time he did the same thing, but brought a shot gun. Someone found him that time also. The social worker who counselled him told me that he was extremely calm, analytical and logical as to why he tried to kill himself. He felt he had no other choice. It made me wonder what kind of culture we live in that convinces us that we must have a certain lifestyle or other wise life is not worth living. The suicide attempt patient, whose assessment I watched, told us that there was no one for her to talk to. Nobody understood her depression and that everyone just made fun of her. I wondered if she had people to simply be there for her, if she would have attempted suicide. If she would even be depressed? Are antidepressants even really necessary?
Another thing I learned was how similar a feel social work has compared to process serving. I was a process server for two years, and I'm starting to realize how valuable those years were. I often thought the only worth that job had in my life was character building. Perhaps it was preparation for the future.
Hopefully I'll be starting school in February. This experience has confirmed that this is what I'm supposed to do. My only regret is that I didn't continue going to school for this in the first place.
There was also some good conversation. We discussed a patient that came in recently who attempted suicide twice. The first time was by carbon monoxide poisoning. He failed because someone found him. The second time he did the same thing, but brought a shot gun. Someone found him that time also. The social worker who counselled him told me that he was extremely calm, analytical and logical as to why he tried to kill himself. He felt he had no other choice. It made me wonder what kind of culture we live in that convinces us that we must have a certain lifestyle or other wise life is not worth living. The suicide attempt patient, whose assessment I watched, told us that there was no one for her to talk to. Nobody understood her depression and that everyone just made fun of her. I wondered if she had people to simply be there for her, if she would have attempted suicide. If she would even be depressed? Are antidepressants even really necessary?
Another thing I learned was how similar a feel social work has compared to process serving. I was a process server for two years, and I'm starting to realize how valuable those years were. I often thought the only worth that job had in my life was character building. Perhaps it was preparation for the future.
Hopefully I'll be starting school in February. This experience has confirmed that this is what I'm supposed to do. My only regret is that I didn't continue going to school for this in the first place.
Monday, July 2, 2007
On Being a Skeptical Believer
An ongoing battle of mine is that of faith and reason. Six or seven years ago I questioned whether or not I would still be a Christian by now. I struggled with this because years ago I let go of my fairy tale understanding of Bible stories, that I acquired in Sunday school. Back in those days I was obsessed with Superman, Spiderman and others, but in reality I knew that super powers were make believe... except in Bible times. Thousands of years ago God broke open the sky and talked audibly to people. There were real super heroes that had real super powers and their names were Samson, Moses, Jesus and his disciples. And God was the biggest super hero of all, He could just think things into existence. He would say the word and a universe would instantaneously appear. The world, at one time, was a magical place, complete with talking animals and giants.
I don't mean to be disrespectful. I mean to point out a way that many Christians, including myself, grew up thinking about the Bible, and, in many ways, I think that some of those Christians go on thinking this way. When we get older we realize that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington weren't perfect, shiny role models. They were EFFed up humans, that lied, were racist, got depressed and scared just like all of us. But, at some point, we realize that things back then are a lot like they are today; and that our child-like understanding of these men were fairy tales. But for some reason, I don't think that some Christians make this transition with the Bible. They retain a fairy tale understanding.
This defairytalization of the Bible is something I am constantly wrestling with. I grew up in a pentecostal church where "miracles" were commonplace, as were anecdotes about miracles. After researching the "behavior" I grew up with, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of it is a form of hypnosis. It also seems that much of what is labeled as demonic, supernatural etc. such as talking to the dead, auras and other weird stuff are easily debunked and/or are psychosomatic. This has seriously jaded me when it comes to accepting the supernatural. In fact, I don't really believe in the supernatural as it is commonly defined.
I think God does things that are beyond our comprehension, but I think it's totally in the realm of what is possible. God exists in all dimensions. Like the two dimensional flatlanders we have a very limited comprehension of reality, and God could interact with us in ways that are perfectly with in the bounds of what is natural; we just can't understand it. Furthermore, I think that if we went back in time and witnessed some of the miracles in the Bible we might find that the Israelites were witnessing natural phenomena. For instance, Sinai sounds very much like an active volcano. In the desert there exists gas pockets under the sand. When people are walking in the desert they sometimes step on these gas pockets, and when these gas pockets erupt they fling sand that causes tiny sparks. The sparks ignite the pocket and create a pillar of fire. I'm not saying that I think these are the explanations for these miracles; only that it's a possibility. Also, just because it's a natural occurrence doesn't mean that God didn't plan it that way. It just sounds more realistic that God used nature to give his chosen people victory over Egypt rather than magic.
What I know is that God is real, and that Jesus is the incarnation. I do believe that God heals people, and that He is constantly involved with His creation. I also believe that the Bible was written by ancient people with an ancient worldview, and while it is inspired, God did not edit out the way his people viewed reality. The Bible wasn't written specifically for 21st century American Christians, it doesn't cater to our science-based understanding of the natural world, and it certainly isn't a fairy tale. It really happened, I don't know how, but that's were my faith begins.
I don't mean to be disrespectful. I mean to point out a way that many Christians, including myself, grew up thinking about the Bible, and, in many ways, I think that some of those Christians go on thinking this way. When we get older we realize that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington weren't perfect, shiny role models. They were EFFed up humans, that lied, were racist, got depressed and scared just like all of us. But, at some point, we realize that things back then are a lot like they are today; and that our child-like understanding of these men were fairy tales. But for some reason, I don't think that some Christians make this transition with the Bible. They retain a fairy tale understanding.
This defairytalization of the Bible is something I am constantly wrestling with. I grew up in a pentecostal church where "miracles" were commonplace, as were anecdotes about miracles. After researching the "behavior" I grew up with, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of it is a form of hypnosis. It also seems that much of what is labeled as demonic, supernatural etc. such as talking to the dead, auras and other weird stuff are easily debunked and/or are psychosomatic. This has seriously jaded me when it comes to accepting the supernatural. In fact, I don't really believe in the supernatural as it is commonly defined.
I think God does things that are beyond our comprehension, but I think it's totally in the realm of what is possible. God exists in all dimensions. Like the two dimensional flatlanders we have a very limited comprehension of reality, and God could interact with us in ways that are perfectly with in the bounds of what is natural; we just can't understand it. Furthermore, I think that if we went back in time and witnessed some of the miracles in the Bible we might find that the Israelites were witnessing natural phenomena. For instance, Sinai sounds very much like an active volcano. In the desert there exists gas pockets under the sand. When people are walking in the desert they sometimes step on these gas pockets, and when these gas pockets erupt they fling sand that causes tiny sparks. The sparks ignite the pocket and create a pillar of fire. I'm not saying that I think these are the explanations for these miracles; only that it's a possibility. Also, just because it's a natural occurrence doesn't mean that God didn't plan it that way. It just sounds more realistic that God used nature to give his chosen people victory over Egypt rather than magic.
What I know is that God is real, and that Jesus is the incarnation. I do believe that God heals people, and that He is constantly involved with His creation. I also believe that the Bible was written by ancient people with an ancient worldview, and while it is inspired, God did not edit out the way his people viewed reality. The Bible wasn't written specifically for 21st century American Christians, it doesn't cater to our science-based understanding of the natural world, and it certainly isn't a fairy tale. It really happened, I don't know how, but that's were my faith begins.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Current Reading List
It's very uncommon for me to read only one book at a time. I think this is evidence of my A.D.D., but I oftentimes come across others who do the same thing, so who knows? The problem with this habit, however, is that it's also rare for me to finish books, at least within the span of a few months. I still have yet to finish -even though it's listed as one of my favorite books- The Soul of Politics by Jim Wallis, 1776 by David McCullough, The Last Word by N.T. Wright, several books by C.S. Lewis, and A Generous Orthodoxy by McLaren. That said, I'm making a strong effort to finish the current books I'm reading, and not purchase any more until I've finished some of the others I already own. I also decided that it would be a good exercise to blog about what I've read in my current books, hence my current post.
On my lunches at work, I've been reading Banker to the Poor by Muhammad Yunas. I'm just over half way through, and have enjoyed it so far. It's basically the story of how he started the Grameen bank, which is a bank out of Bangladesh. Yunas, an Econ professor, was passionate about eradicating the poverty he saw in his country, and after visiting with several poor families he found that many depended on selling baskets. The problem was the loans they needed to buy materials were acquired from corrupt money lenders who had created a situation that kept the poor indebted to them for life. What Yunas discovered was the the poor were enslaved to these money lenders with no hope of breaking their cycle of poverty. To make a long story short, he started giving loans -tiny sums of money in American currency- to these poor people and charging them fair interest rates. This eventually evolved into a full-fledged bank, and Yunas won the Nobel Peace Prize. Among the struggles Grameen faced was attracting women borrowers, as Grameen started in Muslim areas that restricts women to the home. Another was constant criticism and ridicule by bank heads, and the economic establishment. One thing I've been pondering as I've read this book is how do the poor in America compare with the poor that Yunas works with? Yunas maintains steadfast faith in the poor that borrows from him, and with good reason as Grameen's repayment rate is nearly flawless. But would Grameen work in a setting such as the U.S.? This gets back to the worthy and unworthy poor discussion, as well as, provides a striking contrast between the poor here and the poor there. What kinds of oppression cause poverty here, and what kinds of oppression cause it there? But I digress.
The second book I'm reading is Democracy Matters by Cornel West. I'm only a chapter and a half into this one, but I love it already. West's prose reminds me of Jim Wallis' aside from the occasional obscure big word. I've read a lot of criticism of West claiming him to be an anti-American -a term that, I think, can be a good thing-, leftist, extremist. However, I've found him to be quite fair. He's spoken well of America throughout what I've read, treated Israelis and Palestinians fairly, and even mentioned Regan without slamming him. The only statement I raised an eyebrow to was his rosy portrayal of anti-war protesters as, "fellow citizens of goodwill, demonstrating in the streets." Without getting into a lengthy summary of what I've read, I'll mention a few insightful observations West makes about post-9/11 America.
I liked what West had to say about "free-market fundamentalism" and aggressive militarism in present day America. West rightly points out that the free-market drives the media, policy and values. Profit and wealth is held higher than the common good and the quality of life. West also discusses the championing of unilateralism and pre-emption by the Bush administration; the willingness to put young men and women on the line rather than finding other solutions. Some of West's solutions include Socratic questioning -constant examination of authoritative institutions-, prophetic vision -a love and commitment to justice-, and a "tragicomic hope," which is maintaining joy and hope in the face of adversity and oppression rather than resorting to revenge and hatred. I think this last "solution" is the most profound. Dr. West uses the example of the invention of the blues as a response to white supremacy. I would contrast West's example with Toby Keith's response to 9/11 with his redneck, dumbass, everything-that's-wrong-with-America anthem Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue. There is much more I could say, as I've only touched on a few topics that West writes about. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to getting further in this book.
The third book I'm reading, I will no doubt be reading for a long time. It's Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. Guns, Germs and Steel, according to Diamond, are the tools that Westerners used to dominate other civilizations, and this book attempts to answer the question as to why people of Eurasia -people occupying Asia and Europe- acquired those tools. I recently made it through the first chapter which was a brief summary of the history of modern man. Essentially, what Diamond does is show the rescources that people, on each of the inhabitable continents, started out with. It was an extremely fascinating chapter, and showed that it would be relatively impossible to guess what civilization was destined to dominate the planet.
Well, so much for a nice liesurely post. I hope that anyone who decided to read this wasn't too bored, and will maybe be encouraged to check out one of these books themselves.
On my lunches at work, I've been reading Banker to the Poor by Muhammad Yunas. I'm just over half way through, and have enjoyed it so far. It's basically the story of how he started the Grameen bank, which is a bank out of Bangladesh. Yunas, an Econ professor, was passionate about eradicating the poverty he saw in his country, and after visiting with several poor families he found that many depended on selling baskets. The problem was the loans they needed to buy materials were acquired from corrupt money lenders who had created a situation that kept the poor indebted to them for life. What Yunas discovered was the the poor were enslaved to these money lenders with no hope of breaking their cycle of poverty. To make a long story short, he started giving loans -tiny sums of money in American currency- to these poor people and charging them fair interest rates. This eventually evolved into a full-fledged bank, and Yunas won the Nobel Peace Prize. Among the struggles Grameen faced was attracting women borrowers, as Grameen started in Muslim areas that restricts women to the home. Another was constant criticism and ridicule by bank heads, and the economic establishment. One thing I've been pondering as I've read this book is how do the poor in America compare with the poor that Yunas works with? Yunas maintains steadfast faith in the poor that borrows from him, and with good reason as Grameen's repayment rate is nearly flawless. But would Grameen work in a setting such as the U.S.? This gets back to the worthy and unworthy poor discussion, as well as, provides a striking contrast between the poor here and the poor there. What kinds of oppression cause poverty here, and what kinds of oppression cause it there? But I digress.
The second book I'm reading is Democracy Matters by Cornel West. I'm only a chapter and a half into this one, but I love it already. West's prose reminds me of Jim Wallis' aside from the occasional obscure big word. I've read a lot of criticism of West claiming him to be an anti-American -a term that, I think, can be a good thing-, leftist, extremist. However, I've found him to be quite fair. He's spoken well of America throughout what I've read, treated Israelis and Palestinians fairly, and even mentioned Regan without slamming him. The only statement I raised an eyebrow to was his rosy portrayal of anti-war protesters as, "fellow citizens of goodwill, demonstrating in the streets." Without getting into a lengthy summary of what I've read, I'll mention a few insightful observations West makes about post-9/11 America.
I liked what West had to say about "free-market fundamentalism" and aggressive militarism in present day America. West rightly points out that the free-market drives the media, policy and values. Profit and wealth is held higher than the common good and the quality of life. West also discusses the championing of unilateralism and pre-emption by the Bush administration; the willingness to put young men and women on the line rather than finding other solutions. Some of West's solutions include Socratic questioning -constant examination of authoritative institutions-, prophetic vision -a love and commitment to justice-, and a "tragicomic hope," which is maintaining joy and hope in the face of adversity and oppression rather than resorting to revenge and hatred. I think this last "solution" is the most profound. Dr. West uses the example of the invention of the blues as a response to white supremacy. I would contrast West's example with Toby Keith's response to 9/11 with his redneck, dumbass, everything-that's-wrong-with-America anthem Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue. There is much more I could say, as I've only touched on a few topics that West writes about. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to getting further in this book.
The third book I'm reading, I will no doubt be reading for a long time. It's Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. Guns, Germs and Steel, according to Diamond, are the tools that Westerners used to dominate other civilizations, and this book attempts to answer the question as to why people of Eurasia -people occupying Asia and Europe- acquired those tools. I recently made it through the first chapter which was a brief summary of the history of modern man. Essentially, what Diamond does is show the rescources that people, on each of the inhabitable continents, started out with. It was an extremely fascinating chapter, and showed that it would be relatively impossible to guess what civilization was destined to dominate the planet.
Well, so much for a nice liesurely post. I hope that anyone who decided to read this wasn't too bored, and will maybe be encouraged to check out one of these books themselves.
Monday, May 28, 2007
In the Spirit of Not Being Theologically Ambiguous...
 | You scored as Emergent/Postmodern, You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.
What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com |
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Tragedy of Jerry Falwell
I've been mulling over Falwell's death for the past week now. I think he had and enormous amount of zeal, passion, courage, and vision. I also think that he used those gifts to create a monster. Overall, Falwell was a tragic figure, in that, he could have created a movement that truly was a moral majority, and instead created an image of Christianity that much of the country has come to fear and hate. Because of Falwell I grew up believing that being a Christian also met voting Republican (and no, I don't conversely believe that being a Christian now means voting Democrat). And even more dangerously, because of Falwell I grew up believing that being a Christian meant being pro-American. While I don't think Falwell hated gays, his rhetoric about their effects on the family, and his battle against their rights, didn't exactly foster a loving and accepting posture among Christians towards homosexuals. On abortion, Falwell did much for single, unwed mothers, and promoted adoption as an option. But I think leading Christians into the endless screaming match that is the Pro life - Pro choice debate, and trying to overturn Roe v Wade has been an exercise in futility, and has created resentment and division rather than common ground and solutions.
I have mostly been pondering one question. Was it Falwell's marrying of Christianity and politics that was the problem, or was it marrying bad theology with conservative political ideology? I've been reading Greg Boyd's website and he would say that there needs to be a firm boundary between the Kingdom of God and politics. While I know Boyd isn't oppose to Christians being involved in politics, I haven't read enough of his stuff to know exactly how he thinks Christianity should influence politics. On the other hand Jim Wallis has been accused of being the leader of the "Religious Left." While I'm a big fan of Wallis, and I know he doesn't seek to be the Antifalwell, sometimes I do get leery about his close ties with the Democratic party. All I know is that the Gospel is political, but I'm still working through how I think Christians should engage in the political sphere. What I do know is that Falwell has taught us what not to do. I'll end a couple quotes I've come across in some articles I've read on Falwell's passing.
From Jim Wallis: "Ralph Reed said that Jerry Falwell presided over the “marriage ceremony” between religious fundamentalists and the Republican Party. That’s still a concern about the Religious Right for many of us, and should be a warning for the relationship of any so-called religious left with the Democrats. But perhaps in the overly partisan mistakes that Jerry Falwell made - and actually pioneered - we can all be instructed in how to forge a faith that is principled but not ideological, political but not partisan, engaged but not used. "
This quote from Time, I think, nails it.
From Time: "His great American invention was not the marriage of religion and politics... It was that he married political friends with religious enemies in the pursuit of a common goal. Falwell, who died on May 15th, didn't care that Jimmy Carter was a Bible-believing Baptist if he still had the soul of a Democrat or that Ronald Reagan was a divorced cinemactor, as long as he was a kindred political spirit... Falwell founded the Moral Majority on the argument that fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Catholics and Mormons had so much in common politically that they should overlook their theological differences."
I have mostly been pondering one question. Was it Falwell's marrying of Christianity and politics that was the problem, or was it marrying bad theology with conservative political ideology? I've been reading Greg Boyd's website and he would say that there needs to be a firm boundary between the Kingdom of God and politics. While I know Boyd isn't oppose to Christians being involved in politics, I haven't read enough of his stuff to know exactly how he thinks Christianity should influence politics. On the other hand Jim Wallis has been accused of being the leader of the "Religious Left." While I'm a big fan of Wallis, and I know he doesn't seek to be the Antifalwell, sometimes I do get leery about his close ties with the Democratic party. All I know is that the Gospel is political, but I'm still working through how I think Christians should engage in the political sphere. What I do know is that Falwell has taught us what not to do. I'll end a couple quotes I've come across in some articles I've read on Falwell's passing.
From Jim Wallis: "Ralph Reed said that Jerry Falwell presided over the “marriage ceremony” between religious fundamentalists and the Republican Party. That’s still a concern about the Religious Right for many of us, and should be a warning for the relationship of any so-called religious left with the Democrats. But perhaps in the overly partisan mistakes that Jerry Falwell made - and actually pioneered - we can all be instructed in how to forge a faith that is principled but not ideological, political but not partisan, engaged but not used. "
This quote from Time, I think, nails it.
From Time: "His great American invention was not the marriage of religion and politics... It was that he married political friends with religious enemies in the pursuit of a common goal. Falwell, who died on May 15th, didn't care that Jimmy Carter was a Bible-believing Baptist if he still had the soul of a Democrat or that Ronald Reagan was a divorced cinemactor, as long as he was a kindred political spirit... Falwell founded the Moral Majority on the argument that fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Catholics and Mormons had so much in common politically that they should overlook their theological differences."
Friday, April 27, 2007
"Oh, so are you, like, religious?"
I have a Labarum tattooed above my left wrist, and whenever people ask me, "what's that symbol on your arm?" I always get a little flustered. It's not because I'm ashamed that I'm a Christian, but rather I am ashamed at what Christianity has come to mean to so many people. Some days I find myself trying to hide my tattoo when I'm around people I just met. The church has done a great job at getting the story of Jesus to the masses, but has done an abysmal job of communicating the truth of Christianity, and living Jesus' teachings (myself included). After studying the medieval church in my Western Civ class, I've really began to wonder whether or not most of the Christianity that has existed through the centuries has been an impostor. If ever I were to become an agnostic, it wouldn't be from studying science; it would be from studying history.
So, what is a Christian? If this question was posed to most Christians, I doubt many would have a good answer. And, if someone who was clueless about Christianity asked this, they would be more confused than ever. I've thought long and hard about this question, as many Christians have. How do you explain Christianity to a person who is unfamiliar to it, and in a way that makes sense? To Christians and most Americans, it sounds normal to say, "well, God sent His son, in the form of a first century Jewish rabbi, to die for our sins, and then resurrected Him." But, to the uninitiated, this might sound just a little weird.
Aristotle taught that something was good, if it was doing what it is supposed to do, and becoming what it is supposed to be. In other words, if an acorn was becoming a tree, then it was a good acorn. This applies to humans as well. If one is being a human and becoming more human, then they are a good human being. When someone does something that is cruel to another living thing we usually call that person inhumane. We instinctively know that hurting another living thing is out of character with what it means to be human. This truth -that humans were created to be human- is at the core of Christianity, and in the person of Jesus, God demonstrated how to be human.
Genesis teaches us that humans were created in the image of God. Most Christians have no clue as to what this means. We were discussing this in class once, and my prof said that this didn't mean that God looks like a human, because God is spirit. One student raised his hand, and said, "but, doesn't it say that God walked with Adam and Eve? I've heard that this was Jesus, so God must look like us." I'm usually reluctant to speak in class, but I just had to say something at this point. The Genesis creation poem is painting a picture, and the picture is of God as King over everything. In the Ancient Near East, where this story was written, kings would erect statues of themselves in remote parts of their kingdom. This statue represented their rule. When the people of that city would see that statue, it would remind them who was ruling. This is the picture being painted when it says we were created in God's image. Being human is to represent the rule of God.
So, then how does one represent God's rule? John says that, "God is love." Jesus says that the greatest command is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul AND to love your neighbor as yourself. John also says that if you say you love God but hate your brother, then you are a liar. Paul says the greatest of faith, hope and love is love. The very nature of God is love, and so is his rule. Put very simply, being human is to be in a loving relationship with God, people and creation. This is what you find throughout scripture starting with Adam and Eve.
I know there is much more to get into theologically, but this is how I would start to answer the question: What is a Christian? Being a Christian is truly being human. Perhaps in another post I'll get into what I think about Christ's death, resurrection and what it means to be saved, but I think this is a good start.
So, what is a Christian? If this question was posed to most Christians, I doubt many would have a good answer. And, if someone who was clueless about Christianity asked this, they would be more confused than ever. I've thought long and hard about this question, as many Christians have. How do you explain Christianity to a person who is unfamiliar to it, and in a way that makes sense? To Christians and most Americans, it sounds normal to say, "well, God sent His son, in the form of a first century Jewish rabbi, to die for our sins, and then resurrected Him." But, to the uninitiated, this might sound just a little weird.
Aristotle taught that something was good, if it was doing what it is supposed to do, and becoming what it is supposed to be. In other words, if an acorn was becoming a tree, then it was a good acorn. This applies to humans as well. If one is being a human and becoming more human, then they are a good human being. When someone does something that is cruel to another living thing we usually call that person inhumane. We instinctively know that hurting another living thing is out of character with what it means to be human. This truth -that humans were created to be human- is at the core of Christianity, and in the person of Jesus, God demonstrated how to be human.
Genesis teaches us that humans were created in the image of God. Most Christians have no clue as to what this means. We were discussing this in class once, and my prof said that this didn't mean that God looks like a human, because God is spirit. One student raised his hand, and said, "but, doesn't it say that God walked with Adam and Eve? I've heard that this was Jesus, so God must look like us." I'm usually reluctant to speak in class, but I just had to say something at this point. The Genesis creation poem is painting a picture, and the picture is of God as King over everything. In the Ancient Near East, where this story was written, kings would erect statues of themselves in remote parts of their kingdom. This statue represented their rule. When the people of that city would see that statue, it would remind them who was ruling. This is the picture being painted when it says we were created in God's image. Being human is to represent the rule of God.
So, then how does one represent God's rule? John says that, "God is love." Jesus says that the greatest command is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul AND to love your neighbor as yourself. John also says that if you say you love God but hate your brother, then you are a liar. Paul says the greatest of faith, hope and love is love. The very nature of God is love, and so is his rule. Put very simply, being human is to be in a loving relationship with God, people and creation. This is what you find throughout scripture starting with Adam and Eve.
I know there is much more to get into theologically, but this is how I would start to answer the question: What is a Christian? Being a Christian is truly being human. Perhaps in another post I'll get into what I think about Christ's death, resurrection and what it means to be saved, but I think this is a good start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)